REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Ex post evaluation report on the Drug Prevention and Information Programme (2007-2013)
Date: 2017-03-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, drug addiction, public awareness campaign, public health

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 6.3.2017  COM(2017) 113 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Ex post evaluation report on the Drug Prevention and Information Programme (2007-2013)   
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 2 

1.1  OBJECTIVE OF THE REPORT ................................................................................. 2 

1.2  METHODOLOGY AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION ......................................... 2 

1.3  OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAMME ...................................................................... 2 

2 

RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION .......................................................................... 7 

2.1  RELEVANCE OF THE PROGRAMME .................................................................... 7 

2.2  COHERENCE AND COMPLEMENTARITY ........................................................... 8 

2.3  EFFECTIVENESS ...................................................................................................... 9 

2.4 

SUSTAINABILITY AND TRANSFERABILITY ................................................... 12 

2.5  EFFICIENCY AND SCOPE FOR SIMPLIFICATION ........................................... 14 

2.6  EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE ................................................................................ 19 

3 

CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 23 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 

OBJECTIVE OF THE REPORT 

The  Decision  establishing  the  Drug  Prevention  and  Information  Programme  (DPIP)  requires  the 
Commission to present an ex post evaluation covering 2007 to 20131. This evaluation2 was performed 
by an independent external evaluator assisted by Commission staff. 

This  report  is  based  on  that  evaluation.  The  report  is  structured  according  to  the  main  evaluation 
criteria  and  corresponding  questions.  These  include  relevance,  coherence  and  complementarity, 
effectiveness, impact and sustainability, efficiency and scope for simplification, and European added 
value. 

1.2 

METHODOLOGY AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION 

This final evaluation of the DPIP is based on the following: 

 

 

 

 
 
 

an extensive review of the available documentation of all 51 action grants and operating grants 
funded by the programme between 2007 and 2013; 
a  review  of  programme  documentation,  such  as  the  decision  setting  up  the  programme,  the 
annual  work  programmes  and  calls  for  proposals  for  both  grants  and  public  procurement 
contracts; 
a review of other information available online — for example EU policy documents, websites, 
founding decisions of related EU programmes; 
a quantitative analysis of the 51 DPIP-funded projects and activities; 
an analysis of the 23 responses to the online survey received from DPIP grant beneficiaries;  
the  write-ups  of  the  five  follow-up  interviews  with  coordinators  of  projects/organisations 
receiving DPIP 2007-2013 grants. 

1.3 

OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAMME 

The  DPIP  was  established  by  Decision  No  1150/2007/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  as  part  of  the  General  Programme  ‘Fundamental  Rights  and  Justice’.  The  programme  was 
implemented for seven years from 2007-2013. It is referred to in the EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012) 
and the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2005-2008 and 2009-2012. 

The three general objectives of the programme, as listed in Article 2 of the Decision, are: 

 
 
 

to prevent and reduce drug use, dependence and drug-related harm; 
to contribute to the improvement of information on drug use; 
to support the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy. 

The programme’s specific objectives (set out in Article 3 of Decision No 1150/2007/EC) are: 
  To promote transnational actions to:   

–  Set up multidisciplinary networks;  
–  Ensure the expansion of the knowledge base, exchange of information and 

identification and dissemination of best practices;  

–  Raise awareness of the health and social problems caused by drug use; 

1 Article 15(3)d, Decision No 1150/2007/EC of 25 September 2007 establishing for the period 2007-2013 the Specific Programme ‘Drug 
prevention and information’ as part of the General Programme on ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’. 
2 The ex-post evaluation report by external evaluator is published here: Main report: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/dpip_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf, Annexes: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/dpip_annex_1,_2_and_3.pdf, 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/dpip_annex_4_quantitative_analysis.pdf   

Mid-term evaluation report by external evaluator is published here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0246&qid=1467122450426&from=EN  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
–  Support measures aimed at preventing drug use, including reduction of drug-related 

harm and treatment methods taking into account the latest state of scientific 
knowledge; 

  To  involve  civil  society  in  the  implementation  and  development  of  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy  and 

Action Plans; and  

  To  monitor,  implement  and  evaluate  the  implementation  of  specific  actions  under  the  Drugs 

Action Plans (2005-2008 and 2009-2012). 

In order to achieve these objectives, the programme funded activities through three different types of 
financial  instruments3:  ‘action  grants’,  ‘operating  grants’  and  procurement.  Action  grants  were 
awarded for specific transnational projects of interest to the whole of the EU, or for national projects 
preparing  for  or  complementing  transnational  projects  or  Union  measures,  or  which  helped  develop 
innovative  methods  and/or  technologies  with  a  potential  for  transferability.  Operating  grants  were 
awarded  either  to  non-governmental  organisations  or  other  entities  pursuing  an  aim  of  general 
European interest in the area of drugs policy. Funds were also available for undertaking specific 
projects  outlined  by  the  Commission  (Commission’s  initiatives),  such  as  feasibility  studies, 
topic-specific research, organising conferences or building IT systems.4 

The  total  planned  budget  for  the  DPIP  for  the  period  January  2007  to  December  2013  amounted  to 
EUR 22 332  million5  (see  Table  1-1  Planned  budgetary  breakdown  for  DPIP  (2007-2013)).  Total 
committed amount for the same period was EUR 20 738 million.  

Table 1-1 Planned budgetary breakdown for DPIP (2007-2013) 

Available budget for grants (action grants and operating grants) and contracts 

Projects (Action grants) 

Operating grants 

Commission initiatives 

Total Annual Budget 

Year 

Value (€) 

% 

Value (€) 

2007 

2 150 000 

72 % 

N/A 

% 

- 

Value (€) 

% 

 Value (€) 

% 

750 000 

25 % 

2 900 000 

100 % 

2008 

2 150 000 

72 % 

500 000 

17 % 

350 000 

12 % 

3 000 000 

100 % 

2009 

2 400 000 

80 % 

N/A 

- 

600 000 

20 % 

3 000 000 

100 % 

2010 

1 717 600 

56 % 

400 000 

13 % 

958 000 

31 % 

3 075 600 

100 % 

2011 

3 045 200 

74 % 

250 000 

6 % 

800 000 

20 % 

4 095 200 

100 % 

2012 

2 058 000 

67 % 

500 000 

16 % 

520 000 

17 % 

3 078 000 

100 % 

2013 

3 040 000 

99 % 

N/A 

- 

43 334 

 1 % 

3 084 000 

100 % 

Total  16 560 800 

75% 

1 650 000 

7 %  

4 021 334 

18 % 

22 232 800 

100 % 

Source: DPIP — Annual work programmes (2007-2013) 

The intervention logic of the DPIP is illustrated in Figure 1-1 below. 

3 Article 8, Decision No 1150/2007/EC 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’ 
4 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Drug 
Prevention and Information Programme (DPIP), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 2 

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/dpip_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf  
5 Article 12, Decision No 1150/2007/EC 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’  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1-1 Intervention logic of the Drug Prevention and Information Programme (2007-2013) 

5 

 
 
 
 
Table  1-2  summarises  the  number  of  different  initiatives  funded  each  year  in  which  the  programme 
was implemented. Calls for proposals for action grants were split between 2009-2010 and 2011-2012. 

Table 1-2 Number of initiatives funded per year 

2007 

2008 

Action grants  

Operating grants 

9 

0 

6 

5 

Public 
procurement  

1 

1 

2009-
2010 

10 

0 

N/A 

2009 

2010 

2011 

N/A 

0 

N/A 

4 

0 

2 

2011-
2012 

11 

0 

5 

11 

7 

N/A 

2012 

2013 

TOTAL 

Not 
considered6 

Not 
considered 

2 

36 

15 

28 

0 

4 

1 

DPIP  projects  and  activities  were  mainly  led  by  NGOs/national  networks  (33 %  of  all  lead 
institutes  (22 %)  and  European 
organisations),  followed  by  universities  (23 %),  research 
networks/platforms/forums (14 %).7 

Figure 1-2 illustrates the main activities funded by action grants (on the left) and operating grants (on 
the right) under the DPIP. Action grant projects most often focused on awareness-raising, information 
and dissemination (31 %) and analytical activities (31 %), followed by mutual learning, exchange of 
good  practices  and  cooperation  (18 %).  The  fourth  most  frequent  activities  of  action  grant  projects 
were training  activities (12 %). Operating grants also focused on awareness-raising, information and 
dissemination  activities  (27 %),  followed  by  mutual  learning,  exchanges  of  good  practice  and 
cooperation  (20 %).  The  third  and  fourth  most  common  initiatives  implemented  by  operating  grants 
were  analytical  activities  (16%)  and  support  to  key  actors  (16 %).  Public  procurement  contracts 
focused on three main activities: studies and the organisation of events and meetings.8 

Figure 1-2 DPIP action grants (left chart) and operating grants (right chart) by main activity   

6 Not considered within the scope of this evaluation, because the final reports were not submitted during this evaluation process. 
7 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Drug 
Prevention and Information Programme (DPIP), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 3 

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/dpip_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf  
8 Ibid., p. 2 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
2 

RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION 

2.1 

RELEVANCE OF THE PROGRAMME 

The relevance of the DPIP is assessed in terms of the extent to which its actions logically address its 
objectives, the wider EU policy needs and the needs of the target audiences. 

2.1.1 

Priorities set in the calls for proposals and selected actions and their relevance to policy  

Between 2007 and 2013 there were three major policy and legislative developments at EU level in the 
areas  relevant  to  the  DPIP  programme:  Council  Framework  Decision  2004/757/JHA,  the  EU  Drugs 
Strategy and related action plans, and developments in relation to new drugs such as new psychoactive 
substances. 
As of the 2011-2012 call for proposals, new priorities9 were introduced not only to reflect these policy 
and  legislative  developments,  but  also  to  take  into  account  the  latest  scientific  knowledge.  This 
flexibility made the programme more relevant to the context in which it was implemented. 

At  project  level,  selected  initiatives  were  found  to  have  adequately  supported  policy  developments 
both because this was their main project objective, but also because many initiatives disseminated their 
results to policy-makers and/or fed into policy-making at EU/national level.10 

In  addition  to  projects,  public  procurement  contracts  funded  by  the  programme  were  specifically 
aimed at developing and implementing policy and legislation in the area of drug prevention. Evidence 
shows that some contracts were particularly relevant for developing policy/legislation in this area (for 
example  the  impact  assessment  leading  to  a  new  legislative  proposal  on  new  psychoactive 
substances).11 

2.1.2 

Relevance of the programme to target group needs 

Overall, the DPIP targeted the needs of grant beneficiaries. Firstly, the programme was tailored to this 
policy area. Secondly, it filled a funding gap at national level for drugs-related initiatives. Moreover, 
both  the  conceptual  framework  of  the  programme  and  its  priorities  matched  the  needs  of  actors 
working to reduce drug demand.12  
Most DPIP projects undertook a needs assessment13 in order to ensure their activities were relevant to 
the  target  group.  In  total,  16  of  the  23  respondents  to  the  online  survey  (67 %)  indicated  that  the 
project or activities implemented had been designed on the basis of needs assessments. Nine of these 
respondents  stated  that  these  needs  assessments  had  been  conducted  in  the  year  of,  or  the  year 
preceding, the start of the project, demonstrating that the assessment  considered  the most  up-to-date 
data.14 

9 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/dpip_annex_1,_2_and_3.pdf  
10 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Drug 
Prevention and Information Programme (DPIP), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 9 

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/dpip_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 
11 Ibid. 
12 Ibid., p. 11 
13 Needs assessment should include relevant and reliable data and should contain a robust analysis clearly demonstrating the need for the 
action. The applicant can refer to existing research, studies, previous projects which had already identified the need. The needs assessment 
must make it clear to what extent the action will meet the need and this shall be quantified. The applicant should be specific and focus on the 
actual needs that the project will aim to address and not limit the analysis to general statements and information about the problems and 
needs of the target group in general. 
14 Ibid., p. 11. Based on an analysis of the 23 responses to the online survey received from DPIP grant beneficiaries; and the write-ups of the 
five follow-up interviews with coordinators of projects/organisations receiving DPIP 2007-2013 grants 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
2.2 

COHERENCE AND COMPLEMENTARITY 

Complementarity with other EU programmes 

2.2.1 
Council  Decision  No  1150/2007/EC15  establishing  the  DPIP  for  the  period  2007-2013  indicates  that 
the EU can add value to the Member States’ actions ‘in the field of drug prevention and information, 
including  treatment  and  reduction  of  drug-related  harm,  by  complementing  those  actions  and  by 
promoting synergies’. Article 11 of the Decision highlights that synergies and complementarity must 
be sought with other Community instruments, in particular with: 

 
 
 

the General Programme ‘Security and Safeguarding Liberties’; 
the 7th Research and Development Framework Programme; and 
the Health Programme 2008-2013. 

The Decision also indicates that complementarity should be ensured between the DPIP and the work 
of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), by using the Centre’s 
expertise,  methodology  and  best  practices,  with  a  special  focus  on  the  statistical  element  of 
information on drugs. 

In addition to the instruments indicated in the Council Decision, there was scope for complementarity 
and  synergies  between  the  DPIP  and  the  other  DG  Justice  programmes,  such  as  Criminal  Justice 
Programme  (JPEN),  Civil  Justice  Programme  (JCIV),  Fundamental  Rights  Programme  (FRC)  and 
Daphne III. Also, with regard to the risks of overlaps there was a formal safeguard in the annual work 
programmes of the DPIP to avoid duplication between projects funded under other programmes. 

The  DPIP  shared  similarities  with  the  Prevention  of  and  Fight  against  Crime  (ISEC)  programme, 
under  the  General  Programme  on  Security  and  Safeguarding  Liberties,  to  the  extent  that  both 
programmes had a focus on drug-related initiatives. However, the DPIP aimed to reduce drug demand 
while the ISEC focused on reducing drug supply, in particular through activities aimed at curbing drug 
trafficking. 

The  Health  Programme  (2008-2013)  managed  by  DG  SANTE  through  its  integrated  approach  to 
health,  covered  also  drug  policies  and  prevention  of  drug  consumption  from  a  public  health 
perspective promoting  healthy lifestyles. The actions financed under this Programme focused on the 
issue of drug use exclusively, including in the instances when this related to poly-drug use with a more 
direct approach than DPIP. Health information initiatives cover highly technical/scientific information 
or measures aimed at improving access to information for patients and doctors alike. 
The  7th  Research  and  Development  Framework  Programme  (FP7)  (2007-2013)  funded  projects  that 
aimed  to  strengthen  scientific  evidence  on  the  consequences  of  drug  consumption  in  the  fields  of 
public health, socioeconomic sciences and the humanities. As the programme focused mainly on large-
scale research projects, they complemented the limited-scale projects funded by the DPIP.16 

At  programme  level,  the  evaluation  showed  that  the  DPIP  complemented  other  EU  programmes,  as 
explained  above,  with  regard  to  thematic  areas  and  objectives,  eligible  grant  applicants,  end 
beneficiaries and the types of measures and interventions funded. At the level of calls for proposals, 
findings  confirm  that  there  was  no  scope  for  overlap  with  the  other  DG  Justice  calls  and  other  EU 
instruments in terms of eligible actions, given that they differed in terms of priorities and objectives.17 

The  findings  of  the  evaluation  confirm  that  the  DPIP  is  coherent.  Firstly,  its  intervention  logic  (see 
Figure  1-1  Intervention  logic  of  the  Drug  Prevention  and  Information  Programme  (2007-2013))  is 

15 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’. 
16 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Drug 
Prevention and Information Programme (DPIP), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 15-16 

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/dpip_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 
17 Ibid., p. 14 

8 

 
 
 
internally consistent, meaning the programme’s objectives, inputs, activities and expected results are 
non-contradictory.18 

Secondly,  the  various  funding  instruments  (action  grants,  operating  grants  and  public  procurement 
contracts) are complementary and do not overlap. 

Finally, there are limited data suggesting the existence of synergies between the DPIP and other EU 
and national interventions. However, some synergies were reported during the evaluation. Some of the 
activities which helped create synergies were the dissemination of project findings; the development of 
networks; joint actions; and cooperation.19 

2.2.2 

Complementarity at project level 

Project summaries with information on all the projects funded by the DPIP were publicly available on 
the DG Justice website dedicated to the DPIP calls for proposals. Selected information on projects can 
also  be  found  on  the  EMCDDA’s  website.20  Furthermore,  the  publication  ‘Projects,  studies  and 
research on illicit drugs funded by the European Commission 2007-2010’21 provided a comprehensive 
overview of projects funded under the DPIP, the Health Programme, FP7 and ISEC between 2007 and 
2010.  Another  publication  ‘New  Psychoactive  Substances  Projects,  Studies  and  Research’22  also 
provided information on projects focusing on new psychoactive substances funded from the DPIP, the 
Health Programme, FP6, FP7 and ISEC (from 2007 to 2013). 

The risk for overlap between projects was further reduced by the requirements and priority setting of 
the DPIP calls for proposals. Data collected through mapping projects, follow-up interviews and the 
online  survey  indicated  that  some  DPIP  projects  complemented  projects  funded  by  other  EU 
programmes.  Examples  of  project  complementarity  can  also  be  observed  among  DG  Justice 
programmes (JPEN, JCIV, FRC and Daphne III).23 

2.3 

EFFECTIVENESS 

The effectiveness of a programme refers to the extent to which the programme has been successful in 
achieving its objectives, and the extent to which the DPIP projects were successful in achieving their 
own project objectives. 

2.3.1 

Programme achievements 

The  evidence  collected  to  date  suggests  that  overall  the  DPIP  was  effective  in  achieving  its  general 
programme objectives. However, it should  be noted that only 51 initiatives were co-financed  during 
the 2007-2013 funding period. Therefore, the contribution to achieving the objective of preventing and 
reducing  of  drug  use  in  the  EU  could  only  be  relative.24  Nevertheless,  the  DPIP  contributed  to 
fostering  intra-European  awareness-raising  and  information  on  drugs  and  associated  harm,  in 
particular among young people and drug users. 

Further, DPIP-funded initiatives led to an improved dialogue on drugs, and encouraged the exchange 
of  best  practice  among  stakeholders,  particularly  NGOs,  social  workers,  policy-makers  and  experts. 
The  initiatives  achieved  a  wider  impact  in  the  Member  States  where  most  of  the  activities  were 

18 Ibid. 
19 Ibid. 
20 http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/  
21 European Commission (2011) Projects, studies and research on illicit drugs funded by the European Commission, 2007-2013: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/anti-drugs/files/2007-2010_drug_related_projects_en.pdf. 
22 European Commission (2014) New Psychoactive Substances. Projects, Studies and Research funded by the European Commission: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/anti-drugs/files/nps_report_2014_en.pdf. 
23 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Drug 
Prevention and Information Programme (DPIP), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 19 

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/dpip_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 
24 Ibid., p. 22 

9 

 
 
 
implemented namely: Italy, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Portugal, 
Belgium, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia and Belgium.25 

However, DPIP-funded initiatives contributed to some extent in implementing the EU Drugs Strategy 
and related action plans. This is due to the fact that the implementation and development of the Drug 
Strategy  and  related  Action  Plan  was  covered  to  a  lesser  extent  by  the  actions  compared  to  other 
objectives/ priorities. 

The  programme  achieved  its  general  objective  also  through  public  procurement  contracts.  The 
programme was focused less on supporting the development of legislation and policies at national and 
EU level and more on developing new practices related to prevention/drug reduction. However, it was 
not  equally  successful  in  incorporating  those  practices  into  policies  at  EU  level.  Also,  only  few 
projects  contributed  to  the  development  of  national  policy.  Although  policy-makers  were  actively 
engaged in the majority of DPIP projects, there is little evidence that contacts with these stakeholders 
led to a real impact on policy development.26 

General objective 1: to prevent and reduce drug use, dependence and drug-related harm 

DPIP-funded interventions implemented a wide range of activities which improved awareness-raising 
and  the  dialogue  on  drugs.  They  also  improved  prevention  and helped  reduce  drug  use,  dependence 
and drug-related harm. This objective was mainly addressed by awareness-raising and mutual learning 
activities. 

Mutual  learning  activities  in  particular  led  to  an  improved  dialogue  on  drugs,  and  encouraged  the 
exchange  of  best  practice  among  stakeholders  from  different  environments.  Moreover,  they  helped 
create  sustainable  transnational  multidisciplinary  networks  specialised  in  drug  prevention  (12 
networks were established or expanded during the funding period). This impact was more prominent 
in  the  Member  States  where  such  activities  were  directly  implemented:  Italy,  United  Kingdom,  the 
Netherlands and Austria, followed by — to a limited extent — Denmark, Bulgaria, Portugal and the 
Czech Republic. Nearly half of the actions organised workshops or focus groups (20 held in total).27 

Awareness-raising activities improved awareness and information on drugs and associated harm. This 
impact  was  again  more  pronounced  in  the  Member  States  where  such  activities  were  directly 
implemented,  namely:  Italy,  United  Kingdom,  Germany,  the  Netherlands  and  Spain,  followed  by 
France, Lithuania, Portugal, Denmark, Estonia and Slovenia.28 

Activities  mainly  targeted  people  at  risk  and  vulnerable  groups  (such  as  young  people,  women, 
disadvantaged  groups  and  prisoners)  to  raise  their  awareness  about  the  consequences  of  drug  use. 
Awareness-raising activities also targeted the general public.29 

General objective 2: to help improve information on drug use 

DPIP-funded interventions implemented a wide  range of activities, which improved the provision of 
information  about  drugs  by  developing  innovative  intervention  programmes  and  harm-reduction 
strategies.  These  interventions  mainly  consisted  of  analytical  activities30  focusing  on  the  latest 
developments  in  drugs  policy  (for  example  new  trends  in  relation  to  new  psychoactive  substances, 
poly-drug  users  and  drug  use  by  vulnerable  groups  including  inmates,  former  convicts  and  sex 
workers). 

25 Ibid. 
26 Ibid. 
27 Ibid., p. 23 
28 Ibid. 
29 Ibid. 
30 Ibid., p. 24 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The analytical activities implemented under the programme helped to promote innovation in science, 
and by designing innovative treatment methods they helped to reduce drug-related harm. This impact 
was  more  prominent  in  the  Member  States  were  such  activities  were  directly  implemented  namely: 
Germany,  United  Kingdom,  Italy,  Spain,  the  Netherlands,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Belgium, 
Poland, Portugal, Latvia, Estonia, Austria, Romania and Bulgaria. The impact of projects developing 
these activities appears to have been wider due to the high number of Member States involved in this 
type of activities, but also because most project outcomes were easily disseminated within the Union. 

The inventory of documentation carried out for this evaluation showed that 41 projects implemented 
analytical  activities.  Out  of  these,  15  engaged  in  scientific  research  and/or  produced  reports,  13 
developed surveys and questionnaires to collect data from drug users and/or organisations dealing with 
drug issues and five focused on data collection/analysis or statistics.31 

These analytical activities resulted in a number of reports: 21 guides and manuals (e.g. manual of the 
intervention  produced),  20  reports  outlining  statistics  (in  relation  to  the  drug  market  and  length  of 
various drug using periods), and 18 surveys were conducted (e.g. surveys to collect direct information 
from target groups).  

The  analytical  activities  also  produced  43  other  types  of  reports.  These  included  reports  collecting 
conclusions and recommendations from workshops or seminars, analytical reports on the effectiveness 
of tools used for screening, interventions and referral to treatment programmes and summary reports 
on survey results and other types of stakeholder consultation.32 

Scientific  research  was  used  mainly  to  identify  components  of  new  psychoactive  substances  and  to 
develop new methods for detecting these substances in the human body. 

The main contributions of analytical activities/support measures can be summarised as follows: 

  filling gaps in knowledge and in scientific research in relation to drugs (i.e. new synthetic drugs/ 

NPS) and related health risks; 

  fostering debate on changes and reforms to drugs policy; and 
  developing new harm-reduction  strategies and treatments approached  to address rapid changes in 

drugs usage (new psychoactive substances, poly-drug users, etc.). 

General objective 3: to support the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy 

The implementation and development of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plans was primarily meant 
to be achieved by concluding public procurement contracts. A study on ‘Minimum quality standards in 
drug demand reduction (EQUS)’ contributed  to  the policy process in this area.33 This in turn helped 
implement the related action in the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan. Further, an impact assessment 
on  new  psychoactive  substances  was  used  as  basis  to  draft  a  new  legislative  proposal  on  new 
psychoactive substances.34 In addition to this contribution to the development of the EU drugs policy, 
the impact assessment became a document of reference for the scientific community within the Union. 

Some  projects  funded  under  the  DPIP  supported  policy-makers  at  national/EU  level  in  shaping  new 
policies  and  legislation.  Others  developed  tools  for  screening,  brief  interventions  and  for  referring 
young people with drugs problems for treatment. These tools were then incorporated in national drugs 
plans  and  in  other  national  drug  prevention  strategy  documents.  While  the  majority  of  the  DPIP 
projects reached out to relevant policy-makers at national and EU level, their results varied.35 

31 Ibid., p. 25 
32 Ibid. 
33 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/anti-drugs/files/equs_main_report_en.pdf  
34 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013SC0319&from=EN  
35 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Drug 
Prevention and Information Programme (DPIP), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 27 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The initiatives funded under the DPIP used a range of methods to reach policy-makers at national and 
EU  level,  for  example:  91 %  of  online  survey  respondents  who  were  beneficiaries  of  DPIP  funding 
had  invited  policy-makers  to  workshops  and/or  other  dissemination  events;  78 %  of  online  survey 
respondents who were beneficiaries of DPIP funding had shared communication materials (brochures, 
leaflets, flyers) with policy-makers; 65 % of grant beneficiaries organised project meetings involving 
policy-makers; 65 % of online survey respondents who were beneficiaries of DPIP funding had invited 
policy-makers to events such as briefings and conferences.36 

Policy-makers responded by participating in project-related events such as seminars, conferences and 
workshops, or by using some elements of the project, such as the approach/method used or activities 
implemented. 

2.3.2 

Project achievements 

The  majority  of  the  DPIP  projects  achieved  their  objectives.  This  is  confirmed  both  by  the  online 
survey  results  and  the  follow-up  interviews  with  all  the  grant  beneficiaries  consulted  as  part  of  this 
evaluation,  who  stated  that  they  were  or  would  be  able  to  achieve  all  or  most  planned 
objectives/results  on  time.  Nearly  all  survey  respondents  stated  that  their  projects  were  or  would  be 
able to reach the expected target groups, adding  to the evidence that  the projects had achieved their 
goals.37 

2.4 

SUSTAINABILITY AND TRANSFERABILITY 

It was analysed whether the results, outcomes and impact of the projects were sustainable beyond the 
project funding period. Three levels of sustainability were identified: 

short-term sustainability, achieved mainly by disseminating projects’ results; 

 
  medium-term sustainability, which includes continuing project results and/or partnerships; and 
 
longer-term  sustainability,  achieved  mainly  by  successfully  transferring  projects’  results  to 
other  contexts,  organisations  and  Member  States  without  additional  funding  (or  with  only 
limited funding). 

2.4.1 

Continuation of project activities and outputs and dissemination 

Both the European Commission and grant beneficiaries made considerable efforts to disseminate DPIP 
project  results.  This  helped  increase  the  impact  of  the  projects  on  the  ground.  Using  the  different 
dissemination  methods  put  in  place  helped  to  reach  different  types  of  stakeholders,  for  example  EU 
and  national  policy-makers,  NGOs,  social  workers,  young  people  and  policy  experts.  At  EU  level, 
project  results  were  disseminated  through  the  Commission’s  and  the  EMCDDA’s  websites  which 
further improved the visibility of the programme itself. 

Public  procurement  contracts  were  also  used  to  help  disseminate  project  results  by  producing 
information material and organising dissemination events. At project level, project managers planned 
and  effectively  used  a  number  of  dissemination  tools,  including  organising  events  and  publishing 
printed and audio-visual material to publicise projects’ results. Moreover, most projects used their own 
websites to disseminate project outputs. However, dedicated project websites were generally only set 
up for a limited time period, thus affecting the sustainability and transferability of project outputs. The 
majority  of  grant  beneficiaries  surveyed  indicated  that,  even  when  arrangements  were  made  for  the 
continued use and/or availability of the outputs (e.g. websites), additional funding was necessary.38 

The  analysis  of  project  documentation  confirms  that  most  projects  developed  a  sustainability  and/or 
dissemination  plan  (see  Figure  2-1).  However,  the  extent  to  which  project  beneficiaries  were 

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/dpip_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 
36 Survey question 23b: Have the policy makers responded to the information provided by the project/activities? (Multiple choice question). 
In: Ibid., p. 27. Based on an analysis of the 23 responses to the online survey received from DPIP grant beneficiaries; and the write-ups of the 
five follow-up interviews with coordinators of projects/organisations receiving DPIP 2007-2013 grants.  
37 Ibid., p. 28 
38 Ibid., p. 31 

12 

 
 
 
successful  in  ensuring  the  sustainability  and  transferability  of  project  outputs/activities  varied 
substantially.  In  most  cases,  beneficiaries  only  produced  dissemination  materials  which  were 
circulated  among  partners  and  target  groups  within the  six  months  following  the  end  of  the  funding 
period.39 

Most  DPIP  project  leaders  shared  project  results  with  the  EMCDDA  throughout  the  lifetime  of  the 
project, but some also shared the results of their projects through the Reitox network. Project results 
were also presented during meetings and conferences organised by the EMCDDA, the Civil Society 
Forum on Drugs and the Council’s Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (HDG) on Drugs.40 

Figure 2-1 Type of dissemination of project results 

Each partner was/will be responsible for dissemination of
results in one/more country/ies (N=14)

We had/have a clear plan for dissemination of the results
of our project (N=21)

Dissemination material was/will be produced in more than
one language (N=21)

 The results of the project/activities were/will be
disseminated in more than one country (N=21)

70% 

91% 

78% 

100% 

26% 

9% 

22% 

Yes

No

N/A

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: Survey for the ex post evaluation of the five DG Justice programmes 2007-2013. 

Question 24. Please comment on the following statements with regard to the dissemination of the results of your 
project/ activities 

The quantitative analysis shows that at least one event was organised per project (54 events across 51 
projects), covering an audience of just over 41 000 people, while a large number of projects appear to 
have  produced  published  materials  and/or  information  or  advice  websites.  However,  only  a  limited 
number  of  projects  appear  to have  engaged  in  more  proactive  forms  of  dissemination,  such  as  press 
releases/media  involvement  or  campaigns.  Nevertheless,  since  young  people  were  one  of  the  main 
target groups of the DPIP, some projects sought to be innovative and/or creative in their dissemination 
activities to be able to attract a generally ‘difficult to engage’ target group and to be more effective in 
delivering information about drugs to them.41 

2.4.2 

Continuation of partnerships after the project’s completion 

Most  partnerships  established  during  the  implementation  of  DPIP  projects/activities  continued  after 
the finalisation of the grant, as demonstrated by the results from the online survey and the follow-up 
interviews. Most of the respondents to the online survey (82 %) reported that their partnership did or 
would continue after the project was complete. In most cases, continuing the partnership meant further 
collaboration  on  similar  projects  or  a  sustained  commitment  from  all  partners  to  continue 
disseminating the projects’ results.42 However, only few DPIP-funded actions could demonstrate that 
they already ensured medium-term sustainability, i.e. a continuation of project results. 

2.4.3 

Potential sustainability and transferability of outputs 

Though  there  is  some  evidence  of  the  medium-term  impact  and  sustainability  of  DPIP-funded 
initiatives,  it  is  difficult  to  assess  their  sustainability  in  the  longer  term.  Only  a  few  DPIP  projects 
could demonstrate that they put a mechanism in place in order to achieve longer-term sustainability by 
transferring their project results or by continuing the partnership. 

39 Ibid., p. 32 
40 Ibid., p. 33 
41 Ibid., p. 34 
42 Ibid., p. 35 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
Transferability  in  most  cases  related  to  the  outputs  of  the  DPIP  projects/activities  (not  results)  and 
their potential to be implemented in other Member States, with minor changes/inputs (as indicated by 
78 % of online survey respondents and two out of five interviewees). Half of both groups reported that 
outputs  of  DPIP  projects  have  already  been  successfully  implemented  in  other  Member  States.  The 
majority  of  stakeholders  consulted  considered  the  results  of  the  projects/activities  as  suitable  for 
feeding into policy activities in other Member States, but this only happened in a few cases.43 

The  evaluation  also  identified  possible  challenges  to  the  transferability  of  DPIP  project  outputs  and 
results. Firstly, the transferability of outputs or approaches developed within the framework of DPIP 
projects might be affected by policy differences between Member States. Secondly, the transferability 
of results could be affected by the level of capacity building of the NGOs and networks involved in the 
delivery of prevention and risk reduction strategies.44 

2.5 

EFFICIENCY AND SCOPE FOR SIMPLIFICATION 

This  section  assesses  the  efficiency  of  the  programme  in  terms  of  the  sufficiency  and  efficiency  of 
financial  resources  available,  the  appropriateness  of  the  money  spent  in  comparison  to  the  positive 
impact achieved and the extent to which the allocation of funds among the different funding tools was 
appropriate  and  sufficient  to  implement  the  project’s  objectives.  It  also  reviews  the  management 
efficiency of the Commission and considers scope for simplifying the programme management. 

2.5.1 

Sufficiency and efficiency of available financial resources 

The assessment of efficiency showed that the funding made available for implementing the DPIP may 
not have been entirely sufficient, considering the level of ambition of some of the objectives, the very 
high demand for funding and the high absorption rates of grants. When looking at the extent to which 
the initial programme allocation was effectively committed, in total EUR 12.9 million was committed 
to  action  grants  (i.e.  in  terms  of  grant  agreements  signed).  EUR 0.9  million  was  committed  to 
operating grants, with approximately EUR 2.7 million committed to procurement contracts. Compared 
to the initial allocations, both action grants and operating grants received less than initially envisaged 
(respectively  EUR 0.6  million  and  EUR 0.8  million  less  than  planned).  Despite  these  differences, 
overall  the  grants  were  in  very  high  demand.45  The  lower  commitments  to  operating  grants  which 
became sharper in the second half of the funding period are shown in Figure 2-2. 

More funds could have been committed to the programme, in particular with a view to achieving the 
objective of reducing drug demand. The very high number of applications for funding under the DPIP 
(as  opposed  to  the  small  number  of  funded  projects),  and  the  fact  that  the  most  commonly  funded 
organisations  were  NGOs  who  largely  rely  on  external  financing,  confirms  the  general  need  for 
adequate financial resources in the area of drugs policy. Overall, the financial resources available were 
used in an efficient way, judging by the comparison of inputs/outputs in projects’ budgets.46 

Though  some  of  the  expected  impacts  of  DPIP  were  very  ambitious  as  they  derive  from  the 
programme objectives, the implemented projects achieved good number of outputs and positive results 
which suggest that the amount of money spent was reasonable in comparison to the achievements. The 
impact  of  the  projects  is  demonstrated  in  the  development  of  new  prevention  tools;  new  treatment 
methods  corresponding  to  the  latest  state  of  scientific  knowledge  in  the  drugs  field;  and  awareness-
raising  approaches  targeting  specific  (vulnerable)  groups.  Furthermore,  the  high  demand  for  DPIP 
grants  has  allowed  the  Commission  to  select  those  projects  which  showed  the  most  potential  and 
represented the best value for money.47 

43 Ibid., p. 36 
44 Ibid. 
45 Ibid., p. 39 
46 Ibid., p. 37 
47 Ibid. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2-2 Total allocated, committed and paid DPIP funds and total over/under commitment and underspending per 
call (action grant above, operating grant below) 

0
0
0
0
0
1
x

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

50 

47 

42 

39 

29 

22 

22 

17 

22 

21 

19 

2007 AG

2008 AG

2009-2010 AG*

2011-2012 AG*

Allocation

Committed (all projects)

Payment

Note: No information was available on paid funds and underspending for 2011-2012 action grants 

s
d
n
a
s
u
o
h
T

600

400

200

0

-200

-400

500 

409 

351 

400 

400 

220 

196 

91 

79 

500 

229 

177 

2008 OG

2010 OG

2011 OG

2012 OG

Allocation

Committed

Payment

Underspending^

Under/over commitment

DPIP — Calls for Proposals (2007-2012) 2013 could not be considered within the scope of this evaluation, because the 
final project reports were not submitted during this evaluation process. 

2.5.2 

Extent to which the money spent was reasonable in view of the impact achieved 

The DPIP was expected to: 

improve the prevention of drug use in the EU; 

 
  create better understanding/improved information on drugs and associated harm in the EU; 
 

improve the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy and specific actions under the action plans. 

It  is  reasonable  to  expect  the  programme  to  achieve  its  objectives  with  the  resources  available, 
especially with regard to improving the provision of information on drugs and associated harm in the 
EU. Nevertheless, the first objective, i.e. improving prevention, was the most challenging to achieve 
given not only the scale of the problem of drug use versus the size of the programme, but also the fact 
that reducing drug use is inherently associated with behavioural changes and lifestyle choices which 
are  generally  difficult  to  influence  and  may  require  a  series  of  long-term  interventions.  The  second 
objective  was  worked  on  through  the  dissemination  of  outputs  and  results  by  the  Commission  and 
individual projects and networks (more on this see the section 2.4.1 Continuation of project activities 
and  outputs  and  dissemination).  The  third  objective  —  better  implementation  of  the  EU  Drugs 
Strategy  and  action  plans  —  was  achieved  mainly  through  a  series  of  high-level  policy  reports 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
covering a host of issues relating to drugs policy in the EU. These policy reports were outsourced to 
external contractors.48 

The  evidence  collected  as  part  of  this  evaluation  is  still  insufficient  to  firmly  conclude  that  the 
resources  spent  on  the  programme  were  reasonable  in  view  of  the  long-term  outcomes  and  impact 
achieved.  

On the other hand, the outputs and results of DPIP action grants and operating grants which form the 
basis for the long-term outcomes and impact, were positive, in particular in relation to49: 

  developing  new  prevention  tools,  harm-reduction  measures  and  treatment  approaches  to  address 
new developments and rapid changes as regards drugs, or developing tools (e.g. quality standards 
for online helplines) supporting the work of organisations dealing with target groups; 

  developing  new  approaches  to  raise  awareness  and  provide  information  among  specific  target 

groups/vulnerable groups; 

  establishing  multidisciplinary  networks  and/or  platforms  to  increase  the  exchange  of  information 
and cooperation between organisations, further disseminate project results/good practices and gain 
visibility with policy-makers; 

  capacity  building  and  training  to  strengthen  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy  and 

action plans and relevant actors in prevention of drug use/dependence and associated harm. 

DPIP  funded  51  mostly  transnational  projects,  representing  approximately  200  leading  and  partner 
organisations.  The  analysis  of  the  projects  finalised  so  far  shows  that  at  least  63 %  of  the  finalised 
action grants and operating grants show evidence of having achieved their objectives, although action 
grants  showed  slightly  less  evidence  of  achieving  their  objectives  (60 %)  than  operating  grants 
(67 %).50 

2.5.3 

Appropriateness of the allocation of funds among the different funding tools 

According to the annual work programmes, the total budget allocated for implementing the DPIP for 
2007-2013 amounted to EUR 22 232 million. The planned budgetary breakdown is presented in Table 
1-1 Planned budgetary breakdown for DPIP (2007-2013). The average value of action grants increased 
between  2007  and  2012,  with  most  of  the  funding  allocated  during  the  second  half  of  the 
implementing period. The budget absorption of action grants (payments as a share of commitments) 
was  acceptable,  i.e.  88 %.  This  suggests  that  funding  for  action  grants  has  been  allocated  in  an 
efficient manner.51 Note that this analysis does not consider most of the grants awarded under action 
grants for 2011-2012. 

Operating  grants  received  more  than  half  of  the  funds  initially  allocated.  The  average  value  of  OGs 
decreased  considerably  between  2008  and  2012  (reaching  its  lowest  value  in  2011),  ranging  from 
EUR 20 499 (2012 operating grant) to EUR 200 000 (2008 operating grant). The lower average value 
of operating grants can be explained by their shorter duration (maximum 12 months) and the fact that 
one  operating  grant  funds  only  one  organisation,  whereas  a  partnership  of  organisations  is  financed 
under action grants. Budget absorption of operating grants was acceptable, i.e. 85 %. In the same way 
as for action grants, operating grant spending appears to have been efficient.52 

During  the  implementation  period,  the  Commission  committed  approximately  EUR 2.7  million  to  a 
total  of  28  procurement  contracts  (or  about  17 %  of  the  total  committed  budget  of  DPIP). 
Approximately  half  of  the  procurement  budget  was  committed  to  the  European  Action  on  Drugs 
(EAD)  —  a  multiannual  awareness-raising  campaign  –  and  to  regular  meetings  of  the  Civil  Society 
Forum on Drugs. With an initial allocation of over EUR 4 million, procurement has been under-used 

48 Ibid., p. 44 
49 Ibid., p. 45 
50 Ibid. 
51 Ibid. 
52 Ibid., pp. 45-46 

16 

 
 
 
and this might have had a negative effect on, for example, the dissemination of programme results at 
EU level.53 

Finally,  the  funding  tools  were  all  implemented  through  a  competitive  process,  using  calls  for 
proposals  (for  the  grants)  and  calls  for  tenders  (for  procurement)  which  attracted  high  numbers  of 
applications. Action grants and procurement contracts are more effective and efficient funding tools.54 

2.5.4 

Commission management and scope for simplification 

Based  on  the  online  survey  results,  the  requirements  for  applicants  to  access  DPIP  funding  were 
deemed appropriate overall, as presented in Figure 2-3 below. 

Figure 2-3 Application requirements 

We have received good support from the Commission
during the application procedure (N=23)

The procedure for submitting an application was
straightforward (N=23)

4 

4 

8 

1 

5 

5 

13 

2 

2 

1 

The information included in the calls for proposals was
clear and easy to understand (N=23)

6 

12 

2 

1 

1 

Strongly agree

Partially agree

I do not know/no opinion

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Partially disagree

Strongly disagree

Source: Survey for the ex post evaluation of the five DG Justice programmes 2007-2013. 
Question  36:  With  regard  to  the  Commission’s  management  of  the  five  programmes,  including  the  Commission’s  monitoring  and 
evaluation of your project/activities, please comment on the following statements (see Figure above): 

The information provided in calls for proposals throughout the funding period was straightforward and 
explained the various elements required to apply for funding. However, the document became lengthy, 
partly reflecting the increased level of detail required in the application form, the number of priorities 
presented and the introduction of the PRIAMOS IT system. The information included in the calls for 
proposals was clear and easy to understand according to the majority of the respondents to the online 
survey.  The  2013  call  introduced  the  Single  Guide  for  Applicants,  covering  the  five  DG  Justice 
programmes,  ISEC  and  PROGRESS.  The  Single  Guide  made  it  easier  and  more  efficient  for 
applicants to submit proposals for different projects. 

information, 

Throughout the programme, the application form asked applicants to describe the project in terms of 
general  project 
implementation,  financial  management,  results,  evaluation  and 
dissemination. In addition, applicants were required to complete budget estimation forms, a staff-cost 
analysis and a partnership declaration. From 2010, applicants were also asked to provide indicators to 
assess results, evidence of previous programme experience, add more detail on the partners and work 
streams.  This  increased  the  potential  quality  of  the  projects,  motivating  the  applicants  to  develop  a 
more rigorous plan and estimate the cost of each of their activities. 

Overall, the Commission’s management of the DPIP improved over time, thanks to: 

 

 

 

the introduction of the single programme management unit,  

the publication of a handbook for Commission officials,  

indirectly, through the dissemination of a project management guide.  

Overall, grant beneficiaries’ experience of cooperation with the Commission was positive. The grant 
application  requirements  followed  a  similar  process  to  other  Commission  centrally-managed 
programmes and required more detailed information, which improved the quality of the applications 
and the projects. The changes to reporting  also created a  more balanced  approach between financial 

53 Ibid., p. 46 
54 Ibid. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
justification on the one hand and the evaluation/assessment of a project’s results and potential impact 
on the other. 

In  2007,  the  application  form  required  the  following  information:  the  project’s  objectives  and 
relevance;  project  implementation  (impact,  methodology,  duration,  concrete  outputs  and  foreseeable 
risks and difficulties); follow-up, sustainability and visibility (including dissemination  and European 
added  value);  information  on  the  applicant  and  partners;  a  declaration  by  the  applicant;  and  an 
application package and a checklist.  

In  addition  to  the  application  form,  applicants  were  asked  to  submit  annexes  comprising,  among 
others,  partner  and  associate  declarations,  co-financing  declaration  forms,  budget  forms,  a  staff-cost 
analysis form, timetable, financial identification forms, legal entity forms, a declaration on exclusion 
criteria and CVs. 

According to the information collected in the survey, in order to respond to the call for proposals just 
under half of the respondents (48 %) had to request at least some assistance. Moreover, more than half 
of the respondents (61 %) confirmed that they knew of potential applicants who did not respond to the 
calls  for  proposals  due  to  the  complex  requirements  set  by  the  Commission.  These  findings  are 
illustrated in Figure 2-4. 

Figure 2-4 Commission’s management of the five programmes during the application phase 

I know of organisations/projects/ practitioners that
did not respond to the call for proposals because it
was considered too complex/difficult (N=23)

I had to request help from persons with specific
expertise/knowledge on the procedures in order to
respond to the call (N=23)

8 

7 

4 

2 

5 

6 

2 

5 

3 

Strongly agree

Partially agree

I do not know/no opinion

Partially disagree

Strongly disagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Source: Survey for the ex post evaluation of the five DG Justice programmes 2007-2013. 
Question 36: With regard to the Commission’s management of the five programmes, including the Commission’s monitoring 
and evaluation of your project/activities, please comment on the following statement: 

In  spite  of  the  difficulties  faced  by  applicants,  the  total  number  of  applications  received  for  action 
grants  increased  steadily  from  39  in  2007  to  117  in  2013.  However,  the  number  of  applications  for 
operating grants decreased from 16 applicants in 2008 and 19 in 2010, to 7 in 2011 and 12 in 2012. 

Information on the calls for proposals, both for action grants and operating grants, was available on the 
DG Justice website.55 It included documents for applicants, practical information on how to apply, on 
reporting fraud and irregularities and the projects selected under each call. The vast majority of survey 
respondents  (78 %)  regarded  the  call  for  proposals  clear  and  easy  to  understand.  Similarly,  the 
procedure  for  submitting  an  application  for  an  action  grant  or  operating  grant  was  perceived  as 
straightforward by a majority of respondents (74 %). 

the 

reporting  arrangements  concerning 

Overall, 
the 
projects/activities  were  considered  to  be  appropriate  by  56 %  of  respondents  to  the  online  survey. 
Moreover,  just  under  half  of  the  survey  respondents  considered  the  Commission’s  monitoring 

the  progress  and  achievements  of 

55 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/programmes-2007-2013/drug/index_en.htm. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
arrangements  at  least  partially  good  and  helpful  during  the  implementation  of  the  projects  and 
activities.56 

Nearly  half  (43 %)  of  the  grant  beneficiaries  who  responded  to  the  online  survey  considered  the 
Commission’s monitoring arrangements as partially good and helpful during the implementation of the 
project/activities.  Moreover,  progress  reports  for grants  lasting  24  months  or  more  were  regarded  as 
useful  by  grant  beneficiaries  since  these  would  provide  both  project  managers  and  the  Commission 
with an overview of the results achieved so far and would allow them to introduce adjustments to work 
streams, when relevant.57 

2.6 

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE 

EU  added  value  refers  to  the  extent  to  which  the  EU  nature  of  the  programme  brings  value  to  its 
stakeholders  and  the  extent  to  which  the  EU  has  a  comparative  advantage  over  national  and 
international actors working  in the area. First, the EU nature of the programme and its geographical 
coverage is discussed. The EU added value is then analysed in terms of value brought to the EU and to 
beneficiaries.  However,  it  has  not  been  possible  to  identify  and  measure  EU  added  value  already  in 
terms of impacts. 

The DPIP had a strong transnational dimension. This is borne out by the objectives of the programme 
and by the kinds of action deemed eligible in the 2007 Decision. Article 4 of the Decision states that 
the  DPIP  ‘shall  support  specific  transnational  projects  of  Union  interest  presented  by  at  least  two 
Member  States  or  by  at  least  one  Member  State  and  one  other  country  which  may  either  be  an 
acceding or a candidate country.’ Eligible actions also included national projects. 

2.6.1 

Geographical coverage and involvement of Member States 

The DPIP covered lead and partner organisations from a total of 25 EU Member States and Norway. 
Overall, there was a relatively good geographical coverage of activities across the EU. The nature of 
the  programme  brought  added  value  to  the  EU  and  to  most  grant  beneficiaries.  However,  some 
Member States received a larger number of grants and participated in a larger number of partnerships 
than others (see Figure 2-5). Lead organisations were clustered within three Member States: Germany, 
the United Kingdom and Italy. Together these Member States led 61 % of all projects. 

From the total of 457 applications received through the DPIP, the highest number was submitted by 
Italian organisations (24%, 109), followed by those based in the United Kingdom (60) and Spain (55). 
These  top  three  applicant  Member  States  submitted  49 %  of  all  applications  for  funding  from  the 
programme. Against this background it is worth noting that the highest success rates of the submitted 
applications were found to be those from Austria, Germany and the Netherlands. 

56 Based on an analysis of the 23 responses to the online survey received from DPIP grant beneficiaries; and the write-ups of the five follow-
up interviews with coordinators of projects/organisations receiving DPIP 2007-2013 grants. Ex post evaluation of five programmes 
implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Drug Prevention and Information Programme 
(DPIP), ICF, 28 July 2015, pp. 48-49 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/dpip_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 
57 Ibid., p. 50 

19 

 
 
 
The  partnership  structure  of  the  Member  States  with  the  highest  number  of  lead  organisations 
(Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy), is shown in Figure 2-6. Data show that lead organisations 
are  more  likely  to  partner  with  organisations  from  their  own  Member  State  than  with  organisations 
from other EU Member States. This is especially pronounced for Italy. However, this was not the case 
for  the  projects  led  by  the  United  Kingdom,  where  the  lead  organisations  were  most  likely  to  form 
partnerships with German organisations. For example, Italian lead organisations formed partnerships 
with six Italian and three UK organisations, while German lead organisations formed partnerships with 
four German and three Belgian, three Austrian and three Lithuanian organisations. Lead organisations 
from  the  United  Kingdom  formed  partnerships  with  six  German,  five  French  and  four  Italian 
organisations. 

Figure 2-5 Total number of organisations involved in DPIP action grant projects, including lead (left) and DPIP 
action grants partner (right) organisations 

Figure 2-6 Partnership structure for the top three Member States of lead organisations 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
2.6.2 

Added value for the EU and for grant beneficiaries 

The  findings  of  this  evaluation  show  that  the  main  features  that  brought  EU  added  value  to  the 
programme for grant beneficiaries were: 

  mutual  learning  and  exchanges,  and  increased  knowledge  through  cooperation  across  the 

borders;  
the ‘EU brand’ and reputation provided by the DPIP;  

 
  EU funding which made the implementation of the projects possible. 

The findings of the survey and stakeholder consultations showed that the transnational dimension of 
the DPIP has allowed organisations established in different Member States to cooperate together and 
to  develop  and  implement  transnational  activities  aimed  at  reducing  drug  demand.  While  lead 
organisations  are  geographically  concentrated  in  just  a  few  Member  States,  the  partnerships  they 
formed allowed a high number of organisations from other Member States to participate, collaborate 
and  learn  with/from  the  project  leaders  and  to  implement  similar  activities.  Overall,  transnational 
partnerships contributed to mutual learning, collaboration and to sustainable support both at national 
and  EU  level.  This  is  also  shown  in  the  results  of  the  stakeholder  consultation  which  are  further 
explored in this section. 

The  evaluation  concluded  that  the  key  specific  benefits  of  transnational  partnerships  while 
implementing DPIP projects were: the creation of a network of international partners (90 % of survey 
respondents),  an  increased  knowledge/expertise  in  the  area  (85 %  of  survey  respondents)  and  an 
increased  knowledge  of  policy  and  practice  in  other  Member  States  (70 %  of  survey  respondents). 
Hence, transnational partnerships also contributed to achieving the specific objectives of DPIP which 
refer  to  supporting  transnational  actions  such  as  creating  multidisciplinary  networks,  expanding  the 
knowledge  base,  exchanging  information  and  identifying  and  disseminating  good  practices. 
Furthermore, when implementing transnational activities in the area of drug demand reduction, DPIP 
projects also promoted transnational learning through partnerships. Follow-up interviews with project 
beneficiaries  showed  that  transnational  partnerships  helped  disseminate  best  practices,  encourage 
transnational learning and identify information gaps and common issues in drug demand reduction. 

The  specific  benefits  of  transnational  partnerships  (see  Figure  2-7)  also  resulted  from  good working 
experiences between project partners. The majority of survey respondents said they had good working 
relationships  with  their  transnational  partners  (74 %)  and  were  satisfied  with  the  partnerships 
established by the projects (62 %). These positive relationships enabled and strengthened transnational 
learning — the majority of respondents (68 %) exchanged experiences and lessons learned with their 
partners during the project implementation. In this respect, 48 % of the survey respondents agreed that 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
it  would  have  been  beneficial  to  involve  more  partners  from  different  Member  States  in  the  project 
implementation to multiply this effect.  

Figure 2-7 The extent to which project beneficiaries had a good experience with the transnational partnership 

I am satisfied with the partnership formed for the
project (N=21)
The task allocation between each partner was/is
appropriate (N=19)

The number of partners involved was/is appropriate
(N=19)

Good working relationships have been established with
transnational partners (N=19)

Experience and lessons learned in different contexts
during the project implementation were exchanged…
Partners involved in the project have enabled an 
effective delivery of the project’s results (N=19) 
It would have been useful to involve partners with
other expertise (N=19)
It would have been useful to involve partners from
other countries (N=19)

13 

1 

11 

14 

14 

13 

13 

9 

3 

6 

3 

3 

5 

5 

8 

5 

5 

1 

1 

2 

1 

Strongly agree

Partially agree

 I do not know/no opinion

Partially disagree

Strongly disagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Source: Survey for the ex post evaluation of the five DG Justice programmes 2007-2013. 

Other form of value that the programme brought was the “EU brand” and reputation of the DPIP. This 
meant a higher visibility, interest in the projects and their higher impact on EU and national policy-
makers, practitioners and the wider public. 

Finally,  the  evaluation  showed  that  EU  funding  was  essential  to  implement  the  DPIP  projects  and 
achieve  the  EU  objectives.  Therefore,  the  likelihood  of  achieving  the  EU’s  objectives  —  and  thus 
meeting the objectives of the EU Drugs Strategy — without EU funding is intrinsically limited.58 

58 Ibid., p. 59 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 

CONCLUSIONS 

Relevance of the programme59 

  Overall, the priorities of the calls for proposals and the selected initiatives were relevant 
to the objectives of the programme as defined in the legal base. The general and specific 
objectives  of  the  DPIP  are  broadly  formulated  and  overly  ambitious  in  the  legal  act. 
However, the annual priorities set by the Commission were not only clearly defined, but 
were  also  realistic  and  attainable  and  addressed  the  key  policy  developments  in  the 
policy area. They became an increasingly important tool for the Commission to influence 
the scope of the funded projects throughout the life of the programme. 

  The  selected  actions  are  relevant  to  the  programme  objectives.  The  project/work 
programme objectives of all 51 projects were in line with the specific objectives of the 
programme. Operating grants were only partially aligned with the specific objectives of 
the DPIP. 

  At  project  level,  the  selected  initiatives  appear  to  have  adequately  supported  policy 
developments.  Procurement  contracts  were  also  particularly  relevant  for  developing 
policy and legislation in this area. 

  Overall, the programme was relevant to the needs of grant beneficiaries. The programme 
is unique in this area and filled a funding gap at national level. Moreover, the conceptual 
framework of the programme  and its priorities  matched  the needs  of actors working in 
the area of drug prevention. 

Coherence and complementarity 

  Complementarity of the DPIP with other EU programmes and interventions was almost 
fully achieved. Complementarity was reached through mechanisms that the Commission 
put in place at programme design stage and at the stage of designing calls for proposals. 

Effectiveness 

  Overall, the DPIP was effective in achieving its general programme objectives, although 
the  impact  was  somewhat  limited  by  the  relatively  low  budget  and  number  of  projects 
funded.  The  DPIP  contributed  to  fostering  intra-European  awareness-raising  and 
information  on  drugs  and associated  harm,  in  particular  among  young  people and  drug 
users.  Furthermore,  DPIP-funded  action  led  to  an  improved  dialogue  on  drugs,  and 
facilitated an exchange of best practice among stakeholders. 

  Some  DPIP  projects  contributed 

to  EU  policy-making/legislative  development. 
Procurement contracts, being specifically aimed at developing and implementing policy 
and legislation in the area of drug prevention, were more effective in this respect because 
they triggered policy debates and steered the policy-making process at EU and Member 
State levels. 

  At  project  level,  most  initiatives  achieved  their  own  objectives,  in  particular  thanks  to 
good working relationships with partners and to a clear intervention logic with regard to 
the  target  group,  objectives,  method  and  activities  to  implement.  No  major  obstacles 
were experienced in the implementation of project activities. 

  DPIP-funded actions also developed tools recognised as innovative in a number of areas. 
These tools included prevention and harm-reduction measures and treatment approaches, 
research  methods  or  contributions  to  new  research  in  order  to  fill  knowledge  gaps  and 
innovative  approaches  to  provide  information  and  raise  awareness  among  vulnerable 
groups. 

59 Ibid., pp. 60-62 

23 

 
 
 
Sustainability and dissemination 

  Overall, the dissemination of DPIP results helped increase the impact of the projects on 
the  ground,  in  particular  as  a  result  of  the  dissemination  methods  put  in  place,  which 
helped  to  reach  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders  (EU  and  national  policy-makers,  non-
governmental organisations/civil society organisations, social workers, young people and 
drug experts). 

  Project  results  were  disseminated  through  beneficiaries’  websites  and  networks  as  well 
as through Commission and EMCDDA websites. This further improved the visibility of 
the programme itself (demonstrated by the increasing number of applications received). 
In addition, public procurement contracts were used to produce information material and 
organise  dissemination  events  to  publicise  the  results  of  the  projects.  However, 
mechanisms and strategies for dissemination were not exploited to their fullest potential. 
  Most  initiatives  developed  a  sustainability  and/or  dissemination  plan.  However,  the 
extent  to  which  project  beneficiaries  were  effective  in  securing  the  sustainability  and 
transferability of project outputs and activities varied substantially. 

Efficiency 

  The  funding  made  available  for  implementing  the  DPIP  may  not  have  been  entirely 
sufficient considering the level of ambition of some of the objectives, the high demand 
for  funding,  the  high  absorption  rates  of  grants  and  the  high  numbers  of  outputs  and 
results achieved. Nevertheless, the funding made available under the DPIP was sufficient 
for beneficiaries to achieve their own objectives.  

  The  Commission’s  management  has  improved  over  time  and  grant  beneficiaries 

experienced cooperation with the Commission as positive. 

  As regards scope of simplification, the level of detail required in the application form has 
increased  from  the  2010  call  onwards  and  included  the  introduction  of  work  streams. 
This has benefited both the Commission and the applicants. Reporting requirements were 
considered  appropriate  by  the  vast  majority  of  the  respondents.  The  Commission’s 
monitoring  arrangements  were  at  least  partially  considered  as  good  and  helpful  during 
the  implementation  of  the  project/activities.  The  reporting  requirements  reflect  a  more 
balanced  approach  between  financial  justification  on  the  one  hand  and  evaluation  of 
actual results and potential impacts of the projects on the other. 

EU added value 

  Most  EU  Member  States  participated  in  the  DPIP  either  as  a  lead  organisation  or  a 

partner. 

  The  EU  added  value  of  the  programme  lay  in  the  fact  that  the  DPIP  enabled 
organisations  based  in  various  Member  States  to  make  a  difference  in  the  area  of  drug 
demand  reduction.  The  partnerships  formed  within  the  projects  helped  promote 
transnational  learning  and  improve  the  visibility  of  the  initiatives  carried  out,  and  also 
helped  identify  information  in  the  area  of  prevention  and  fight  against  drugs.  The 
partnerships  also  improved  cross-border  cooperation,  contributed  to  the  exchange  and 
dissemination of best practices and information, developed mutual trust among Member 
States  and  supported  the  creation  of  practical  tools  and  solutions  to  address  global 
challenges. However, the extent of the improvement and contribution, i.e. the EU added 
value in terms of impacts could not yet be measured.  

Key recommendations 

  Better  define  the  priorities:  the  Commission  should  invest  more  time  and  human 
resources in the process of setting priorities in order to ensure that the priorities can be 
adequately achieved within an earmarked budget. 

  Realistic  assessments  of  project  risks  and  better  risk  mitigation  strategies:  the 
Commission should better monitor risks throughout the project duration, for example by 

24 

 
 
asking for brief progress reports that identify any potential risks as they arise during the 
implementation of the project. 

 

Increase  focus  on  assessment  of  impacts  at  all  levels  and  not  merely  on  outputs,  as 
regards  monitoring  and  evaluation.  This  goes  hand  in  hand  with  the  need  to  collect, 
analyse  and  use  objective  and  independent  evidence  in  order  to  perform  project  and 
programme evaluations. 

  Explore  ways  of  enhancing  the  uptake  of  project  outputs,  results  and  best  practices  by 
other  organisations,  including  in  other  Member  States,  including  more  resources  for 
translations, communication and dissemination.  

  Sharpen the programme's intervention logic; further to the scope of the programme and 
its general and specific objectives and priorities, types of action and types of intervention 
and  implementing  measures,  the  Commission  will  seek  to  sharpen  the  intervention 
logic60,  and  make  the  relations  between  the  rationale,  objectives,  inputs,  outputs, 
beneficiaries,  expected  outcomes  and  impacts  more  articulate,  precise  and  concrete  in 
any future continuation of the programme. 

60 See for instance Figure 1-1 Intervention logic of the Drug Prevention and Information Programme (2007-2013)Figure 1-1 
Intervention logic of the Drug Prevention and Information Programme (2007-2013) 

25