Transcript supply reduction and m arket dynamics

Timeliness of data collection
and interpretation of
emerging trends
Dirk J. Korf
EMCDDA, Scientific Committee
17-18 November 2008
KEY QUESTIONS
• With what means can the standard
reporting cycle be complemented?
• Which alternative possibilities are there
to obtain more recent data?
• How can we access additional
qualitative information?
• How could an exchange of information
be organised?
STANDARD REPORTING CYCLE I
• All indicators have limitations
– Under-representation of relevant groups (heavy
users in general population; school drop outs in
ESPAD)
– Trends in data might predominantly reflect policy
(drug law offences, seizures, treatment demand)
• Annual data collection not always
realistic
– Costs: General Population Surveys
STANDARD REPORTING CYCLE II
• Last passenger delays the flight
– Positive and/or negative reinforcement?
– Stick to time schedule or wait till last one is in?
• Focus on most relevant data
– Less = better
– Required completeness -> less motivation, more
frustration
• Balance innovation with consolidation of
standard procedures
– Respect big differences between member states
(experienced vs. newcomers)
MEANS TO COMPLEMENT
• Triangulation -> fuller picture and might
help to fill gaps and explain
contradictions
– Parallel trends in data do not automatically prove trends in
use (i.e. arrests and treatment)
• Contrast analysis: compare countries
with diverging trends
• Add: information to explain trends
– Policy changes, new treatment
– Changes in lifestyle, attitudes, etc.
– BE SELECTIVE: DON’T ASK TOO MUCH EVERY YEAR
OBTAINING MORE RECENT DATA
• Focus on LYP, LMP and incidence
• Selection of countries: trend setters,
early observers
• Or: selection of cities / regions
– Antenna like projects in various cities
• Focus on specific groups
– High prevalence groups, for example
young adults, party visitors …
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
LAAG .................................................. HOOG
4
XTC
3
COCAÏNE
AMFETAMINE
2
Poly. (XTC)
1
Poly.
(COCAÏNE)
0
Poly.
(AMFETAMINE
)
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
LAAG .................................................. HOOG
4
LACHGAS
3
2
GHB
1
Ketam ine
0
PRESENTATIE RESULTATEN
Ton Nabben & Sanna Koet
Horizontal & vertical trends
• Vertical: Trend followers become part of
developments initiated by trendsetters;
drugs spread over other scenes.
• Horizontal: New developments spread
from centre of innovation to other parts of
the country
Vertical: Drug use and scene in NL
Vertical: Dynamics in drug use & scene
Horizontal: Amphetamine
• Horizontal and some
vertical spread.
• Rural vs. urban.
• Most popular in
Underground en
Hardcore scene.
• Prevention:
– Revival of appreciation
speed to reduce alcohol
effects
– Users under estimate
risks
Ecstasy & Cocaine
GHB & Ketamine
ACCESS TO ADDITIONAL
QUALITATIVE INFO
• Ideally through Focal Points
– Ideological conflicts (qualitative is not scientific; vs.
ethno-epidemiology); separate schools; isolated
FPs
• Networks of qualitative researchers
• Qualitative journals
– New Journals (Cultural Criminology)
– Students at EMCDDA
ORGANISING EXCHANGE
OF INFORMATION
• Facilitate working groups, seminars with
grass root researchers (maybe not
through FPs?)
• Be topical, focus on specific issues, be
selective: only real experts (vs. all
member states should be represented)