REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Report on the interim evaluation of the specific Programme &quot;Drug prevention and information&quot; (DPIP) 2007-2013  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Report on the interim evaluation of the specific Programme &quot;Drug prevention and information&quot; (DPIP) 2007-2013
Date: 2011-05-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, drug addiction, public awareness campaign, public health, report

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 5.5.2011 
COM(2011) 246 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

Report on the interim evaluation of the specific Programme "Drug prevention and 
information" (DPIP) 2007-2013 

 
 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Purpose and structure of this report ............................................................................. 3 

Background .................................................................................................................. 3 

1.2.1.  Objectives and priorities .............................................................................................. 3 

1.2.2.  Types of actions supported........................................................................................... 4 

1.2.3.  Participation ................................................................................................................. 4 

1.2.4.  Target groups ............................................................................................................... 5 

1.2.5.  Access to DPIP............................................................................................................. 5 

1.2.6.  Budget .......................................................................................................................... 5 

2. 

Implementation of the DPIP......................................................................................... 6 

2.1.1.  Commission initiatives................................................................................................. 6 

2.1.2.  Grants ........................................................................................................................... 6 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

Evaluation of the DPIP............................................................................................... 10 

Relevance of the DPI Programme.............................................................................. 10 

Effectiveness of the DPI Programme......................................................................... 11 

Efficiency of the DPI Programme.............................................................................. 12 

Sustainability of the DPI Programme ........................................................................ 13 

Conclusions and recommendations............................................................................ 14 

Increased EU dimension and EU added value and impact ........................................ 14 

Increased efficiency of management of DPIP............................................................ 14 

Improved dissemination and better use of results ...................................................... 15 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Purpose and structure of this report 

As required by Article 15 (3b) of Decision No 1150/2007/EC of the European Parliament and 
of  the  Council1  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  basic  act),  this  report  presents  the  results 
obtained  in  the  course  of  the  implementation  of  the  Drug  prevention  and  information 
programme  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  DPIP  or  DPI  Programme)  since  its  approval  on  25 
September  2007.  Based  on  the  findings  of  the  qualitative  and  quantitative  analysis  of  the 
DPIP's  implementation,  on  its  main  achievements  while  taking  into  account  the  main 
challenges,  the  report  provides  recommendations  concerning  the  remaining  period  of 
implementation. 

For the purposes of the qualitative and quantitative analysis an external contractor assisted the 
Commission2.  The  findings  of  the  study  carried  out  by  the  contractor  were  based  on  the 
analysis of the documents, interviews with stakeholders, case studies and on a survey amongst 
the  beneficiaries  of  funding.  The  survey  included  both  action  and  operating  grant  holders 
receiving a grant under the calls for proposals 2007 and 2008 and also those partners of the 
action grant holders who were parties to the grant agreements. 

1.2. 

Background 

1.2.1.  Objectives and priorities 

The  DPIP  Programme  forms  part  of  the  EU’s  Drug  Strategy  2005-2012  that  aims  to 
significantly  reduce  the  social  harm  and  health  damage  caused  by  the  use  of,  and  trade  in 
illicit  drugs.  The  DPIP  contributes  to  the  objective  to  ensure  a  high  level  of  human  health 
protection and to reducing drug-related health damage. The general objectives of DPIP are to 
prevent  and  reduce  drug  use,  dependence  and  drug  related  harm,  to  contribute  to  the 
improvement of information on drug use and to support the implementation of the EU Drugs 
Strategy 2005-2012. 

The general objectives are further defined by the following three specific objectives 

(a) 

to promote transnational actions to: 

(a) 

(b) 

set up multidisciplinary networks; 

ensure  the  expansion  of  the  knowledge  base,  the  exchange  of 
information and the identification and dissemination of good practices, 
including through 

(c) 

training, study visits and staff exchange; 

1 

2 

Decision  No  1150/2007/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  September  2007 
establishing for the period 2007-2013 the Specific Programme Drug prevention and information as part 
of the General Programme Fundamental Rights and Justice  
The  study  was  prepared  by  the  European  Evaluation  Consortium.  At  the  time  of  the  assignment  the 
conclusion  of  the  grant  agreements  under  the  call  for  proposals  for  action  grants  2009/2010  was  still 
ongoing. Therefore, these beneficiaries were not included in the survey. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(d) 

(e) 

raise awareness of the health and social problems caused by drug use 
and to encourage an open dialogue with a view to promoting a better 
understanding of the phenomenon of drugs; and 

support  measures  aimed  at  preventing  drug  use,  including  by 
addressing  reduction  of  drug-related  harm  and  treatment  methods 
taking into account the latest state of scientific knowledge; 

(b) 

(c) 

to  involve  civil  society  in  the  implementation  and  development  of  the  EU 
Drugs Strategy and EU Action plans; and  

to  monitor,  implement  and  evaluate  the  implementation  of  specific  actions 
under the Drugs Action Plans 2005 to 2008 and 2009 to 2012. 

1.2.2.  Types of actions supported  

With a view to pursuing the general and specific objectives set out above, DPIP supports the 
following types of action: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Commission initiatives - specific actions taken by the Commission, such as 
studies and research, opinion polls and surveys, formulation of indicators and 
common  methodologies,  collection,  development  and  dissemination  of  data 
and  statistics,  seminars,  conferences  and  experts'  meetings,  organisation  of 
public  campaigns  and  events,  development  and  maintenance  of  websites, 
preparation  and  dissemination  of  information  materials,  support  to  and 
animation  of  networks  of  national  experts,  analytical,  monitoring  and 
evaluation activities; 

specific transnational projects of Community interest presented by at least 
two  Member  States,  or  at  least  one  Member  State  and  one  other  state  which 
may either be an acceding or a candidate country; or 

the activities of non-governmental organisations or other entities pursuing 
an aim of general European interest regarding the general objectives of the 
Programme under the conditions set out in the annual work programme. 

While Community financing takes the form of public procurement contracts in case of the 
Commission initiatives, the other two types of actions are financed by providing action and 
operating grants. 

1.2.3.  Participation 

The DPIP is open to all 27 EU Member States. Other countries are also allowed to participate 
under the following conditions: 

(d) 

(e) 

the  EFTA  States  which  are  party  to  the  EEA  Agreement,  in  accordance  with 
the provisions of that Agreement; 

the  candidate  countries  and  the  western  Balkan  countries  included  in  the 
stabilisation  and  association  process  in  accordance  with  the  conditions  laid 
down  in  the  association  agreements  or  their  additional  protocols  relating  to 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
participation  in  Community  programmes  concluded  or  to  be  concluded  with 
those countries; 

(f) 

Candidate countries not participating in the Programme may be associated with 
projects where this would contribute to their preparation for accession, as may 
other  third  countries  or  international  organisations  not  participating  in  the 
Programme where this serves the aim of the projects. 

Based  on  the  above  principles,  two  organisations  from  the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of 
Macedonia and one from Croatia participated (as associated partners) in transnational projects 
financed under the 2007 annual work programme. Apart from this, during the first three years 
of  its  implementation  neither  any  of  the  candidate  countries  nor  any  West  Balkan  country 
joined the DPIP. 

1.2.4.  Target groups 

DPIP is targeted at all groups that directly or indirectly deal with the phenomenon of drugs. 
With  regard  to  drugs,  youth,  women,  vulnerable  groups  and  people  living  in  socially 
disadvantaged  areas  are  groups  at  risk  and  shall  be  identified  as  target  groups.  Other  target 
groups  include  teachers  and  educational  staff,  parents,  social  workers,  local  and  national 
authorities,  medical  and  paramedical  staff,  judicial  staff,  law  enforcement  and  penitentiary 
authorities, non-governmental organisations, trade unions and religious communities. 

1.2.5.  Access to DPIP 

Access to DPIP is open to public or private organisations and institutions, local authorities at 
the  relevant  level,  university  departments  and  research  centres  working  in  the  area  of 
information  on  and  prevention  of  drug  use  including  the  reduction  and  treatment  of  drug-
related  harm.  Bodies  and  organisations  which  are  profit-oriented  can  participate  only  in 
conjunction with non-profit or state organisations. 

1.2.6.  Budget 

Article 12 of the basic act foresaw an overall financial envelope of EUR 21.350.000 for the 
implementation of the DPI Programme for the period of 2007 to 2013. The provision of the 
funding  was  foreseen  in  equal  instalments  of  EUR  3.050.000  per  year.  This  yearly  budget 
includes  appropriations  to  cover  the  administrative  costs  of  the  programme  management 
amounting to EUR 50.000 per year. In addition to the funding made available in the budget of 
the  EU,  the  EFTA/EEA  states  also  contribute  to  the  DPIP  based  on  a  memorandum  of 
understanding. 

In the period under review the majority of the funding (78%) was allocated to operating and 
action  grants,  while  Commisison  initiatives  represented  less  than  a  third  (22%)  of  the 
allocations: 

Year

Total

Action grants

Operating grants

EC 

2007 

2008 

2009  

2010 

3.000.000

3.071.700

3.071.700

3.075.600

2.250.000

2.221.700

2.471.700

1.717.600

0

500.000

0

400.000

750.000 

350.000 

600.000 

958.000 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
2. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DPIP 

Due to the late adoption of the basic act on 25 September 2007 the actual implementation of 
the  programme  could  only  start  in  2008.  Although  there  was  an  annual  work  programme 
adopted for the budgetary year 2007, the appropriations were only used from 2008 onwards. 
This  situation  negatively  influenced  the  annuality  of  the  implementation  and  created  a  one-
year implementation gap. The programme could however catch up by not publishing calls for 
proposals in 2009.  

2.1.1.  Commission initiatives  

Since  2007  altogether  18  actions  have  been  funded  under  the  heading  of  Commission 
Initiatives.  Each  of  these  actions  contributed  significantly  to  the  implementation  of  the  EU 
Drugs Strategy and the EU Drugs Action Plans. The DPIP plays an important role to support 
the  involvement  of  civil  society:  DPIP  funding  supported  the  European  Action  on  Drugs 
(EAD)  which  provides  European  civil  society  with  a  platform  to  make  a  commitment  as 
regards  drugs  use  and  risks  related  to  drug  abuse.  The  Commission  has  run  an  extensive 
information campaign on EAD, three large scale events were organised in Berlin, London and 
Warsaw; and an internet site was set up to ensure the operation of EAD. By organising and 
financing  3  plenary  and  several  expert  level  meetings,  the  Commission  supported  the 
operation of the Civil Society Forum on Drugs.  

Research  plays  an  important  role  to  underpin  evidence-based  drug  policies  and  develop  the 
necessary policy responses to reduce the adverse health and social impacts of drug use in our 
societies.  Two  important  actions  were  financed  to  develop  an  EU  strategy  for  drug  related 
research in the EU. Both The comparative analysis of the illicit drug research in the EU, and 
the large conference aiming at identifying and bridging the research gap (financed under the 
2007 and 2008 annual work programmes respectively) were considered important milestones 
and served as a basis for setting up of the current research framework in this drugs policy field 
at EU level. 

Under the 2007 and 2010 annual work programmes two additional studies were financed on 
The  detailed  analysis  of  the  operation  of  the  world  market  in  illicit  drugs  to  address  the 
significant gap in knowledge on how drugs markets actually work and on the development of 
an EU framework for minimum quality standards and benchmarks in drug demand reduction 
to support the work of the Commission to develop an EU consensus in this area as required by 
the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan.  The  Commission  also  supported  the  establishment  of  an  expert 
group in the area of the latter study. 

2.1.2.  Grants 

Support  for  specific  transnational  projects  of  Community  interest  (action  grants)  and  the 
activities  of  non-governmental  organisations  or  other  entities  pursuing  an  aim  of  general 
European interest (operating grants) 

With the funding foreseen under the grants headings of the annual work programmes 2007-
2010  the  DPIP  supported  activities  implemented  mainly  by  non-governmental  organisations 
(NGOs)  and  universities.  With  few  exceptions,  local  and  regional  authorities  were  only 
partners  in  the  projects.  National  administration  was  involved  as  an  associated  partner  in 
selected  cases.  Altogether  143  organisations  from  27  countries  participated  in  the  financed 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
activities3  as  beneficiary  of  an  operating  grant,  project  coordinator,  project  partner  or 
associated  party.  Associated  parties  are  not  direct  beneficiaries  of  the  grants  and  are  not 
party to the grant agreements, they contribute to and profit from the activities indirectly.  

Out of all the participating organisations 136 (95%) are established in one of the MS of the 
EU,  altogether  23  Member  States  are  represented.  Until  the  present  no  organisations 
participated  from  IE,  CY,  LU  and  MT,  however  some  of  the  activities  might  involve 
individuals  from  these  countries  (e.g.  participation  at  dissemination  event)  Despite  the 
possibility provided in the basic act and the yearly contribution provided to the programme, 
no organisations participated from the EFTA/EAA countries. 

Despite  the  very  positive  achievements  in  terms  of  the  EU  coverage  the  DPIP  is  facing 
challenges  in  terms  of  the  geographical  balance.  The  majority  (82)  of  the  participating 
organisations (including associated partners) were established in 5 Member States (IT – 17%, 
UK – 10%, DE – 13%, ES 6%, BE 6%). This proportion is almost identical to the proportion 
of  the  countries  of  origin  of  direct  grant  beneficiaries.  Out  of  the  1124  grant  beneficiaries 
(operating grant holders, action grant coordinators and partners) 54 % came from 5 MS (IT – 
18%, UK – 12%, DE – 11%, ES 6%, BE 6%). 

Operating grants 

for 

Altogether  three  calls  for  operating  grants  were  published.  Applicants  could  apply  for 
the 
funding 
their 
implementation 
annual  activity  programmes 
and 
during  2008,  2010 
2011(annual 
work 
programme 2011). 

Number of applications received 

Number of eligible applications 

Number of proposals selected 

OPERATING GRANTS 

of 

2008 

2010 

2011 

n.a. 

n.a. 

13 

16 

19 

5 

4 

5 

4 

Total amount of funding allocated 

500.000 EUR 

In response to the three calls 
altogether  39  applications 
were received out of which 9 
organisations 
were 
selected.  The  assessment  of 
the  applications  submitted  for  the  financial  year  2011  was  still  ongoing  at  the  time  of  the 
preparation of the report. 

Total amount of grant awarded 

Total amount of grant sought 

1.318.474,56 EUR 

219.788,38 EUR 

1.029.632 EUR 

409.429 EUR 

n.a. 

n.a. 

400.000 EUR 

400.000 EUR. 

The financial conditions for operating grants remained unchanged throughout this period. The 
maximum amount of grant available was 100.000 EUR, the percentage of the EC contribution 
to the total eligible operating budget of the applicant could not exceed 80%.  

3 
4 

2007, 2008 and 2009/2010 calls for proposals included 
Several organisations participated in more than one project or were beneficiaries of an operating grant 
during the first four years of the DPIP. These organisations were only taken into account once for the 
purpose of the calculation of the cumulated total number of grant beneficiaries. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Action grants 

39

2007

2008 

ACTION GRANTS

Number of eligible applications

Number of applications received

In order to get support for transnational projects, interested organisations could respond to 3 
calls for proposals. Due to the late adoption of the basic act, the first call for proposals based 
on the annual work 
programme  2007 
was  published  in 
2008. Similarly the 
call under the 2008 
annual 
work 
programme  was 
only  published  in 
2009. In order to allow the programme to cover this time gap, the third call was published in 
2010 that combined the appropriations under the action grant heading foreseen for two years 
(2009  and  2010).  As  a  result,  while  the  available  funding  in  case  of  the  first  two  calls  was 
almost  identical  (around  2,2  million  EUR)  the  appropriations  were  nearly  doubled  in 
2009/2010.  

Total amount of funding allocated

Total amount of grant awarded

Number of proposals selected

Total amount of grant sought

13 850 005,17 EUR 

21 732 250,18 EUR 

11 610 036,34 EUR

2 116 748,04 EUR 

2 181 947,85 EUR

3 889 295,44EUR 

2 221700 EUR 

4 189 300 EUR

2 250 000 EUR

2009/2010

41 

59 

10

33

53

66

6 

9

The  increase  in  the  number  of  applications  shows  a  steady  growth  of  interest  in  the 
DPIP.  The  Commission  treated 
altogether  164  applications  for 
action grants. Out of the eligible 
budget 
127 
permitted the funding of 25. The 
total  amount  of  grant  awarded  to 
proposals  was  8,187  million 
EUR representing an overall 75% contribution to the total implementing costs of the actions. 

Total amount of grant 
in EUR 

EC 
contribution 
%

proposals 

Total budget in EUR 

Total 2009/2010 

10.937.946,31 

8.187.991,33 

2.181.947,85 

2.116.748,04 

3.889.295,44 

2.789.586,16

5.114.243,88

3.034.116,27

Total 2007 

Total 2008 

the 

Total  

75% 

78%

70%

76%

While in 2007 there was no upper limit in terms of attainable grant, a 500.000 EUR cap was 
introduced in the 2008 call and maintained in the 2009/2010 call as well. Applications where 
the requested funding did not reach a minimum of 75.000 EUR were not accepted.  

Total budget in EUR 

Total amount of grant 
in EUR 

EC 
contribution 
% 

Length in 
Months 

Average 2007 

Average 2008 

Average 2009/2010 

Total average 

309.954,02 

505.686,05 

511.424,39 

442.353,83 

242.438,65

352.791,34

388.929,54

328.053,18 

79

75

77

77 

28,33 

28,50 

23,60 

26,81 

Year

2007

2008

2009/2010

Average number of

implementing 
beneficiaries 

implementing 
organisations 

EU MS 
concerned 

3,7

6

5,8

5,3 

7,8 

6,4 

4

5,6

5,1

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
is  well  above 

 The  average  amount  of  grant  requested  was 
the 
328.000  EUR,  which 
minimum  threshold.  The  lowest  amount  of  grant  awarded  was  120.000  EUR  while  the 
majority  was  between  300.000  and  the  upper  threshold.  The  majority  of  the  project 
coordinators of the selected proposals were NGOs (48%) and universities or institutions run 
by universities (40%), only 12 % of the coordinators are coming from the governmental sector 
of local/regional level. 

Total

6,5 

5,2

4,9

The dimension of the projects showed a slight increase both in terms of number of partners 
and number of EU member states concerned. All the projects selected under the 2007 action 
grant call started in 2009. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
3. 

EVALUATION OF THE DPIP 

The  evaluation  of  the  programme  was  clustered  around  the  following  four  categories:  (1) 
Relevance; (2) Effectiveness; (3) Efficiency and (4) Sustainability of the programme. 

3.1. 

Relevance of the DPI Programme 

Illicit  drugs  are  a  complex  social  problem,  which  require  a  long-term,  integrated  and 
multidisciplinary  approach.  The  study  on  developments  in  the  global  illicit  drugs  market 
mentioned above5 found no evidence of any improvement over this period. In some countries 
the  problem  diminished  but  in  others  it  worsened,  in  some  cases  sharply.  Drug  abuse  still 
constitutes a major health problem in the EU, according to the annual reports of the European 
Monitoring  Centre  for  Drugs  and  Drug  Action6.  The  relevance  of  the  policy  objectives  of 
the DPIP is very high since its adoption in 2007. Its objectives, priority areas and activities 
are highly pertinent to the needs, problems and issues of the target groups. 

Civil  society  involvement  is  a  key  objective  of  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan.  The  Action  Plan 
highlights  the  need  to  increase  commitment  across  society  to  reduce  drug  use  as  one  of  the 
main issues. It states that an alliance between citizens and the institutions created by them and 
for  them  should  be  reinforced.  The  DPIP  is  particularly  suitable  to  contribute  to  this 
objective. 

There is a clear link between the activities implemented; the measures contained in the annual 
work programmes as well as the broad programme objectives. All the activities implemented 
relate to one or more of the priority areas mentioned in the annual programmes.  

The added value of the DPIP is high. EU intervention adds benefits to the fight against drug 
use and drug prevention by promoting transnational learning and improving the visibility and 
credibility of activities implemented. 

Due  to  the  multifaceted  and  global  nature  of  the  drug  phenomenon,  several  Community 
financial instruments support the initiatives of the EU in the illicit drugs field and complement 
funding under the DPIP. The Prevention of and Fight Against Crime programme 2007-2013 
(ISEC)7  provides  support  for  projects  in  the  field  of  illicit  drug  trafficking  and  which 
contribute to the implementation of the supply reduction policy of the EU Drugs Strategy and 
its Action Plans, including drugs markets, production, trafficking and drugs-related crime.  

As drug abuse is a key public health and social concern throughout the EU and beyond, one of 
the  priority  areas  of  the  Community  Programme  on  Public  Health8  is  to  take  action  on 
addiction-related  determinants  such  as  tobacco,  alcohol,  illegal  drugs  and  pharmaceuticals 

5 

6 
7 
8 

JLS/2007/C4/005 — Detailed analysis of the operation of the world market in illicit drugs and of policy 
measures to curtail it 
EMCDDA Annual Report 2010 
125/2007/JHA 
Basic  act  Decision  No  1350/2007/EC  of  the  European  parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  October 
2007 establishing a second programme of Community action in the field of health (2008-13) 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
used improperly. This Programme also provides support for projects on reduction of health-
related harm associated with drug dependence. 

The 7th Research and Development Framework Programme supports large-scale drug related 
research.  In  2009,  under  the  Socio-Economic  Sciences  and  Humanities  programme  of  the 
Seventh  Framework  Programme  for  Research  (FP7),  the  Commission  launched  a  call  for 
research proposals targeting addictions, with a minimum EU contribution of € 6.5 million. In 
order to support joint research activities between Member States, the Commission has made 
€2 million available for the establishment of  a European Research Area Network (ERA-NET) 
in  the  field  of  drugs.  The  2010  Security  Programme  under  the  FP7  includes  a  call  for 
proposals on the unintended consequences of drugs policies and their impact on EU security. 
A  call  for  proposals  for  large  collaborative  projects  (€6  to  €12  million)  in  the  field  of 
'addictive  disorders’  was also published in 2010 under the FP7 Health Theme. The external 
dimension of drugs policy is supported by the relevant financial instruments. 

Evidence  suggests  that  overall  there  is  complementarity  between  the  different  programmes 
and initiatives. However, this fragmentation also presents risks of overlap (between the DPIP 
and the Public Health Programme, for instance) or gaps. Moreover, it has made it difficult for 
both  the  Commission  and  for  potential  beneficiaries  to  maximise  use  of  EU  funding  in  this 
field.  Although  the  basic  act  allows9  the  possibility  of  sharing  resources  with  other 
Community  instruments  in  order  to  implement  actions  meeting  the  objectives  of  all  the 
programmes, this was not used during the first 3 years of DPIP’s implementation. 

3.2. 

Effectiveness of the DPI Programme 

At  the  stage  of  the  evaluation  only  very  few  activities  have  been  completed.  Consequently 
only limited conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of the DPI Programme. However, 
the  DPIP  funded  projects  and  activity  programmes  have  already  implemented  a  variety  of 
activities and produced concrete outputs, this way the current analysis can already be built on 
solid evidence.  The findings of the evaluation indicate that the projects funded are likely to 
contribute significantly to the objectives of the DPIP.  

Although the DPIP performed well in terms of the number of participating countries there is 
still room for improvement in terms of creating real, long-lasting added value via the projects.  

Although  it  is  the  only  instrument  specialised  for  the  support  of  the  policy  field,  and  its 
general  objectives  are  ambitious  especially  in  terms  of  prevention  and  harm  reduction 
activities,  its  overall  financial  resources  are  the  most  limited  in  comparison  to  the  other 
programmes  mentioned  above.  DPIP  currently  is  not  meeting  funding  needs.  Although  the 
maximum  project  duration  was  decreased  from  3  years  to  2  years,  the  financial  envelope 
foreseen for the DPIP does not allow the financing of more than 10 projects a year. The size 
of  the  projects  in  terms  of  number  of  participating  organisations  is  also  limited  by  the 
available funding. In order to reinforce the programme, so that it can achieve long-lasting 
results at EU level, there is a need to strengthen its financial resources. 

Even though there were no major obstacles experienced in the realisation of the activities, the 
project  promoters  experienced  procedural  and  substantive  challenges.  Amongst 
the 
procedural challenges stakeholders identified the obstacles linked to the lack of flexibility in 

9 

In  particular  the  General  Programmes  "Security  and  Safeguarding  Liberties",  "Solidarity  and 
Management of Migration Flows" and the 7th Research and Development Framework Programme 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
terms of reallocation of expenses within the projects and the slowness in the delivery of the 
funding  as  the  most  substantial.  Although  partnerships  were  considered  to  be  beneficial  for 
the programme’s activities and projects, the coordination of a number of partner organisations 
from  different  countries  with  different  backgrounds  required  considerable  efforts.  In  some 
instances,  delays  were  experienced  due  to  problems  arising  with  national  legislation 
concerning the participation of experts and individuals in focus groups.  

With  regards  to  substantive  challenges,  the  engagement  of  vulnerable  groups  appeared  in 
some cases to be difficult. Also engaging the statutory sectors and recruiting participants for 
needs assessment was challenging. This furthermore made engaging them in the wider project 
impossible to achieve. Undertaking research in prisons was also not easy due to the limited 
access available. A more important problem is the difficulty at operational level in relation to 
the monitoring and assessing the impact of the results. 

Based on the analysis of the proposed dissemination strategies the expected result is not fully 
satisfactory bearing in mind few of the projects have been completed. It can be concluded that 
in  the  majority  of  cases  the  outputs  of  the  projects  rarely  reach  anyone  outside  the  project 
partners, although there are some good examples as well, where project results were/will be 
presented  at  large  scale  international  professional  events.  The  most  common  dissemination 
strategy  is  the  setting  up  of  a  specialised  internet  site  for  the  project  or  placing  some 
information  on  an  already  existing  website  of  the  coordinator  or  partners.  As  there  is  no 
elaborate requirement set in terms of what kind of information should be provided about the 
programmes  and  the  language  of  the  information,  the  level  of  communication  varies  across 
individual projects. The visibility of the Community support is also varying. Nevertheless, all 
the supported organisations respect the minimum requirements. 

Currently there is no centralised strategy in place concerning the communication of the results 
of the achievements of the projects or activities funded under the DPIP.  

3.3. 

Efficiency of the DPI Programme 

The  findings  of  the  survey  among  the  beneficiaries  of  the  grants  showed  that  there  was  an 
overall satisfaction with the Commission’s management of the DPIP.  

The applicants welcomed the introduction of the on-line application procedure supported by 
the  electronic  grant  management  system  PRIAMOS  since  2008.  The  introduction  of  the 
electronic  application  submission  decreased  the  administrative  burden  of  the  applicants  and 
the  costs  of  submitting  an  application.  The  survey  also  showed  that  in  general  beneficiaries 
considered the guidance and support given by the Commission helpful at the application 
phase and throughout the implementation of the activities. 

Despite the overall positive assessment, certain shortcomings were identified. 

Though  the  Commission  was  generally  clear  with  its  guidance,  problems  arose  as  it  took  a 
long time to respond to queries concerning eligibility of expenses. Reporting arrangements 
concerning  the  progress  and  achievements  were  considered  as  appropriate,  clear  and 
user  friendly. On the other hand, beneficiaries experienced  some difficulties  and expressed 
concerns  about  the  excessive  bureaucracy  linked  to  financial  reporting  as  well  as  lack  of 
flexibility in case of changes to be made to the original applications. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
The  most  important  shortcoming  however  is  the  lengthy  award  procedure.  This  affects 
largely  the  timely  starting  of  the  projects  and  frequently  results  in  the  need  to  amend  the 
original  proposal.  The  problem  is  particularly  pertinent  in  case  of  the  operating  grants  that 
should support the general operating costs of an entity for a specific budgetary year. Therefore 
there is no flexibility in terms of (re)scheduling the activities.  

This  is  not  only  an  operative  problem  for  the  beneficiaries  of  the  grant,  but  it  also  has  a 
negative effect on the performance of the DPIP against the actual policy priorities.  

Although  the  introduction  of  the  electronic  grant  management  system  somewhat  simplified 
the procedure, freed some resources of the Commission, especially in terms of administrative 
tasks  related  to  the  physical  handling  and  registering  of  the  applications,  significant 
acceleration of the procedure has not been achieved. Elements of the procedure imposed by 
the  basic  act  (consultation  of  the  Member  States  and  the  right  of  scrutiny  of  the  European 
Parliament) and the administrative requirements for processing a high number of supporting 
documents remain a considerable obstacle.  

In  addition  the  management  of  the  lengthy  administrative  process  takes  away  valuable 
resources  from  substance-focused  monitoring  or  guidance  activities,  or  the  dissemination  of 
results  and  the  use  of  outputs.  This  was  also  one  of  the  recurring  points  raised  by  the 
beneficiaries in relation to the Commission’s management. 

3.4. 

Sustainability of the DPI Programme 

The question of sustainability is all the more important as the economic downturn has eroded 
the  budgets  allocated  to  drugs  policy  at  national  level.  This  conclusion  of  the  Commission 
report  on  the  review  of  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2009  –  2012)10  was  confirmed  by  the 
survey concluded among the grant beneficiaries of the calls 2007 and 2008.  

The evaluation indicated that projects heavily rely on EU funding to implement the activities 
and to impact on the ground. Grant holders meet difficulties in finding co-funding from other 
institutions and organisations as well as in ensuring continuous funding from the Commission 
and  other  national  and  international  institutions.  This  is  especially  the  case  for  smaller 
organisations  such  as  NGOs  or  associations,  with  limited  financial  resources.  Though  the 
majority of stakeholders involved in the implementation of the DPIP activities stated that they 
were  making  efforts  to  find  new  financial  prospects,  in  most  of  the  cases,  other  sources  of 
funding were not accessible.  

Overall, the projects have put in place activities and tools, which might be self-sustained over 
the  longer  period.  Examples  of  sustainable  results  produced  in  the  framework  of  the  DPIP 
include the establishment and consolidation of transnational partnerships and the development 
of toolkits and publications. 

The findings of the evaluation also show that partnerships established and consolidated in the 
framework of the DPIP are likely to continue after the Commission’s funding has ceased and 
might result in new activities in the near future. 

10 

COM(2010) 630 final Report from the Commission 2010 progress review of the EU Drugs Action Plan 
(2009-2012) SEC(2010) 1321 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Finally,  given  the  projects  focus  on  development  of  tools  that  may  be  used  by  the  target 
audiences to address ultimate target group needs, it is reasonable to assume that (at least some 
of) the impacts of the DPIP will be sustainable and that the target audiences will be able to 
use the results produced by the implemented activities. 

4. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Interim evaluation confirmed the relevance of the DPIP. Its assessment has proven that 
both  the  general  and  the  specific  objectives  are  pertinent  to  the  needs  and  problems  of  the 
target  groups.  It  also  concluded  that  during  the  first  3  years  of  its  implementation,  the  DPI 
Programme could boast certain achievements in terms of reaching its originally-set objectives, 
and it has shown the potential to achieve good results in the field, despite its limited financial 
resources.  

The limited budget however is preventing the achievement of an impact at a large scale with 
considerable EU dimension which has also limited the number of participating organisations. 
In order to reinforce the programme so that it can achieve long-lasting results at EU level 
there  is  a  need  to  strengthen  its  financial  resources  with  a  view  to  a  possible  future 
comprehensive financial instrument in the field of drugs. 

The  findings  of  the  evaluation  confirmed  that  there  are  no  major  difficulties  hindering  the 
successful implementation of the programme. However, in order to maximise the potential of 
the  DPIP  within  its  existing  framework,  to  strengthen  its  impact  and  to  optimize  the 
implementation  there  is  a  need  for  certain  adjustments.  The  Commission  proposes  the 
following measures to address these:  

4.1. 

Increased EU dimension and EU added value and impact 

In  order  to  gain  visibility  for  the  programmes  and  to  ensure  that  the  projects  achieve  an 
impact  not  limited  to  local  or  regional  level,  broader  and  better  elaborated  projects  with  a 
higher  EU  added  value  and  sustainability  should  be  favoured.  To  deliver  activities  with  a 
broad European dimension, coverage and sustainability, the financing possibilities within the 
DPIP  should  be  streamlined  and  the  limited  available  funding  should  be  concentrated  on 
multiannual actions implemented by several partners. To this end the Commission will assess 
the added value of the operating grants provided for organisations only for one budgetary year 
which have had limited impact sofar. 

The  Commission  should  further  strengthen  the  synergies  between  the  financial  instruments 
supporting  the  objectives  of  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy.  The  cooperation  and  communication 
among the programmes should be enhanced (in particular between ISEC and DPIP and DPIP 
and the Public Health Programme) at the level of programming during the formulation of the 
annual work programmes in order to avoid duplications and to allow potential beneficiaries to 
target their applications more efficiently.  

4.2. 

Increased efficiency of management of DPIP 

The  lengthy  and  administratively  demanding  procedures  have  been  identified  as  major 
obstacle to success. To this end the Commission will take measures to reduce the time spent 
between  the  publication  of  the  calls  for  proposals  and  the  actual  conclusion  of  the  grant 
agreement to quicken the provision of funding. Further consideration should be to address the 
procedural obligations imposed by the basic act, namely the consultations on the outcome of 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
the  selection  of  grant  beneficiaries  with  the  DPIP  committee  and  the  European  Parliament, 
which should also be viewed in the context of the future financial perspectives.  

It was confirmed that abolishing of the paper-based application process had a positive impact 
on  the  management,  and  was  perceived  positively  by  the  target  audience  of  the  DPIP.  The 
new  PRIAMOS  system  has  proven  its  usefulness  and  showed  good  potential  to  become  an 
integrated  interface  of  communication  with  applicants  and  beneficiaries.  The  Commission 
will take further steps to improve its functionalities and speed in order to facilitate the gradual 
transfer of the entire grant management process to it.  

4.3. 

Improved dissemination and better use of results  

The  evaluation  identified  certain  deficits  in  relation  to  the  exploitation  of  the  result  of  the 
projects financed under the DPIP. It was indicated that making the results centrally available 
for the public would not only directly contribute to one of the specific objectives of the DPIP 
but also would allow the generation of better projects. This would help the current and future 
beneficiaries as well as the Commission to avoid duplications and allow to build on already 
existing achievements.  

EN 

15 

   EN