natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the Czech Republic, a probation and mediation service wasestablished in 2000, with juveniles and drug users as keytargets.
Tšehhi Vabariigisloodi 2000. aastal kriminaalhooldus- ja lepitusteenistus, endatavatest uuteststruktuuridest tegelemaks uimastitarbijatega, kes on toime uimastitarbijad.
It recorded 29291 cases in 2002, 765 of whichinvolved drugrelated offences.
2002. aastal registrteenistus 29 291 juhtu, millest 765 olid uimastitega seotud karistamist edasi ja kaasavad isikuid, kes tavaliselt ei osale
)See Table 11 OL: Socio-health services targeting drug users in EU prisons in 2002.
) oopa Liidu vanglates 2002. aastal.
Selectedissue 1Evaluation of ‘national drugs strategies’ in Europe
Valikteema 1Euroopa siseriiklike narkoennetuse strateegiate hindamine
Approaches to measuring nationaldrugsstrategies usually provide information about the impacts of a strategyor provide answers as to why an activity does or does notachieve its objectives.
Erinevad lähenemised siseriiklikenarkoennetuse strateegiate hindamisele vastust küsimusele, miks projektid saavutavad või eisaavuta oma eesmärke.
Although a monitoring system is oftenable to provide information on the evolution of the differentaspects of the drug phenomenon and on the measuresimplemented to combat it, it is generally unable todetermine whether or not those changes are the directconsequences of the implemented measures (causalityimputation).
Kuigi seiresüsteem suudab tihtianda infot narkomaania kui nähtuse erinevate aspektidearengusuundade ja nendega võitlemiseks kasutatudmeetmete kohta, ei ole selle abil võimalik otsustada, kasrakendatud meetmed olid või ei olnud saavutatudmuutuste otsesteks põhjustajateks (põhjuslikud seosed).
Many countries have recently adopted a ‘national drugsstrategy’ (146).
Mitmed riigid on hiljuti vastu võtnud “siseriiklikudnarkoennetuse strateegiad”(146).
This section focuses on plans for theevaluation of these strategies, which for the first timehasbeen enabled on a European scale by workundertakenthis year by the national focal points.Thisworkhas helped to clarify references to evaluationin‘national drugs strategies’, which are not always self-explanatory or clear-cut.
Käesolev peatükkkeskendub kõnealuste strateegiate hindamiskavadele,mille abil on esmakordselt võimalik riikide teabekeskustestänavu tehtud töö põhjal anda ülevaade terve Euroopakohta. See töö on aidanud täpsustada siseriiklikenarkoennetuse strateegiate hindamise aluseid, sest tihti eiole need esitatud konkreetselt ning üheselt mõistetavalt.
The issue of causality and other complex scientific questionsare addressed through evaluation (Table 5), which means a‘judgment on the value of a public intervention’ (in this casea national drugs strategy) ‘with references to criteria’(relevance, efficiency, impact) ‘and explicit standards’(quality, quantity) (definition extracted from European Commission, 1999), and which, generally, requires indepth studies to be carried out.
Põhjuslikkusele ja teistele keerulistele teaduslikeleküsimustele püütakse anda hinnang (tabel 5), mistähendab “otsustamist avaliku sekkumise tulemuste üle(antud juhul siseriiklike narkoennetuse strateegiate üle)kindlate kriteeriumide (asjakohasus, majanduslikefektiivsus, mõju) ja määratud standardite (kvaliteet,kvantiteet) põhjal” (Euroopa Komisjoni materjalidelpõhinev definitsioon, 1999) ning mis üldiselt eeldabsüvauuringute tegemist.
The constitutive element ofevaluation is therefore twofold: (1) proof, based on goodquality data, i.e. collected through scientific methodologies(monitoring and indepth studies), of the existence of
Seetõttu on hinnangu andmiseksvajalikud kaks olulist elementi: 1) tõendid, mis põhinevadkvaliteetsel teabel, st on kogutud teaduslikke meetodeid
Measures to evaluate European ‘national drugs strategies’can be divided into three main activities: (1) monitoring,meaning the routine collection of data regarding the drugphenomenon as well as responses and interventions;(2)evaluation of implementation, i.e. assessment of thevalue added by the implementation of initiatives and by theallocation of resources envisaged in the drugs strategy; and(3) evaluation of impact (generally called assessment ofeffectiveness), a judgment on the outcomes (short-termeffects) and the impacts (147) (long-term effects) on the drugsphenomenon brought about (at least in part) as a result of
Euroopa siseriiklike narkoennetuse strateegiate hindaminetoetub kolmele põhitegevusele: 1) seire ehk narkomaaniakui nähtusega ning sekkumiste ja kasutatud meetmetegaseotud teabe regulaarne kogumine; 2) rakendamisehindamine ehk narkoennetuse strateegias ette nähtudalgatuste rakendamise ning vahendite kasutamisekasulikkuse määramine; 3) mõju hindamine (enamastinimetatud tõhususe hindamiseks) ehk siseriiklikunarkoennetuse strateegia (või vähemalt osaliselt sellel
Figure 23:Levels of evaluation in ‘national drugs strategies’ the national drugs strategy (Figure 23) (148
Joonis 23: Hindamistasemed siseriiklikes narkoennetuse strateegiates põhineva töö) tulemuste (lühiajaline toime) ja mõju(147
Contextual factors
Kontekstist sõltuvad tegurid
Interventions
Sekkumised
Drugs phenomenon
Uimastid kui nähtus
The main distinction between countries in terms of theapproach taken to evaluate national drugs strategies isbetween countries that monitor the drugs strategy and thosethat envisage an evaluation of the implementation and/orimpact.
Oma lähenemises siseriiklike narkoennetuse strateegiatehindamisele jagunevad riigid kaheks: ühed tegelevadnarkoennetuse strateegiate seirega, teised näevad etterakendamise ja/või mõju hindamist.
Monitoring What are the inputsand outputs?
Seire Mis on sisendid
Evaluation of implementation Have the planned actions been implementedand what is the value of their results?
Rakendamise hindamine Kas kavandatud meetmed on rakendatud ja milline on nende
Evaluation of impact Have the measuresproduced an impacton the drugs situation?
Mõju hindamine Kas meetmed avaldasid uimastiprobleemide
The concepts of monitoring and evaluation are not alwaysclearly distinguished in national drugs strategies, so it isimportant to be aware of the difference.
Mõiste “narkoennetuse strateegia“ hõlmab ka kõiki strateegiasttulenevaid samaväärseid tegevuskavu.
The term ‘drugs strategy’ also includes any equivalent action plans arisingfrom the strategy.
Tihti pole seire ja hindamise kontseptsioon siseriiklikesnarkoennetuse strateegiates selgelt eristatud ja seetõttu onoluline pidada meeles nende erinevust.
)A comprehensive evaluation would include also the assessment of efficiency, which broadly measures the cost at which the outcomes and impacts were achieved.
)Määratlus, 1. peatükk, lk 17.)Lihtsuse mõttes tähendab väljend “mõju hinnang” siin nii tulemuste kui mõju hinnangut, mis on kaks täiesti erinevat teadustoimingut, midaasjakohases kirjanduses käsitletakse tavaliselt eraldi.)Kokkuvõttev hinnang sisaldab ka majandusliku efektiivsuse hinnangut, milles võetakse üldjoontes kokku tulemuste ja mõju saavutamiseks tehtudkulutused.
However, data on this aspect were available only for Spain (see below).
Andmed kõnealuse aspekti kohta esitas siiski ainult Hispaania (vt allpool).
Table 5: Evaluation terms commonly used (evaluation methods for action of a structural nature)
Tabel 5: Üldkasutatavad hindamiskriteeriumid (hindamismeetodid struktuurse iseloomuga tegevuste jaoks)
Evaluation of an intervention in its totality
Hinnang sekkumistegevusele tervikuna
Consistency
P itika valdkondadele
Cost-effectiveness analysis
Majandusliku efektiivsuse
Evaluation tool for making a judgment in terms of efficiency
T gast ning sekkumise tulemustele omistatud
Cost–benefit analysis
T g otseste adr g teiste adressaatide jaoks
Source:European Commission, 1999.
Allikad: Euroopa Komisjon, 1999.
causality between the implementation of a policy and achange in the phenomenon under study; and (2) a valuejudgment of the impact achieved, which eventually has tobe linked to decision-making.
2) ollimiseks (Narkootikumide ja Narkomaania Euroopa Tgu riiklikud aruanded).
In practice, the concept of ‘evaluation’ is inextricably linkedwith ‘monitoring’, but, although some documents treat thetwo terms as synonymous, it should be borne in mind thatmonitoring is not the same as evaluation (althoughmonitoring is certainly part of it).
Praktikas on hindamine seirega lahutamatult seotud ning r e ei rakendatakse siseriiklikku narkoennetuse strateegiat ole sama, mis hindamine (kuigi on kindlasti selle osa).
national report, p.67).
(Leedu riiklik aruanne, lk 35).
In Lithuania, the implementation of the national drugs strategy(2004–08) will be carried out ‘according to the financialpossibilities of the country’ (Lithuanian national report,p.35).
Eesti uus siseriikliknarkoennetuse strateegia “sisaldab nii seiret kui hindamist aruanne, lk 86).
Thenational drugs strategy is ‘monitored’, ‘tracked’ and‘performance managed’ but not ‘evaluated’ (United Kingdom national report, p.106).
Tegeldakse siseriikliku narkoennetuse strateegia “seire”,
Onereason for this may be the considerable cost of externalevaluations (Czech Republic national report, p.114).
Norra uue narko- ja alkoholismiennetuse tegevuskavaga
In Finland and Sweden (Finnish national report, p.113;Swedish national report, pp.75–76), the national drugsstrategies place greater emphasis on monitoring theimplementation of the strategy than on the evaluation of itsimpact.
Soome ja Rootsi (Soome riiklik aruanne, lk 113; Rootsiriiklik aruanne, lk 75–76) siseriiklikud narkoennetusestrateegiad panevad suurrakendamise seir
In Sweden, the drugs coordinator, appointed in2002, has the responsibility of ensuring that the nationalaction plan is followed up (in annual reports).
(Norra riiklik aruanne, lk 65). Tšehhi Vabariigi siseriiklikus koordokumenteerimise eest (aastaaruannetes).
In Finland,too, research is planned to lay down some benchmarks bywhich the drug administration will monitor and evaluate itsactivities. Luxembourg’s national focal point reports that theoutput of the 2000–04 plan will be evaluated in 2005 inorder to elaborate further and future strategies(Luxembourg national report, p.94).
Soomes regulaarselt, sellest hoolimata ei ole strateegiale siiani mille kohaselt narkoennetusega tegelevad ametkonnadgiriikliku teabekeskuse andmetel hakatakse 2000.–2004.aastate kava tulemusi hindama 2005. aastal, et oleksgiriiklik aruanne, lk 94).
In Germany, the 2002drug and addiction action plan for the first time includes anattempt to set operational targets and criteria that can beused to determine the success or failure of interventions(German national report, p.101), while in Italy, the three-
Saksamaa 2002. aasta uimastite jada ed kulutused (Tšehhi Vabariigi riiklik aruanne, lk 114). Taani uus tegevuskava
Selected issue 1: Evaluation of ‘national drugs strategies’ in Europe year programme 2002–04 promotes evaluation in the fieldof prevention and social reintegration.
Valikteema 1: Euroopa siseriiklike narkoennetuse strateegiate hindamine uimastiennetuse strateegia 2001–2008: kogemustest lk 101). Itaalia kolme aasta programm aastateks reintegratsiooni valdkonnas.
An internal process of evaluation is also reported.
gid on saavutatud, kuid ei hinnataortugali
Among the countries that present an evaluation either of theimplementation of the national drugs strategy or of itseffectiveness are Greece, Spain, France, Ireland and Portugal (Table6).
Kreeka, Hispaania, Prantsusmaa, Iirimaa ja Portugal(tabel 6) kuuluvad nende riikide hulka, mis annavadhinnangu oma siseriiklike narkoennetuse strateegiate eeka kaupa” (Portugali riiklik aruanne, lk 65).
The Spanish and Greek strategies referto the ‘evaluation of effectiveness’.
Andmeid on kasisehindamise kohta.
In Spain, the nine-yearnational strategy calls for the evaluation of its overall andsectorial implementation at mid-term, in 2003, and in2008.
strateegiates viidatakse “tulemuslikkuse hindamisele”.
In France, Ireland and Portugal the national drugs
vahehindamine sektorite kaupa 2003. ja 2008. aastal.
In those Member States that do not have, sensu stricto, a‘national drugs strategy’, overall evaluation has attractedlittle interest in recent years, even in countries with a cultureof evaluation of specific drugs projects.
seda isegi riikides, kus on olemas konkreetsete narkoennetuspr Hollandis, kus uuringud, seire ning hindamine on alati pakutava teenuse kvaliteeti ja kvantiteeti.
For example, in the Netherlands, where research, monitoring and evaluationare traditionally part of drug policy, a new (2002)‘governmental steering strategy’ aims to provide guidanceon performance for public administrative bodies (includingthose involved with healthcare and drugs) (Dutch nationalreport, pp.83–84).
Samal viisil viitab Kreeka uus narkoennetuse tegevuskava aastast 2002 juhtimisstrateegias anda toimimisjuhiseid riiklikele oopa eeka riiklik aruanne, lk 110).
And in Austria, although drug-relatedmonitoring has improved substantially in recent years,neither provincial plans (other than preliminary evaluationsin Vorarlberg) nor the overall drug policy have been thesubject of evaluation (Austrian national report, p.63).
Prantsusmaa, Iirimaa ja Portugali riiklikud strateegiad asutustele) (Hollandi riiklik aruanne, lk 83–84).
Inthe remaining countries (Cyprus, Latvia, Malta and Slovakia, as well as Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey), there isinsufficient information to report on evaluation of nationaldrugs strategies (where they exist at all).
Ning ka Austrias, kus uimastiseire on viimastel aastatel oluliseltparanenud, pole antud hinnanguid piirkondlikelekavadele (v.a esialgsed hinnangud Vorarlbergi liidumaal)
The guide to the evaluation of EU activities (European Commission, 2003) identifies four main reasons forcarrying out evaluations: (1) to contribute to the design of strategies call for an overall (149) and sectorial evaluation, insome cases of effectiveness (Irish national report).
(149 lk hinnangud puudutavad pigem rakendamise taset kui teave ei ole piisav hindamisest.
In France, the evaluation of the threeyear action plan1999–2002 (carried out by the Observatoire Français des Drogues et des Toxicomanies (OFDT) from 2000 to 2003)included both an ‘overall evaluation’ and the evaluation offive priority programmes (150).
(1999–2002) hindamine (mille viis aastatel 2000–2003Observatoire Français des Drogues et d es Toxicomanies, OFDT) sisaldas nii koondhinnangut kui
The evaluation stopped shortof judging the impact of measures taken on the overall drugsituation.
Hindamine: eel-, vahe- ja järelhindamine hinnangut viiele prioriteetsele programmile(piir
In Ireland, the national drugsstrategy calls for ‘an independent evaluation on theeffectiveness of the overall framework by end of 2004’
Iirimaa siseriiklik narkoennetuse strateegia aidata kaasa sekkumiste
Table 6: Characteristics of some national strategies’ evaluations
Tabel 6: Mõnede riikide strateegiate hinnangute iseloomulikud jooned
‘National drugs strategy’
Siseriiklik narkoennetuse strateegia
Scope of the evaluation
Hinnangu ulatus
Aim of the evaluation
Hinnangu eesmärk
Evaluation terms
Hinnatav ajavahemik
Ireland
Puudub
Overall and specific
Hispaania
Implementation
Siseriiklik narkoennetuse strateegia 2000–2008
National drugs strategy, 2001–08: ‘Building on experience’
2002 kolmeks aastaks: 1999–2001
Overall and specific
Siseriiklik narkoennetuse strateegia 2001–2008:
The national strategy for the fight against drugs 1999; action plan, 2000–04
2004 tegevuskava 2000–2004
(149 (150 for the prevention of addiction, (4) outreach experiments by specialised facilities to provide general care for people exhibiting addictive behaviour and (5) riskreduction programmes in the 18th district of Paris.
))1) T3) regionaalpoliitilised narkomaania ennetuspr ogrammid Pariisi 18. rajoonis.
Figure 24:Evaluation as a cyclical process
Joonis 24: Hindamine kui perioodiline protsess
Evaluation(ex post — ex ante) interventions; (2) to improve the quality of the intervention;(3) to aid the efficient allocation of resources (i.e.efficiency); and (4) to report on the achievements of theintervention (i.e. accountability).
(efektiivsus) ning 4) anda aru sekkumise tulemuste kohta(aruandekohustus).
The same guide describesthree stages of evaluation: ex ante, mid-term and ex post.
Nimetatud juhised kirjeldavad kaelhindamine.
‘National drugsstrategy’(1)
Eelhindamine tehakse enne rakendamist, eeldatavalt eelhindamine)
Monitoring Information flows
“Siseriiklikud narkoennetuse strateegiad”(1)
Implementation Delivery of thestrategy on theground, setand checkperformanceindicators
Rakendamine Strateegia rajamine, tulemuslikkuse
Ex anteevaluation is carried out before the implementation,supposedly to assess the need for action or to establish abaseline.
Vahehindamist on Hispaania, Iirimaa ja Portugali riiklikesnarkoennetuse strateegiates kirjeldatud kui vahendit
The term ‘drugs strategy’ also includes any equivalent action plans arisingfrom the strategy.
Vahehindamist on kasutatud ka nendes riikides, kes allestegelevad oma seir organisatsiooni ja uuritavat teemat ning omavadjuur ganisatsioonile varju heita. Seevastu
have ready access to data sources. However, they mighttend to justify failures to meet objectives and are less willingto make observations or suggest changes that could be seenas a threat to the organisation.
orteabeallikatele juur d a b alida on niisiis kahe variandi vahel: kas par giga koguda teavet tulevastesekkumiste jaoks.
Moreover,external evaluators are usually costly.
Sama planeerivad 2008. aastal teha ka Hispaania, Iirimaa ja Portugal.
In the field of drugs, the aim of the evaluation process isalways to improve the quality of existing interventions andthe design of new ones.
Sellisest meetmest teatab em objektiivsus ja asjatundlikkus hindamisel.
Actors in the evaluation
aastaks ka Hispaanias, Iirimaal ja Portugalis.
Most Member States seem to favour a mixed approach: in Ireland, the mid-term evaluation of the national drugsstrategy will be carried out in 2005 by external consultantsunder the guidance of a cross-sectorial steering group; in Portugal, internal staff and external consultants will run theevaluation of the 2000–04 action plan; and in France,external evaluators and internal staff of the OFDT havecarried out different aspects of the evaluation on the threeyear action plan.
Iirimaal viivad siseriikliku narkoennetuse strateegia parandada olemasolevate sekkumiste kvaliteeti kui aidata ortugalisannavad aastate 2000–2004 tegevuskavale hinnangu gneb kohe uus, siis eel- jaelhindamine liidetakse.
In Spain, the mid-term evaluation (2004)is currently being undertaken by the staff of the nationalplan on drugs (PNSD), whereas the Greek plan demandsan external evaluation.
Nii tekib perioodiline protsess, tegevuskava hindamise eri aspektidega.
One objective ofthe policy (No11) aims to reduce tobacco and alcohol use,achieve a society free from illicit drugs and doping andreduce the harmful effects of excessive gambling.
Hispaaniastegelevad praegu (2004) vahehindamisega narkovastase strateegia loomisel (joonis24).
In all countries in which an evaluation process is carriedout, the national coordination agency appears to be theauthority responsible for organising and delivering the
or ja suhtlusmehhanismidest, nad tunnevad paremini
Selected issue 1: Evaluation of ‘national drugs strategies’ in Europe
Valikteema 1: Euroopa siseriiklike narkoennetuse strateegiate hindamine uuringutesse.
Constraints on evaluation evaluation process: the Interministerial Mission (MILDT) in France, the PNSD in Spain, the Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction (IDT) in Portugal, the Drugs Directorate in Ireland, the Drug Coordinator Office in Sweden and, asannounced in the 2001 Belgian ‘strategy’, the General Drug Cell in Belgium, when it comes into operation.
(MILDT) Prantsusmaal, PNSD Hispaanias, uimastiinstituut(IDT) Portugalis, narkoennetuse direktoraat Iirimaal,narkoennetuse koordinatsioonikeskus Rootsis ning Belgia
Targets and indicators
Hindamise piirangud
Within the scientific community it is acknowledged that it isvery difficult to determine whether or not a drug policy iseffective.
Teadlased on tunnistanud, et uimastipoliitika tulemuslikkustdid ja spetsialistid hoiatavad hakkav narkoennetuskeskus Belgias.
Experts and professionals warn of the difficultiesposed by impact evaluation of a public policy: ‘layers ofcomplexity’ and a ‘multitude of cause and effect linkages’must be considered.
Hindamiseks vajalikuteabe ja andmete hankimise ning vahel ka otseselthindamise eest vastutavad uimastiseire keskused, mis on eid“ kui ka gu
Thus, evaluation in the fieldof drug intervention must be carefully thought out and itsresults must be interpreted with caution.
Narkootikumide ja Narkomaania Euroopa Triikide teabekeskustena.
Both‘general’ and ‘operational’ objectives could benefit from thesetting out of specific aims.
Nii rahvusvahelised kui siseriiklikud narkoennetuse teguritest kui poliitilisest sekkumisest.
Most countries that have faced thedrug problem for many decades are now able (or willing)to put in place, through monitoring systems, a basis formeasuring the drugs phenomenon and the effects of theirefforts.
Peale selle takistab uimastitarbimise ebaseaduslikkus suur peab uimastivastaste sekkumismeetmete hindamine olema seadmine.
Thus, drugs policies can be considered to be moreaccountable than ever before, which itself is an importantachievement.
Esimesed on olulised siseriikliku narkoennetuse ettevaatusega.
Experts and professionals warn that, in order to evaluate astrategy scientifically, the objectives must be spelled out in aclear, unambiguous, measurable way, distinguishing, butlinking, ‘general’ and ‘operational objectives’.
Eksperdid ja spetsialistid hoiatavad, et kui strateegiat el antakse uimastipr eldus.
Indeed,‘operational objectives’ must be seen as a way of firmingup ‘general objectives’.
Enamik riike, kus uimastitega seotud pr strateegia.
Generally, countries that take a more structured approachto drug policy, i.e. which have a written, objective-driven,overall ‘national drugs strategy’, a central coordinationmechanism with, ultimately, a national coordinator and asolid monitoring system, report the existence of a moresophisticated evaluation process (Figure 25). It seems that
V seirendamisele annavad nad hinnangusiseriikliku narkoennetuse strateegia rakendamisele, milleall peetakse silmas teaduslikku uuringut kogu strateegia sellest, et eelarve ja kulutused kuuluvad riigi
Although budgets and costs are a concernfor public administrations, in the field of drugs (as identifiedin the last annual report, EMCDDA, 2003b) there is ageneral lack of knowledge of the global cost of publicinterventions in this area.
(nagu kinnitab eelmine Euroopa Narkootikumide ja Narkomaania Seirekeskuse aastaaruanne, 2003b) gistatud, terviklik
Annual report 2004: the state of the drugs problem in the European Union and Norway
Aastaaruanne 2004: Narkoprobleemide olukord Euroopa Liidus ja Norras siseriiklik narkoennetuse strateegia, keskne
Figure 25:Main characteristics of a structured drug policy approach
Joonis 25: Uimastipoliitikale strukturpeamised jooned hindamismenetlused (joonis25).
This hypothesis should, of course, be confirmed byfurther research.
Paistab, et liigendatumagiks rahalise ja
written, objective driven, timed, overall
Narkoennetuse strateegia narkoennetuse strateegia par kirjalik, ajaliselt piiritletud, terviklik uuringutes.
Central coordination
Keskne koordineerimine andmed
Financial and political commitment feasible indicators, data systematised, quality controlled power of decision,accountability,leadership, access toinformation, financialautonomy
Rahalise ja poliitilise kohustuse teabele, rahaline kvaliteet kontrollitud
The spread of a culture of monitoring and assessment hasadded to the knowledge of the drugs problem in the EU,and consequently the scene is set for more informeddecisions.
Plaaniline hindamine aitab kaasa sekkumistegevuste kavandamisele ja elevalve- ja hindamiskultuuri levimine on aidanudkaasa teadmiste lisandumisele uimastitega seotudprobleemide kohta Eurlangetada teadlikumaid otsuseid.
Evaluation is now firmly recognised in currentdrugs strategies as a critical element of accountability,performance and financial prudence.
Hindamine onpraegustes narkoennetuse strateegiates kindlalt juurdunudkui vastutuse, tulemuslikkuse ja heaperemehelikurahakasutuse otsustav osa.