race and the criminal justice system europe 1ab · criminal justice system ... 2008. however, the...

RaceandTheEuropeanCriminalJusticeSystemT3E(UK),2010

ThepositionofvisibleminoritydrugusersintheEuropeancriminaljusticesystem

The Connections project has received funding from the European Commission under the Public Health Programme 2003-2008. However, the sole responsibility for the project lies with the author and the European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

RaceandTheEuropeanCriminalJusticeSystem 1

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe would like to thank the European Commission for making this study possible by supporting it.

Our acknowledgements are also due to Dr Alex Stevens and Ms Cinzia Brentari, the joint Co-ordinators of the CONNECTIONS Project, in which T3E (UK) have been Associate Partners. In relation to this study, Cinzia has provided valuable contacts in Hungary and Slovenia.

Special thanks go to our partners in the different countries: M Eric ALLOUCHE from T3E Denmark; Dr Mary PIPER, Senior Public Health Consultant, Offender Health, Department of Health, England for in principle support, and to our partners in Camden, Ealing, Havering and Lewisham DAATS, London; M Jean-Pierre DEMANGE Director of SATO Picardie and President of T3E and Mme Saadia YAKOUB; Mr Attila JUHASZ, Provincial Governor of Prisons, Eger; Professor Umberto NIZZOLI, T3E Correspondent in Italy, and following his retirement, Dr Roberto BOSI and Dr Antonio CHIARENZA, from AUSL, SERT Reggio Emilia; Dr Luis PATRICIO, T3E Correspondent, Portugal; Mme Anca CIUCA and Mr Silviu ERENESCU from the Foundation for Democratic Change, Rumania; and Mme Olga PERHAVC, Prison Governor, Ljubljana, Slovenia, as well as Andrej Kastelic, Centre for Treatment of Addiction, University Psychiatric Hospital, Ljubljana. Their support was invaluable in various ways – negotiating with the authorities for access to interviews, organising our programme and timetables, facilitating interpretation services, accompanying us when they could and otherwise arranging our transportation for the interviews, and for being generous with their time and support in this pioneering effort.

Finally our thanks are due to the interviewees, front-line staff and in particular the clients who agreed to be part of this study, and gave of their time. Their views and experiences form the heart of this study.

Neville Adams

Kazim Khan


2

Tableofcontents

1. Introduction and Background p. 3 2. Report Structure p. 3 3. Race and Racism: A Contextual

Framework p. 4

4. European Anti-Discriminatory

Legislative Context p. 6

5. Visible Minorities in the European

Union p.12

6. EU Drugs Strategy p.17

7. Methodology p.19

8. Results & Findings p.20

9. Conclusions and Recommendations p.41

10.Sources p.44

11.Appendix 1 – Action Points p.45


3

Connections: Race and the Criminal Justice System – Europe

1. Introduction and Background

This is the multi-country report for Europe outlining some of the key issues pertaining to visible minorities and drug use in the criminal justice system. The report is written on the basis of research undertaken by T3E (UK) under the overall auspices of the Connections Project.

Connections Project

The Connections Project is an EC funded pan-European endeavour involving various agencies, some academic, in several countries. The overall aim of the project is, as the title of the CONNECTIONS Project suggets, to promote “integrated responses to drugs and infections across European criminal justice systems” through the discrete activities of the participating organisations with the ultimate objective of contributing to the improvement of these services by relevant policy and practice developments. T3E (UK) is looking specifically at the drug and infectious diseases’ services in the criminal justice systems in seven European countries, and evaluating how well these respond to the needs of visible minorities. This has involved both primary and secondary source research in, and on, the participating countries. (See paragraph 77 for the detail of the methodology). Countries involved are the Denmark, England, France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia. Despite strenuous efforts to fit in nine countries, this proved difficult within the time frame and because of the political sensitivity of the subject.

2. Report Structure

The report is structured so as to ensure that the findings of the primary source research, involving interviews with staff and service users, can be situated within the relevant European wide and national overlapping anti-discriminatory, drug policy and criminal justice contexts. The report structure is as follows:


4

• Race and racism, a contextual framework • European anti-discriminatory legislative context • Overview of the normative potential of the EC anti-discriminatory

legislation • Visible minorities in Europe and their treatment • European drug policies and legislation • Survey findings • Conclusion

Elements two to five are taken directly from the various European level coordinating bodies on equality and drug policies. Specific country reports can be made available to partners and action points for change1 discussed on a consultancy basis.

3. Race and Racism: A Contextual Framework

We use the terms ‘race’ and ‘racism’ to connote the outcome of a process of social construction which has a long oppressive history and which still continues. It is not invested with any biological certainty, as in ‘there are many biological races’, other than in acknowledging that racism involves the misappropriation of certain biological characteristics, or assumed characteristics, to support the false argument and practice that social differences between differing populations are natural, whether by way of genetics and/or culture. In this process of social construction visible minorities are never involved. It is something that is done to them. Visible minorities are constantly placed in a position of being ‘it’ or ‘they’ or ‘them’, and never, it appears ‘we’. They are, in various ways, removed from the human register.

There are two broad, overlapping processes at work, neither of which involves the positive valuing of visibility. The first is the oppressive, often exploitative, acknowledging of visibility that manifests itself in direct racist discriminatory practices. The second involves the overlooking of visibility either through deliberate or unconscious neglect, the bases of indirect discrimination, or though the displacement of visibility into culture and/or religion. In some cases in the EC, deliberate neglect is justified by recourse to higher universal principles, like class, or assumed equality and liberty under, and solidarity, around, the nation state. This gives rise to a new form of colour-blind racism, often turning on the misassumption that ‘we treat everyone the same’.

These ways of seeing, thinking about, and doing, to, visible minorities, erupts in the arguments and declarations about who belongs in the differing nations

1 See Appendix 1.


5

comprising the EC, and who is entitled to public resources, and often as in the infamous case of L’Oreal’s Bleu, Blanc Rouge, these arguments and subsequent decisions are colour coded. Invariably these discourses therefore become embedded in the public sector, particularly the welfare and criminal justice systems. The current treatment of the Roma in France, Italy and parts of Eastern Europe is testament to this.

The public sector, then, in which drug services are located, plays, or should play, a major role in the pursuit of social justice. This would involve a substantive inclusion of racial minorities where that inclusion is based on a generic notion of citizenship, i.e. what are the principles and processes of inclusion, involvement and participation. This is not about a notion of national citizenship, with its division, often a racist one, between ‘citizens’ and ‘foreigners’.

The public sector’s role in relation to racial justice is fourfold:

• Its services should be able to identify and meet the needs of the most

marginalised: if they are not then there is something fundamentally wrong with those services

• The public sector has an enormous employment remit with, in many instances, public sector organisations being the largest employers in any one locale. Its employment practices should be of the highest anti-discriminatory standards.

• Service users and local communities, particularly marginalised communities, should be actively involved in the development and provision of those services.

• Service providers should acknowledge that race equality is about ensuring that visible minorities have a determinant say in the allocation and re-allocation of public resources which have crucial material affect over their life chances

Race equality, or the position of racial minorities in society, should be addressed explicitly from the outset as a ‘mainstream’ issue, and, not as a separate issue, or as an afterthought. The closest would be to describe it as the explicit normalization of equality for minorities: The key operational principle is to work with, and through, racial differences, many of them unjust social creations, but without eliminating ‘difference’.

It is extremely important that organisations and the employees therein know and are trained in the requirements of the anti-discrimination legislation in their respective countries. This is but a start. Ensuring that the obligations and rights are embedded in the every aspect of society and organisations depends on the extent to which equality capacity can be developed, nurtured and used in the achievement of this. Equality capacity refers to the potential that exists for achieving equality-focused change in society. It includes the resources,


6

legislative framework, networks, organisational capabilities, communities’ abilities, and similar change attributes, which can be drawn together in solidaristic, participative, collective action to realise race equality bound changes.

4. European Anti-discriminatory Legislative Context

4.1 The EU’s anti-discriminatory context, as set out by the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), has six inter-linked dimensions. These are as follows:

Anti-racism in the EU

Despite the fact that the European Union has for many years focused on preventing discrimination on the grounds of nationality and sex, it only began to take the fight against racism seriously relatively recently. Europe has a responsibility both to the people living within its borders as well as internationally to take a leading role in promoting fundamental rights and a Europe free from racism.

Protecting against discrimination

In 1997, Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty (now Article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU) gave the European Union a legal base on which to develop ‘appropriate measures to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation’. Using these powers the European Union adopted the Race Equality Directive 2000/43/EC in June 2000 (and later that year the Employment Equality Directive 2000/78/EC).

The Race Equality Directive gives protection against discrimination in employment and access to a range of good and services, including social protection, health, social security and education. It puts forward a number of important definitions including direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation. Other significant aspects of the Directive are that it allows for positive action measures, the sharing of the burden of proof and the establishment of equality bodies. It also obliges member states to encourage dialogue with non-governmental organisations that have a legitimate interest in contributing to the fight against discrimination on grounds of racial and ethnic origin.

Preventing and combating racism

Article 29 of the Treaty on the European Union also includes a reference to preventing and combating racism. On 20 April 2007, the Council of EU Justice Ministers reached a political agreement on a Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia. In addition, the European Union has competence in other


7

policy areas that either directly or indirectly impact on the fight against racism, including social inclusion, migration and asylum, and education.

Raising awareness

The European Union is also involved in an array of activities to support anti-discrimination legislation, including awareness raising through, among others, the ‘For Diversity. Against Discrimination’ information campaign to combat discrimination that was in place from 2003 until 2006. PROGRESS, the EU’s programme for employment and social solidarity, which started in 2007 and will run until 2013, provides financial support to activities with a strong European dimension to ensure an EU added value, including networks such as ENAR.

Ensuring fundamental rights

Adopted in 2000, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights summarises rights previously recognised in a range of sources into one comprehensive document, increasing their visibility and accessibility. In its treatment of the right to non-discrimination, the Charter is progressive in its scope and language, as it prohibits ‘any discrimination on any grounds such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation’ (Article 21). With the new EU ‘Lisbon Treaty’, the Charter is now legally binding, which is an important step forward in protecting EU citizens’ fundamental rights.

In 1997 the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) was established. It was replaced by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) in March 2007. FRA is built on the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). The objective of the Agency is to provide the EU institutions and member states with assistance and expertise relating to fundamental rights in order to support them when they take measures to fully respect fundamental rights.

What challenges does anti-racism face in the 21st century?

The European Union has played a key role in the development of a common anti-discrimination agenda and has put in place sophisticated anti-discrimination policies. The EU equality directives have greatly advanced the fight against discrimination in Europe. However racism and discrimination continue to be persistently experienced by ethnic and religious minorities across the European Union; in employment, education, health, housing, access to goods and services, as well as participation in cultural and civic life. It is also essential that the equality directives are properly transposed and implemented in all EU member states.


8

Another major challenge is the social and economic inclusion of ethnic and religious minorities. These minorities are amongst the groups most vulnerable to poverty and social exclusion. Exclusion from employment, health, housing and education continue to undermine the everyday experiences of millions of ethnic minorities across Europe.

Europe continues to experience problems of hate crimes and violence perpetrated against religious and ethnic minorities. The manifestations of racial violence are difficult to quantify as official data collection on racist violence in many EU countries is non-existent or requires further development.

Legal migration and integration of third country nationals is now the subject of an important debate across the European Union. Most EU member states are experiencing migratory phenomena and are confronted with integration challenges. Across Europe many migrants are socially excluded and subject to various forms of discrimination with regard to access to rights, employment, education, and social services. Many of the policy approaches to date have recognised that anti-racism and the fight against discrimination are important elements of an integration strategy, but it is now essential to recognise that anti-discrimination is both a modus operandi of, and a pre-requisite for, successful integration. (ENAR, 2008)

4.2 The Employment and Social Affairs Directorate of the EC provides the following guidance on the anti-discriminatory legislation:

“It is important for you to know your rights and obligations as defined by the Racial Equality Directive and the Employment Equality Directive, and the means available for you to enforce them. Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam states that the European Union “is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, which are common to the Member States.” In 1997, the Member States reinforced the Union’s capacity for upholding these principles by introducing Article 13, which conferred on the Community the competence to “take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.” The insertion of Article 13 was directly followed by the Commission’s proposal of an “anti-discrimination package”, which included the Community Action Program to Combat Discrimination and both the Racial Equality Directive and the Employment Equality Directive. These Directives, adopted in 2000, prohibit discrimination, harassment and victimisation in employment and training on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. They also prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnic origin, in employment and areas beyond such as education, social security and social advantages, including housing and healthcare, and access to goods and services. While many European countries already had legislation against discrimination, the new laws aim to establish a consistent set of rights and obligations across the Union. This implies that victims of discrimination, harassment or victimisation can now take action, and those involved in discriminatory practices can be held accountable, although how this is done will vary from country to country.”


9

4.3 In particular the Race Equality Directive, 2000/43/EC, contains the following key elements:

Implements the principle of equal treatment between people irrespective of

racial or ethnic origin. Gives protection against discrimination in employment and training,

education, social protection (including social security and healthcare), social advantages, membership and involvement in organisations of workers and employers and access to goods and services, including housing.

Contains definitions of direct and indirect discrimination and harassment and prohibits the instruction to discriminate and victimisation.

Allows for positive action measures to be taken, in order to ensure full equality in practice.

Gives victims of discrimination a right to make a complaint through a judicial or administrative procedure, associated with appropriate penalties for those who discriminate.

Allows for limited exceptions to the principle of equal treatment, for example in cases where a difference in treatment on the ground of race or ethnic origin constitutes a genuine occupational requirement.

Shares the burden of proof between the complainant and the respondent in civil and administrative cases, so that once an alleged victim establishes facts from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination, it is for the respondent to prove that there has been no breach of the equal treatment principle.

Provides for the establishment in each Member State of an organisation to promote equal treatment and provide independent assistance to victims of racial discrimination.

4.4 The EC Directive on Race establishes a minimum legislative baseline on racial discrimination, which constituent members have to implement either through enacting new laws or amending existing anti-discriminatory legislation. This is a minimum requirement: it can and should be exceeded. For example the UK’s Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 makes the pursuit of race equality a mandatory, positive duty for all public sector organisations.

4.5 The diagram below (Figure 1) provides a graphical summary of the main provisions. The three main responsibility elements of the Directive coincide with those of the race equality action points. The action points are pro-actively structured with the aim of pursuing the normative potential inherent in the Directive. The Directive provides a common baseline and language upon and with which to tackle the problem of race discrimination. It is thus not good enough to describe the approach to race equality in terms of “we treat everyone the same”.


10

Figure 1 EC Race Discrimination Directive


11

4.6 Supporting the implementation of this and the other equality directives are a series of fact sheets aimed at ensuring that organisations understand and act on their responsibilities, and individuals can exercise their rights. These fact sheets overlap with the key areas contained in the T3E (UK)’s’s Race Equality Action points. (see appendix 1)

The degree to which these directives are implemented in the various member states is summarised below in a recent report.

“Despite the deadlines for transposition of the Directives having already passed, laws are still being amended and adopted in a number of Member States. Some of these laws relate to age and disability discrimination where a few Member States had informed the European Commission that they were going to take advantage of the possibility to extend the deadline for transposition in relation to these two grounds to the end of 2006.” (Directorate General Employment, Social Affairs and Health, 2006)

The report goes on as follows as follows:

“Anti-discrimination law in most Member States goes beyond the requirements of European law in some way, whether with regard to the grounds of discrimination that are prohibited by law, the scope of protection or the competencies of the specialised equality body. However, there are still considerable gaps in many Member States. Whereas prior to transposition of the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) and Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC) many EU Member States provided protection against discrimination through a patchwork of – largely declaratory –equality clauses in a series of legislative instruments, most now have adopted more visible specific anti-discrimination legislation. Most Member States have transposed the Directives through civil and labour law; a minority also through criminal law. Most Member States have incorporated all the grounds of discrimination included in the two Directives in their national anti-discrimination legislation. Most Member States have chosen not to define the grounds of discrimination in their implementing legislation. A considerable number of Member States chose not to restrict new anti-discrimination laws to the grounds found within the Directives. In addition to expanding the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination, various countries made this a non-exhaustive list by adding a phrase such as ‘or any other circumstance.’ The great majority of Member States have introduced legislation that expressly prohibits direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and instruction to discriminate. Moreover, in most cases, the definitions provided in national legislation are very similar to the definitions found in the Directives. Many states have essentially reproduced the text of the Directives on these core concepts. Implementation of the Employment Equality Directive’s provision on reasonable accommodation is patchy. Where national provisions exist, these vary considerably between those which provide a basic duty, with little elaboration on how this should be implemented, to states with more extensive guidance on its practical application. On the whole, protection against discrimination on any of the Directives’ grounds in the Member States is not conditional on nationality, citizenship or residence status. In the majority of Member States, both natural and legal persons are protected against discrimination. There is more variation in national rules on who is to be held liable for discrimination, particularly when it occurs in the workplace (Directorate General Employment, Social Affairs and Health, 2006)


12

4.7 In summary the anti-discrimination legislation is being transposed in different EU countries as shown below.

Anti-discrimination Acts which more or less reproduce the Directives

Cyprus (2 Acts), Greece (1 Act for both), Europe (2 decrees)

and Luxembourg (2 Acts) Anti-discrimination Acts covering more

grounds than the Directives Austria, Belgium, Finland,

Germany, Ireland, Hungary, Netherlands, Slovakia

Combination of multi-ground anti-discrimination Acts and single-ground Acts

Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden

Several pieces of single-ground anti-discrimination legislation

United Kingdom

Combination of specific legislation and employment act

Slovenia, Latvia, Malta

Combination of specific legislation, labour and penal codes, some administrative law

Europe, Lithuania, Portugal

Directives transposed in much wider general Act

Spain

So far only transposed in employment law Estonia, Czech Republic, Poland

Table 1 Transposing Legislation

5. Visible Minorities in the European Union

According to the European Network Auainst Racism (ENAR) the following encapsulates the overall picture with regard to race in the EU.

“Racism today is a complex and multi-faceted phenomenon. The face of racism has evolved over the last decades and has taken many different forms, including through ethnic and religious discrimination. “Directly” racist discourse appears to be slowly disappearing (due to the impact of legislation and the evolution of prevailing attitudes) and this discourse tends to be restricted to the language of extremist groups. However new subtle and insidious forms of discrimination are widespread throughout society. From being a prejudice based on the belief that race is the primary factor defining human traits and abilities, racism has evolved to include less overt prejudicial behaviour, which can be more difficult to recognise, yet is often more severe due to its pervasive and persistent nature.

Contained within the traditional notion of racism is a collection of pseudo-theories and beliefs establishing the existence of different races within the human species and arranging them hierarchically by ethnic group. This is above all a doctrine which advocates the dominance of one (so-called superior) “race” over others and the subordination of the interests of individuals to those of their alleged origin. However, in the context of how the world is evolving with an unprecedented


13

mixing of different populations, racism is gradually veering towards a series of individual and collective attitudes and behaviours which involve reducing “otherness” to what is seen as a specific and at the same time “inferior” or adverse identity characteristic. This is then used as the basis for legitimising the attempt to marginalise and exclude “others” and the community to which they belong. Racism thus means reducing individuals to one of their (alleged) characteristics and also involves applying a particular stereotype to a whole group. Individuals are discriminated against on the grounds of their origin or skin colour and also because of what is perceived to be their “culture”, beliefs or identity, regardless of their nationality.

Manifestations of racism

In the field of employment, ethnic minorities face discrimination at all levels, ranging from difficulties in the recognition of foreign qualifications to outright exploitation and abuse, including sexual and physical, in some cases. Minorities remain disproportionately affected by unemployment and employment under precarious and/or dangerous conditions. They tend to be employed in jobs that do not reflect their qualifications and to face a glass ceiling effect with regard to progression within the job.

Furthermore, the link between unemployment, poverty and lower quality housing disproportionately affects ethnic minorities. Other problems include homelessness and the ghettoisation of ethnic minorities, most notably the Roma, as well as difficulties in accessing the private rental market. Migrants in various countries face restrictions on the purchase of properties whilst others, especially seasonal workers and rejected asylum seekers, risk destitution.

In education, racial discrimination manifested itself in the allocation of places within schools, a lower quality of education in areas more heavily populated by ethnic minorities, and cases of racially motivated incidents including verbal harassment, bullying and abuse. The result was that ethnic minorities were more likely to have lower levels of academic attainment.

The health status of ethnic minorities was also worse than that of majority populations, as barriers including language and lack of information excluded ethnic minorities from receiving quality healthcare.

Evidence compiled from various European countries indicates the prevalence of the use of ethnic profiling by police, as well as other forms of discrimination in policing. Racist crimes often go unreported, and in cases where they are reported, they are frequently inadequately investigated. Moreover, rising extremism and the increase in cases of racial violence and hate crime remain of serious concern throughout the European Union. Amongst the victims are migrants, Roma


14

communities and religious minorities, most notably the Muslim and Jewish communities.

Crosscutting issues

A number of crosscutting issues must be highlighted. First, it is important to recognise that issues intersect. For example, access to employment impacts on access to healthcare, including where the type of care available is linked to social insurance contributions. All national “shadow” reports2 also recognise the phenomenon of multiple discrimination. Another crosscutting issue is the need for accurate, accessible and effective data collection. Data collection is an important tool to help identify issues of racism, measure the extent of the problem and develop appropriate, effective solutions.

Communities vulnerable to racism

Communities in Europe that are vulnerable to racism include amongst others Roma, Sinti and Travellers; migrants, including EU nationals and third country nationals, particularly undocumented migrants and asylum seekers; the Jewish community and the Muslim community. Long-standing ethnic minority communities and “national minorities” as well as more recent migrants experience racism and discrimination. Issues for EU citizens in the context of intra-EU migration are also emerging.” (ENAR, 2008)

Because race and ethnicity are recorded differently in each member country, arriving at a figure for the visible minority population as a whole in the EU is problematical. Nevertheless, based on current monitoring information the estimated level is put at about 6% across the EU. In terms of the major sites of visible minority populations, Spain has the highest percentage of immigrants in the EU. Its 4.48 million immigrants make up 9.9% of the population, ahead of France, with 9.6%, Germany (8.9%) and the UK (8.1%).”

In terms of the socio-economic position of visible minorities, a recent EU report summarises the situation as follows.

“Assessing the relative position of those belonging to ethnic minorities in different parts of the EU in terms of their access to education, employment, decent housing and a similar standard of living as the population at large is problematic. Although there is piecemeal evidence that many of the people concerned suffer

2 By this we mean the reports written by ENAR member organisations. ENAR is a network of European NGOs working to combat racism in all EU member states and represents more than 700 NGOs throughout the European Union (www.enar-eu.org/).


15

significant disadvantage in all these areas, data are lacking to formulate anything close to a complete and reliable picture of the actual situation. Nor for the reasons already noted is it easy to rectify this lack of data. Accordingly, any assessment of their position has to rely either on indirect means of compiling relevant information or on special surveys and case studies targeted specifically on this particular issue. Although no comparable data exist as such across the EU on the access of ethnic minorities to employment or education, data from the Labour Force Survey, which distinguish people by nationality might be broadly indicative of their relative position. These show that employment rates of people living in the EU who do not have EU nationality are significantly lower than for those who do, especially in the case for women. At the same time, unemployment in 2005 averaged 8% for those with EU nationality and 17% for those with non-EU nationality. The lower average level of educational attainment among non-EU nationals explains some of the difference in employment rates, but rates are lower for non-EU nationals at each broad level of education, even among those with university degrees or the equivalent. Equally, considerably fewer non-EU nationals with this level of qualification tend to work in jobs which are in line with their qualifications (i.e. as managers or professionals) and significantly more work in elementary jobs. These indicative findings are confirmed by more direct evidence from Member States which do compile data by ethnicity, such as Denmark (where the rate of participation in the labour force of immigrants from countries outside the EU averaged only 53% in 2004 as opposed to over 78% for Danes) or the Netherlands (where the average unemployment rate of ethnic minorities was 16% in 2004 as against 6% for people of Dutch origin). Evidence from studies carried out on the position of children from ethnic minority groups across the EU indicates that their educational attainment levels tend to be significantly lower and their dropout rates higher than the majority population. It also indicates that segregation of such children in special schools, or, more generally, in other schools, is marked. It is, therefore, not just a feature of the treatment of Roma children. Privatisation of public housing in many EU Member States in recent years and the reduction or removal of housing subsidies has reduced the public housing available for those with low income. This has hit migrant families in particular, not only directly but indirectly as a result of increased pressure at the lower end of the rental market. As a result, these families can end up paying more in rent than others and at the same time, a significantly proportion is likely live in sub-standard housing (as surveys have found in Germany, Austria, Spain and Belgium).”(FRA, 2007)


16

The situation for visible minorities has not changed that much from that found in T3E (UK)’s 1995-96 race equality based study of the drug services provisions and key contextual areas in four EU countries: Race, Drugs Europe, Vol. 1, Les Cahiers T3E NO, 7. Most of the recommendations made there are still viable today. The Action Points that are contained in Appendix 1 of this report have their genesis in that earlier report. Nor has the situation changed much since the Groupe Pompidou of the Council of Europe produced a report on drugs and ethnic minorities in the same year3, which takes a detailed look at the position of these minorities across Member Countries and makes recommendations for good practice in working with drug users from minority populations.

In 2000, EMCDDA commissioned a report on “Mapping Available Information on Social Exclusion and Drugs, Focusing on “Minorities” Across 15 EU Member States’ (EMCDDA / EPI / CT.99.EP.04/ 2000). The Report found that “all the social indices of disadvantage and deprivation, such as poor educational facilities, lack of amenities, unemployment, lack of adequate housing and/or homelessness, poverty, health inequalities are significantly and causally related to problematic drug misuse.”(p. 67). Criminality, as criminilogical studies have shown, is also coterminous with social deprivation.

In terms of drug use amongst visible minority communities and related drug services provisions in the EU, a relatively recent major three volume study conducted by the EMCDDA concluded the following:

♦ That drug use amongst visible minority communities is

unacknowledged, ignored, unrecognised, or hidden by many of those involved in the planning and development of drug services

♦ That because drug use is hidden, prevalence assessments are difficult ♦ That, therefore, relying solely on treatment and criminal justice statistics

distorts the picture because drug services are not accessing these communities properly and because criminal justice services appear to target unfairly these communities

♦ That patterns of drug use amongst these population groups are not that much different from those of socially excluded white groups

♦ That, however, there are certain special factors affecting drug use by some visible minority communities relating to the process of immigration, drug use before immigration, and, more pertinently, the disadvantaged socio-economic position societies place them in

3 Council of Europe (1997), Van De Wijngaart, G F &. Leenders, F; Working Group on Drugs and Minorities, Consultants Report; Strasbourg, P-PG/Minorities (98) 1


17

♦ That the lack of consensus about the patterns of drug use is the result of the lack of research into this area by policy makers: a gap which means that myths and stereotypes still inform many decision makers in the drugs field

♦ That a lack of access to social and health services, primarily, in this case, because drug services are not proactively geared up to meeting the needs of these communities, is a significant contributor to the social exclusion experienced. (EMCDDA 2002)

Position of the Roma

As mentioned previously, the position of the Roma in France, Italy and some Eastern European countries in particular registers a considerable degree of social exclusion. A summary of their position is provided by a recent UK national newspaper article.

“The Roma, the EU’s biggest ethnic minority, scattered across a dozen countries, are Europe’s pariah people. Thanks to Nicolas Sarkozy, they are a lot less forgotten and ignored than they were a fortnight ago.

The outrage stirred by France’s policy of getting EU citizens to sign papers, give them 300 euros, have police escort them on to planes back to Bucharest and Sofia, and call them volunteers has shone a spotlight on the fate of the estimated 12 million Roma in the EU, the vast majority of them in the Balkans and central Europe.

In the democratic revolutions that released that region from Soviet domination 20 years ago, the Roma were the big losers. For most people, democracy brought new liberties, higher living standards and integration with the west. It also brought populist Gypsy-bashing, scapegoating, ghettoes, forced sterilisation, and the sending of their offspring to schools for children with learning difficulties.

With Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic all in the EU and all home to large Roma populations, the Gypsies are now EU citizens, too, and have the right to go wherever they like.

Now eastern Europe’s crisis is morphing into western Europe’s Gypsy dilemma, increasing the chances of something being done about it. France is hardly alone. The Austrians, the Danes, the Swedes and the Italians have been expelling European Roma immigrants. The Germans are preparing to kick out 12,000.

But much more quietly, not seeking to make political capital the way Sarkozy, his Rottweiler Europe minister, Pierre Lellouche, and others have been successfully stealing votes from the extreme right and improving their ratings by explicitly blaming the Roma for prostitution, begging, child trafficking, pickpocketing and violence.


18

It is inconceivable that in modern Europe, mainstream politicians could make similar blanket accusations against blacks, Arabs, or Jews.

The Roma are fair game – politically disorganised and lacking a strong lobby, needing a US civil rights-style movement of the 1950s and 1960s to better their lot, they are an easy target. This dispute has put the issue on Europe’s political agenda as never before. Pots of money will be thrown at the problem. Integration and education programmes, conferences, seminars, activism, NGO campaigns will acquire new vigour.” (Guardian, 16th Sept., 2010)

6. EU Drugs Strategy

The following is the current framework for the EU Drugs’ Strategy

“The EU Drugs Strategy deals with a complex phenomenon that requires a long-term approach to bring about change. It is centred on the two key dimensions of drug policy, drug demand reduction and drug supply reduction, complemented by three cross-cutting themes, coordination, international cooperation and information, research and evaluation. To support the Strategy, the Commission proposes a new Action Plan on Drugs (2009-2012), which builds on the existing framework but also on the lessons learned over the past four years. With due regard to national legislation, it identifies the following priorities:

7. Improving coordination, cooperation and raising public awareness 8. Coordination and cooperation in the drug field can be strengthened at

both European and national level so that drug policies are relevant to professionals and civil society, while at the same time enabling these structures to provide feedback to inform policy.

Reducing the demand for drugs We need to further improve the effectiveness of measures to reduce drug use and its consequences by improving the coverage, quality and effectiveness of demand reduction interventions, i.e. prevention, treat-ment and harm reduction services. This includes particular attention for vulnerable groups and the prevention of poly-drug use (combined use of illicit and licit substances, including alcohol, volatile substances and tobacco).

Reducing the supply of drugs We need more effective law enforcement at EU level to counter drug production and trafficking, making full use of the capacities of Europol and other EU structures. Actions should be based on an intelligence-led approach that systematically prioritises the suppliers causing the most harm or posing the most serious threat. The work currently being


19

undertaken to strengthen the links and coherence between the data used by the various EU JHA entities will be necessary to support this. More coordinated operations via regional security platforms should be supported. The new platforms should be set up without overlapping and be compatible with existing structures.

Improving international cooperation

The effectiveness of EU, the world’s major donor in the struggle for sustainable solutions to the global drug problem, would benefit greatly from better coordination of national and Community policies. We are ready to intensify our commitment in the field of international cooperation to this end, while reaffirming that effective drug control must be based on the concept of a ‘balanced approach’ — emphasizing that illicit drug cultivation is an important component of drug supply.

Improving understanding of the problem We need to increase our knowledge of all aspects of drug use through more and better coordinated research and data, including data on drug-related crime and on the way the illicit drug supply market works.” (EU, 2009)

7. Methodology

The methodology for this project is structured along three information source levels all of which aim to provide data about what we refer to as the journey of the drug user through the criminal justice system. Shadowing the drug user profile, because it is so inter-linked, are relevant questions pertaining to her/his status vis-à-vis infectious diseases. This is illustrated graphically below.


20

Figure 2 Drug User’s Journey

At each of the key points there is the expectation that there is the potential for relevant drug and infectious diseases service interventions.

The first is a set of comprehensive survey questionnaires, aimed, respectively, at employees and service users in the criminal justice systems in the participating countries. Whilst there has been some accommodation of particular national requirements, especially over the apparently vexed question of race and/or ethnicity, the central core variables have remained the same over the range of countries allowing therefore for comparisons to be made. In undertaking this reliance has been made on key catalytic contacts in the relevant countries being able to act as a critical conduit to both employees and service users in the relevant criminal justice systems. For the most part this has involved staff working in and around various prisons and the inmates therein. In one or two country case, where access to prisons has not been possible, information has had to be obtained through various NGOs and other statutory agencies working with non-custodial drug offenders or ex-custodial offenders. To that extent use has been made of both purposive and snowballing methods to generate relevant samples.


21

The second aspect has involved talking to relevant organisations and people who have a stake in the area of drug services and the criminal justice system, but who may not necessarily operate in the direct service interface with drug users.

The third level has been to cast as wide a net as possible to garner all the relevant secondary sources for each country and Europe wide, especially as these relate to the kernel issue of race, drugs and the criminal justice system.

The research thus has an evaluative focus, which attempts to provide a description of the position, and service responses to the needs, of visible minority drug users in the criminal justice systems. The results, therefore, have been interpreted and situated within the overlapping contexts sketched out above so that evaluative pointers can be discerned which relate to the position of visible minorities in Europe, their experiences in the criminal justice system in the constituent countries, and the normative potential that exists for remedial action. By the latter is meant the potential that exists for enacting anti-discriminatory action within the fullest interpretive scope of both the domestic and European wide equality legislation.

8. Results and Findings

Two tranches of interviews were undertaken: one with employees working within the criminal justice system, and one with service users in the criminal justice system, many of whom also used drugs. Both questionnaires had a similar structure so that comparisons could be made between employees interpretations of their service interventions and the service users’ experiences of those. This included a section on the participants’ identity background, in line with the EC’s anti-discriminatory legislation, their respective target population groups, and its guidelines on equality monitoring.

Overall across the seven listed countries, forty-two staff (42), and ninety-five (95) service users were interviewed.

Background

Eight countries participated. The results presented below relate to seven of these. The UK’s results are still being collated and analysed. This will have been done by the end of November 2010.

1. For employees the breakdown is as follows:


22

Employees % Italy 26.8% Denmark 22.0% France 17.1% Slovenia 14.6% Hungary 7.3% Romania 7.3% Portugal 4.8%

Table 2 Employees and Countries

2. For service users the breakdown is as follows:

Service Users % Hungary 19% France 15.8% Romania 15.8% Slovenia 14.7% Denmark 12.6% Portugal 13.7% Italy 8.4% TOTAL 100%

Table 3 Service Users and Countries Identity

Identity

Race

a. Only 7% of the employees interviewed were from the surely a visible minority, a low proportion, which appears to be a constant feature of the agencies involved, and which is also confirmed by the estimate of visible minority workers in participating agencies, given by those interviewed.

Race Percent Non-response 2.4% White 90.5% Visible Minority 7.1% TOTAL OBS. 100%

Table 4 Race Employees


23

b. However, 54% of the service users interviewed were visible minorities. In part the large number reflects the discretion the various contacts in the different countries had in selecting those for interview. On the other hand it also is testament to the disproportionate numbers of visible minorities in the differing criminal justice systems, particularly in the penal elements. This point was mentioned by a considerable number of those interviewed amongst clients and employees,

Race Percent Visible Minority 53.7% White 46.3%

Table 5 Race Service Users

Gender

a. Of the employees interviewed, 55% were female, whilst only 24% of the service users were the same. While these figure do not actually represent the actual percentages in terms of gender across the countries, and merely those we interviewed, our overall impression is that there are generally more women employees in criminal justice based treatment services than there are men.4

Gen der

54.8%

40.5%

4.8%

Femal e

Male

Non-re sponse

Oth er

Don't Kno w (DK)

Figure 3 Gender Employees

4 In UK the Fawcett Society carries out regular evaluations of women in the criminal justice system and how best to meet their needs (See: Women and the criminal justice system: The facts (2006); as well as “Women in prison: Thematic report by HM Inspectorate of Prisons, July (2010)


24

Gen de r

74.7%

24.2%

1.1%

Male

Female

Non-res ponse

Other

DK

Figure 4 Gender Service Users

Disability

a. On the other hand 2% of the employees described themselves as disabled,

Disability Percent No 92.9% Yes 2.4% Non-response 2.4% DK 2.4% TOTAL OBS. 100% Table 6 Disability Employees

b. Whilst 14% of service users said the same.

D i sa bilit y

13.7%

83.2%

3.2%

Yes

No

DK

Figure 5 Disability Service Users

c. A race breakdown reveals a difference insofar as 23% of the white service users described themselves as ‘disabled’ compared with 6% of the visible minority. This may be due to the fact that many established


25

drug users (mostly White) tend to categorise their drug use as a kind of disability, while the trend of being long established has not yet established itself among visible minorities.

Race/Disability Yes No DK TOTAL Visible Minority 5.9% 90.2% 3.9% 100% White 22.7% 75.0% 2.3% 100% TOTAL 13.7% 83.2% 3.2% 100%

Table 7 Race and Disability Service Users

Age

a. For employees the largest tranche were to be found in the 36-45 age band

Age Percent 36-45 33.3% 26-35 26.2% 46-55 19.0% 56-65 16.7% 16-25 2.4% Non-response 2.4% 65+ 0.0% TOTAL OBS. 100%

Table 8 Age Employees

b. For service users nearly 50% were in the 26-35 age group.

Age

48.4%

30.5%

17.9%

3.2%

26-35

16-25

36-45

46-55

56-65

over 6 5

DK

Figure 6 Age Service Users


26

c. A race breakdown reveals a difference in which 45% of the visible minority service users were in the 16-25 age band, whilst for white the largest grouping was in the 26-35 age band.

Race/Age 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 over 65 DK TOTAL Visible Minority 45.1% 39.2% 13.7% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% White 13.6% 59.1% 22.7% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% TOTAL 30.5% 48.4% 17.9% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Table 9 Race and Age Service Users

Religion

a. For employees the breakdown is,

Religion Percent Non-response 2.4% Christian 57.1% no religion 33.3% Muslim 7.1% TOTAL OBS. 100% Table 10 Religion Employees

b. Whilst for service users it is as follows:

Religion Percent Christian 45.3% No religion 28.4% Muslim 25.3% Other 1.1% TOTAL OBS. 100%

Table 11 Religion Service Users

c. A race breakdown of service users reveals that 67% of those interviewed described themselves as ‘Muslim’

Race/Religion Non-response Christian no religion Muslim TOTAL Non-response 100% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% White 0.0% 60.5% 36.8% 2.6% 100% Visible Minority 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 66.7% 100%


27

TOTAL 2.4% 57.1% 33.3% 7.1% 100% Table 12 Race and Religion Service Users

. Employment Profile of Employees Interviewed

a. Of the employees interviewed, all the visible minority ones were in

frontline service jobs, whilst white employees were spread over the differing levels: a breakdown in keeping with the numbers and position of visible minority employees in the criminal justice system across Europe.

Race1/Job level

Non-response

Front-line worker

first line manager

middle manager

senior manager

managerial level but without managerial responsibilities, e.g. policy officer

other DK TOTAL

White 0.0% 57.9% 5.3% 7.9% 21.1% 0.0% 7.9% 0.0% 100% Visible Minority 0.0% 100% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

TOTAL 2.4% 59.5% 4.8% 7.1% 19.1% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 100% Table 13 Race and Job Level

b. Of the employees in the criminal justice system interviewed their assessment of their role broke down as follows:

Role Percent Non-response 2.4% Social interventions 35.7% Medical 28.6% Psycho-therapeutic interventions 23.8% Educational 9.5% TOTAL OBS. 100%

Table 14 Employee Role

c. A country breakdown reveals that this pattern is very similar across the participating nations.


28

Participating Nations

Country/Role Non-response

Social interventions Medical Psycho-therapeutic

interventions Educational TOTAL

Italy 0.0% 18.2% 36.4% 27.3% 18.2% 100% Denmark 0.0% 66.7% 11.1% 22.2% 0.0% 100% France 0.0% 28.6% 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% 100% Slovenia 0.0% 33.3% 50.0% 16.7% 0.0% 100% Hungary 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100% Romania 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100% Portugal 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50% 50.0% 100% TOTAL 2.4% 35.7% 28.6% 23.8% 9.5% 100%

Table 15 Countries and Roles

d. An analysis of the length of time spent in the job they occupied when interviewed reveals that visible minority workers were relevant newcomers to their posts compared with white employees.

Race/job length of time

Non-response

less than one year

1-5 years

6-10 years

over 10 years DK TOTAL

White 0.0% 10.5% 42.1% 13.2% 34.2% 0.0% 100% Visible Minority 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% TOTAL 2.4% 11.9% 42.9% 11.9% 31.0% 0.0% 100%

Table 16 Race and Length of Time in Job

e. In terms of the type of organisation in which they worked, over 50% worked in a criminal justice agency.

Type of organi sa tion

52.4%

26.2%

9.5%

4.8% 4.8% 2.4%

cr i min a l just ice ag enc y

other pu blic secto r agency

other NGO agen cy

other p rivate sector agency

oth er

Non-r e sponse

DK Figure 7 Organisation Type

f. In terms of race visible minority workers appeared to be concentrated in

the criminal justice agencies.

Race/Type of organisation

Non-response

criminal justice agency

other public sector agency

other NGO agency

other private sector agency

other DK TOTAL

White 0.0% 52.6% 26.3% 10.5% 5.3% 5.3% 0.0% 100% Visible Minority 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%


29

TOTAL 2.4% 52.4% 26.2% 9.5% 4.8% 4.8% 0.0% 100% Table 17 Race and Organisation Type

Drug Use, Services, and Race

a. Almost all of those interviewed said that they worked with drug users in the criminal justice system. (95%)

b. All said that there were drugs available in the prisons they worked in,

with a breakdown of what was available shown below.

Drugs in Prison Percent DK 26.2% Prescription 21.4% Cannabis 21.4% Everything 21.4% Cannabis plus others 14.3% heroin 11.9% Amphetamines 9.5% Cocaine 7.1% Non-response 2.4% TOTAL OBS.

Table 18 Drugs in Prison

c. On the other hand only 55% of service users said that there were drug available in prison.


30

Drugs a vailabl e in prison

54.7%

16.8%

14.7%

7.4%

6.3%

Yes

No

DK

Non-r es p o nse

NA

Figure 8 Drugs in Prison Service Users

d. In terms of the service interventions they provide, a breakdown reveals the following:

Service Intervention Types No. cit. Percent Non-response 1 2.4% Social care and other therapeutic interventions 26 61.9% Coordination and management 10 23.8% Medical interventions 6 14.3% Reintegration and external relations 8 19.1% Assessment 6 14.3% Race and cultural specific interventions 2 4.8% Educational interventions 2 4.8% Advice and information 3 7.1% Psychological and psychiatric interventions 2 4.8% TOTAL OBS. 42

Table 19 Service Interventions

e. Because more than one element could be selected, the trends are revealed by the largest clusters. Social care and other therapeutic interventions seem to be the largest type of service activity.

f. Most also worked with drug users who had some form of infectious

disease.

work with infected drug users Percent Yes 71.4%


31

No 21.4% DK 7.1% TOTAL OBS. 100%

Table 20 Work with infectious diseases

Infectious disease in prison Percent Non-response 23.8% HIV and Hep A, B, or C 23.8% HIV 21.4% Hep C 16.7% Hep C and B 14.3% TB 9.5% TB and Hep and HIV 7.1% Hep A, B and/or C 4.8% Hep B 2.4% STD 2.4% TOTAL OBS.

Table 21 Types of Infectious Diseases

The number of responses is greater than the number of observations, due to multiple responses

The largest clusters are around those who said that drug users had either

HIV, or one of the hepatitis type diseases.

g. For drug users, 80% said that at the time of their last arrest that they were using drugs. A slightly larger number of visible minority service users said that that was the case.

Race/Using drugs Non-response Yes No DK TOTAL Visible Minority 0.0% 82.4% 17.7% 0.0% 100% White 2.3% 77.3% 20.5% 0.0% 100% TOTAL 1.1% 80.0% 19.0% 0.0% 100%

Table 22 Race and drug use

h. For service users a larger proportion of white participants said that they were arrested for a drug related offence. However, 43%


32

of visible minority participants said that they were arrested for some other type of activity. In the main this ‘other’ would appear to be related to their immigration status and right to live in that country.

Race/Reasons for arrest

Non-response

Drug use

Drug dealing

Illegal activity to finance drug use

Combination of the three Other DK TOTAL

Visible Minority 0.0% 3.9% 7.8% 35.3% 9.8% 43.1% 0.0% 100%

White 2.3% 4.6% 11.4% 38.6% 25.0% 15.9% 2.3% 100% TOTAL 1.1% 4.2% 9.5% 36.8% 16.8% 30.5% 1.1% 100%

Table 23 Race and arrest i. Moreover, more white participants said that at the time of arrest

that their drug use was problematic.

Race/Problem drug use Non-response Yes No DK TOTAL

Visible Minority 7.8% 54.9% 35.3% 2.0% 100% White 20.5% 61.4% 18.2% 0.0% 100% TOTAL 13.7% 57.9% 27.4% 1.1% 100%

Table 24 Race and problem drug use

j. However, whilst overall 56% of the service users said that they were assessed for drug use after arrest, 67% of the visible minority arrestees said that that had happened compared with 43% of white.

k. There seems to be a pattern emerging of visible minority people

being picked up for issues unrelated to drug use, and given the disproportionate number in the criminal justice system, that this betokens discriminatory targeting of those communities by law enforcement agencies. The question then is whether or not the higher percentage of visible minority arrestees being assessed for drug use is to do with punitive, rather than care, reasons.

Race/after arrest assessment Non-response Yes No DK TOTAL


Table 25 Race and post arrest assessment


33

Race/Infectious disease Non-response Yes No DK NA TOTAL

Visible Minority 0.0% 52.9% 47.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100% White 2.3% 31.8% 63.6% 2.3% 0.0% 100% TOTAL 1.1% 43.2% 54.7% 1.1% 0.0% 100%

Table 26 Race and ID Assessment l. A similar pattern emerges in relation to post arrest assessment

for infectious diseases. Is there a racist assumption that visible minority users are more likely to have these?

m. In reality only about 20% of both groups said that they had

such a disease.

Race/Have infectious disease Non-response Yes No DK TOTAL


Table 27 Race and ID Infection

n. The outcome of the arrest showed that visible minority arrestees were more likely to be remanded in custody than white arrestees.

Race/Outcome of arrest

Non-response Bail

Other non-custodial action

Remanded in custody

Sent for trial at criminal court

Sent for trial or hearing at other form of court

Other DK TOTAL

Visible Minority 0.0% 3.9% 2.0% 94.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 100%

White 2.3% 9.1% 20.5% 63.6% 9.1% 0.0% 4.6% 2.3% 100% TOTAL 1.1% 6.3% 10.5% 80.0% 4.2% 0.0% 3.2% 1.1% 100%

Table 28 Race and Arrest Outcome

o. This is a pattern which continues in the post-trial outcomes where 86% of visible minority and 71% of white arrestees are given a custodial sentence.

Race/Outcome of trial

Non-response

Found innocent and discharged

custodial sentence

non-custodial sentence

other DK TOTAL


34

Visible Minority 3.9% 2.0% 86.3% 7.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

White 6.8% 2.3% 70.5% 18.2% 0.0% 2.3% 100% TOTAL 5.3% 2.1% 79.0% 12.6% 0.0% 1.1% 100%

Table 29 Race and Trial Outcome

p. In terms of the trial outcome being coupled with a condition to attend drug services, white participants were more likely to have that than visible minority ones.

Race/Trial condition drug services Non-response Yes No DK NA TOTAL


Table 30 Race and Trial Drug Treatment Condition

q. A similar pattern emerges in relation to requiring treatment for infectious diseases.

Race/Trial condition infectious services Non-response Yes No DK NA TOTAL


Table 31 Race and Trial ID Treatment Condition

r. However, more visible minority inmates assessed the drug service they received as either being very good or good (36%), compared with 28% of white.

Race/Custodial services assessment

Non-response

Very good good bad very

bad did not attend DK NA TOTAL

Visible Minority 5.9% 15.7% 19.6% 11.8% 2.0% 7.8% 7.8% 29.4% 100% White 22.7% 11.4% 18.2% 15.9% 2.3% 6.8% 4.6% 18.2% 100% TOTAL 13.7% 13.7% 19.0% 13.7% 2.1% 7.4% 6.3% 24.2% 100%

Table 32 Race and Assessment Custodial Drug Services

s. Employees were also asked to rate the effectiveness of their services. Over 60% said that they were either very


35

effective or effective. However, visible minority employees were more likely to rate them as either average, or ineffective. (67%)

Race1/Effectiveness of service interventions

Non-response

Very effective effective average ineffective very

ineffective DK NA TOTAL

White 0.0% 23.7% 44.7% 26.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 100% Visible Minority 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100% TOTAL 2.4% 21.4% 40.5% 26.2% 2.4% 2.4% 4.8% 0.0% 100%

Table 33 Race and Service rating

Visible Minorities in the Criminal Justice System

a. Most employees said that they worked with visible minority service users in the criminal justice system.

Race/Work with visible minorities Non-response Yes no DK NA TOTAL

White 0.0% 94.7% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 100% Visible Minority 0.0% 100% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% TOTAL 2.4% 92.9% 0.0% 4.8% 0.0% 100%

Table 34 Race and Work with Visible Minorities

b. White employees were also more likely to say that they thought that visible minority people had special needs.

Race/Specific vm needs Non-response Yes No DK NA TOTAL

Non-response 100% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% White 0.0% 65.8% 15.8% 10.5% 7.9% 100% Visible Minority 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100% TOTAL 2.4% 61.9% 19.1% 9.5% 7.1% 100%

Table 35 Race and Specific Visible Minority Needs

c. Only 55% of the agencies said that they had visible minority employees. When asked to provide an estimate of the numbers involved, most came up with ‘one’ or ‘two’.


36

agency visible minority workers Percent

Yes 54.8% No 23.8% DK 19.0% Non-response 2.4% TOTAL OBS. 100%

Table 36 Visible Minority Workers in Agencies

d. Of those who did, the location of visible minority employees in the hierarchy is as shown below

Race/VM workers level in organisation

Non-response

Front-line worker

first line manager

middle manager

senior manager

managerial level but without managerial responsibilities, e.g. policy officer

other DK NA TOTAL

White 0.0% 34.2% 13.2% 7.9% 13.2% 0.0% 5.3% 13.2% 36.8% 100% Visible Minority 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

TOTAL 2.4% 35.7% 11.9% 7.1% 11.9% 4.8% 4.8% 11.9% 33.3% 100% Table 37 Race and Hierarchy Position

e. Over 60% of the employee participants involved said that

their agency had equality policies which were aimed at visible minorities.

Race/Agency equality policy Non-response Yes No DK TOTAL

White 0.0% 65.8% 23.7% 10.5% 100% Visible Minority 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100% TOTAL 2.4% 64.3% 23.8% 9.5% 100%

Table 38 Race and Agency Equality Policies

f. The types of equality initiatives are listed below.

Details of equality initiatives Percent Overall agency policy 47.6% changing services to meet needs of visible minorities 31.0%


37

engagement with visible minority communities 26.2% pursuing visible minority issues with partnership agencies 19.0% Other - such as ad hoc initiatives 19.0% employment of more visible minority workers 14.3% none of these 14.3% DK 11.9% policy on anti-discriminatory legislation implementation 9.5% pursuing visible minority issues in commissioning and procurement processes 9.5%

Non-response 7.1% TOTAL OBS.

Table 39 Types of Equality Interventions

The largest cluster is around the ‘overall agency policy’ category.

However, when asked for copies of the relevant policies, none of the agencies could produce those, and in many case what they meant by having an overall policy was the requirement to uphold their individual country’s anti-discriminatory laws.

Agency assessment in relation to VM Percent average 28.6% good 26.2% Very good 19.0% DK 14.3% very bad 4.8% NA 4.8% Non-response 2.4% bad 0.0% TOTAL OBS. 100%

Table 40 Agency Assessment of Work with Visible Minorities

Nevertheless, over 40% thought that their agency dealt with the needs of visible minority people well or very well.

Overall Assessment


38

a. Finally, employees were asked firstly what they saw as the main problems affecting visible minority drug users in the criminal justice system. Their responses were as follows:

VM problems 1 Percent Non-response 2.4% Cultural pathology 38.1% Exclusion and lack of opportunity 31.0% Immigration and citizen status 23.8% Cultural differences 14.3% Racism in society 11.9% dk 9.5% No specific problems 4.8% Response too long 2.4% TOTAL OBS.

Table 41 Visible Minority Drug Users Main Problems

b. The largest groupings are to be found around answers that dealt with ‘cultural difference’ or answers that indicated a negative evaluation of visible minority cultures and which have been categorised under ‘cultural pathology’. Very few mentioned racism as being a major problem.

They were then asked what they saw as the main solutions. Their

answers have been categorised as follows:

VM solutions Percent Non-response 2.4% Better social and health care interventions 45.2% Cultural interventions 28.6% None 14.3% Better educational interventions 9.5% Better immigration interventions 7.1% dk 7.1% Better government will and action 4.8% Repatriation 2.4%


39

TOTAL OBS. Table 42 Visible Minority Drug Users Main Solutions

a. Whilst acknowledging the need for better service

interventions, especially in the social care field, there was also a sizeable number who favoured interventions aimed at what they saw as remedial action in the cultures of visible minority people. There were a few as well who thought that repatriation might be the answer.

b. This has to be contrasted with service users who were

asked, generally, what they perceived to be the improvements they would like to see in the drug services in the criminal justice system. Bear in mind that 54% of these were visible minorities.

c. .What they show is an immediacy to do with their

needs and concomitant service improvements. None thought that their own cultural background was a problem. Rather some talk about ‘respect’, and the difficulties of being a ‘foreigner’.

Service Users’ Improvements No. cit. More and better non-medical services 56.0% Nothing to add 19.2% Better counselling and therapeutic interventions 8.0% Drug users to help themselves more 8.0% Less medical service interventions 4.0% Better justice and respect 3.2% Control supply of drugs in prison 1.6% TOTAL 100%

Table 43 Service Users’ Improvements


40

Service user improvements

2.9%

45.7%

22.9%

9.5%

8.6%

4.8%3.8% 1.9%

Non-r espo n se

More an d be tter n on-medic al ser vices

Nothing to ad d

Bette r c ou ns e llin g and therapeuti c interventi on s

Drug u sers to h el p t hemselves more

Less m ed ical s e r vice inter ven t ions

B ett e r j usti c e an d res pe ct

Contr ol su p pl y o f d rug s in pr iso n

???

Figure 9

9. Conclusion and Recommendations

This study indicates that there are emerging differences between the

treatment of visible minority drug users in the criminal justice system, and in the recruitment of visible minority people to the criminal justice system, as well as their interpretations of those experiences.

Visible minority people are over represented in the criminal justice systems

in Europe. This would appear to be the result of an admixture of discriminatory targeting of these population groups by law enforcement agencies[,] and harsher immigration rules and laws governing their right to stay in Europe. It is clear that many of those entering the criminal justice system appear to be doing so as a result of being accused of immigration law violations. On the other hand the treatment of the Roma in many countries[,] is blatantly racist, and this impacts on the outcomes of law enforcement agencies. Whilst many of these might be using drugs, they are less likely than white drug users to perceive this as a problem. Nevertheless, as many service employees attest, it is the first time that these visible minority people have the opportunity to access drug services. Once released from incarceration, or transferred to other agencies, as is the case with those who have questionable immigrations status, continuation of care appears to be a severe problem because visible minority service users either disappear, or, as is the case in Italy, might find themselves in holding camps pending deportation.


41

With the political regression in rights for visible minority people, ( rights which are supposed to be enshrined in EC law), especially those who comprise the bulk of the participants in this study, i.e. the Roma and north African immigrants, there is the potential for this situation to deteriorate further. In many of the participant countries there is the additional problematic dimension that the public sector in general is facing severe budgetary reductions, ones that are likely to impinge even more onerously on service traditionally placed on the margins, such as drug services.

The recommendations for change that emerge from this study cannot, therefore, be solely confined to the criminal justice systems. They are, instead, multi-layered and dimensional, taking in the contiguous and overlapping contexts that impinge on, and influence, the outcomes for visible minority drug users. The framework for the immediate service changes has already been achieved and is reflected in the previous work undertaken by T3E (UK). The relevance of these still stand and can easily be adapted to the needs of agencies in the criminal justice system, especially those in the drug services’ field. These are attached as appendix 1. Key to the achievement outcomes of the changes envisaged would be the following:

o Picking up on the needs visible minority drug users by relevant agencies

before they have the chance to be accessed by the criminal justice agencies, particularly law enforcement ones

o Diverting, therefore, visible minority drug users away from the likelihood of entering the criminal justice system, and instead into relevant social and health care agencies.

o These social and health care drug service agencies having the wherewithal, including political will, to tread the fine line between providing unconditional help and not being drawn into playing the roles of secondary agencies of the immigration, law enforcement and state security arms of national government.

However, there are three other complementary areas that need to be addressed. These are:

1. The thinking and practice of care agencies on visible minorities has to

become more explicit in relation to racism and the effects on those population groups, and less what appears to be an intuitive approach of ‘tolerance’ towards perceived outsiders’ cultures, because therein lies the temptation to indulge in negatively evaluative judgements about the ‘fitness’ of those cultures. Practice grounded in the need to achieve full socio-economic, social and political rights for visible minorities is a better framework for achieving social justice, and within that context, racial justice, than a practice which seeks integration on the bases of visible minorities’ so-called ‘need’ to adapt culturally. In other words there is a need for a service practice which jettisons pathologising


42

culture, and one that seeks to work with and through difference, many of these unjust social constructions, without eliminating difference.

2. European immigration law is colour coded both in relation to the control of

external migration to the EC bloc, and internally, as the egregious expulsion of the Roma from France demonstrates. Put both those forces together, as happens currently in Italy, and there is the recipe for a racist denial of fundamental rights to care: a situation worsened in services traditionally treated as marginal, as in the case of drug services, or questionable, as in the case of the more punitive elements of the criminal justice system. The schism that exists between the normative potential of the EC’s anti-discriminatory and human rights legislation and the constituent members’ national immigration legislation, policies and practices, needs to be addressed urgently by the EC because not only, as this study shows, there is a direct negative effect on the most marginalised members of society, but also because in not doing so, as one commentator argues, we give succour to ‘barbarism with a human face’. (Zizek, S, 2010)

3. On the basis that the inadequacies thrown up by services’ failures in relation

to visible minorities often points to wider problems in the development and delivery of such services, ones which probably have also a negative impact on the general client group, there are a number of specific recommendations that can be made in relation to drug services in the criminal justice system. These are, briefly, as follows:

• The need at the EC level and at the member state level, for drug policies

to have an explicit equalities, and within that context race equality, dimension to the objectives and necessary strategies and practices sought to achieve those ends

• National drug strategies to include the recognition of the need for the development and support for comprehensive drug and infectious diseases treatment services in the criminal justice system

• National drug strategies to include the recognition of the need for the development and support for comprehensive multi-stakeholder post-release support and integration programmes and services

• At the national level the policy recognition of, and support for, the need for proper social and health care assessments of those poised to enter the criminal justice system as a precursor to care based reasons for diverting to suitable treatment options

• The need to tackle the prevalence of drugs in prisons • Finally we are very conscious that this study is a part, albeit a discreet

one, of the overall CONNECTIONS Project. Our recommendations need to be cross-referenced with the activities and recommendations of all partners with the aim of embedding the equality dimension within the overall aim of developing integrated responses to drugs and infectious


43

diseases within EU Justice systems, and addressing the needs of those who are doubly stigmatised by drugs and by race.

Neville Adams Kazim Khan T3E (UK) September, 2010


44

10. Sources Adams, N. 2005 Race Equality Action Points, T3E. Bell, M., Chopin. Et al 2007 Developing Anti-Discriminatory Law in Europe, Directorate -General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. Council of Europe (1997), Van De Wijngaart, G F &. Leenders, F; Working Group on Drugs and Minorities, Consultants Report; Strasbourg, P-PG/Minorities (98) 1 Directorate General Employment, S. A. a. E. O. (2007). `Action Against Discrimination, Civil Society.' http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/policy/policy_en.htm. Directorate General Employment, S. A. a. E. O. 2006 Equality and Non-Discrimination Annual Report 2006, Directorate General Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunity. ENAR, 2008,Racism in Europe, Brussells EU, 2009, Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012, EU, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), 2000, Khan, K et al., “Mapping Available Information on Social Exclusion and Drugs, Focusing on “Minorities” Across 15 EU Member States’ (EMCDDA / EPI / CT.99.EP.04/ 2000) European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), 2002, Fountain, J et al. Drug Use, Consequences and Correlates Amongst Minorities European Observatory on Social Inclusion, (2006), Social Inclusion and Income Distribution in the European Union, Directorate-General Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. European Observatory on the Social Situation, (2006), Health Status and Living Conditions in an Enlarged Europe, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), Annual report, 2009, ECRI Secretariat, Directorate general of Human and Legal Affairs, Council of Europe. EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), 2007, Report on Racism and Xenophobia in the Member States, FRA, EU T3E (UK), 1997, Race, Drugs Europe, Vol 1., Les Cahiers T3E No. 7 Traynor, Ian, The Roma: Europe's pariah people, Guardian, 16 Sept., 2010 Zizek, S., 03/102010, Liberal multiculturalism masks an old barbarism with a human face, Guardian,


45

Appendix 1

ACTION POINTS a) Good Practice

The action points are not just about, or for, racial minorities. They are about refining, or identifying the lack of, mainstream policies, or procedures or practices. They highlight similar remedial principles which apply to other areas of in/equality, such as gender or the disabled. If, for example, an organisation advertises its job vacancies in a very narrow range of media, or media it has used for a very long time, or relies on ‘word of mouth’, or, worst still, uses nepotism and ‘cronyism’ (friends or flatterers), it is not only racial minorities which are likely to be excluded from applying. In addition to which any such potentially discriminatory actions are also likely to be, under the EC’s Race Directive, acts of indirect racial discrimination. In many instances the action points act to illuminate other deficiencies in the organisation.

b) How to use the Race Equality Action Points

The action points are not exhaustive. They can , and should be, added to or amended as needs require. They are not intended as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ recipe. They are in the form of key questions which first invite debate between those directly affected, and then, hopefully, action. The action points should be used, therefore, as a scanning and auditing device to identify not only the gaps surrounding necessary action on race equality, but also good practice.

c) There are a number of levels at which the action points should be used:

As a scanning device for participating agencies to examine their own race equality actions – if any.

As a scanning device for community organisations and activists and users to ask serious questions of the big service providers

As a scanning device which enables the project’s Working Parties to ask key questions of participating cities and organisations and enables the Working Parties to ensure those dimensions are built into the final outcomes, e.g. training packages and good practice guides (For those involved in the EU project only)

As a scanning device for ensuring the project’s (or agencies’) outcomes have an explicit, detailed, but integral race equality dimension


46

The action points can be used as a whole, or in parts, where those parts are more relevant to the tasks being undertaken.


47

Aware of RE contextrelating to legislation,racial minorities, good

practice?

Has your organisation

(agency, city, WP)

done anything on race

equality

On

employment?

On community

needs?

On services?

On

democratisation?

Check REAction pointsas minimum

baseline


baseline


baseline


baseline


baseline

Check your

national

anti-discriminatoryorganisations

ActionPlan

ActionPlan

ActionPlan

ActionPlan

ActionPlan

ActionPlan

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

RE

Programme

RE Action Points - Flow

Figure 10


48

d) The action points are therefore aimed at a number of levels:

the agency level

Public sector institutional level

Corporate level

Partnership level

the purchasing / funding level

the “quango” level

the national level

and, ultimately the EU level

e) The highlighted action is set out across five core areas:

Policy development

Implementation

employment

services

community/user participation

Also indicated in italics are those complementary strategies, especially those that seek to address the organisation’s under investment, which we think are necessary to the successful achievement of the identified race equality action.


49

ACTION POINTS Policy Development Structure

Is there an equal opportunities policy, anti-racist statement, and/or race equality policy? Has the agency reviewed its equal opportunities policy or anti-discriminatory statement? Does the organisation have policy development capabilities? Are these resourced in terms of race equality personnel, training for staff and/or access to equality resources and/or database? Has this /policy development/review process involved all employees, especially Racial minority employees, trade unions, relevant community representatives, community activists, users and/or their surrogates? Has a specific race equality strategy been derived covering employment services and community/user participation? Has this been set within a framework of objectives, action points, time scales, responsibility, and resources? For large organisations with several geographically dispersed service units, has the corporate core developed the overall race equality strategy covering human resourcing, service standards and community participation, with service units having to develop individual service and user interface initiatives within that framework? Have local communities, especially Black communities and/or Black employees been involved in this process? If you are working in partnership with other agencies or organisations, has a joint equal opportunities, race equality policy or statement been developed? If so, is this based on the best standards, practices and principles and not on the lowest common denominator? If so, is there an accompanying action plan?

Implementation Structure

If there is an equal opportunities and/or race equality policy, has this been endorsed by the management committee, governing body, or equivalent, or political representatives? Has it been discussed and endorsed by all the relevant management teams? Has this been communicated to all staff?


50

Has it been discussed and endorsed by all the relevant staff and/or their trade unions? Are there avenues for staff involvement? Has the organisation identified those staff with relevant equality experiences? Has it been communicated to service users? What is the communications strategy for the organisation, and does it have both

internal and external action areas? Have the employee development tasks arising out of this policy been identified? Is this built into the induction process? See the section below on employment. Is there a comprehensive race equality monitoring process covering employment and services in the first instance? Has responsibility for collating and analysing this information been allocated? Are the results from this fed into relevant decision making fora regularly? Is race equality a standing item on management team meetings and supervision sessions?

Is there an information strategy in the organisation, and does it include a component on computer resources?

Is there a need for a change catalyst resource? Specialist post? Buying in specialist consultancy/advisory resources? Is the race equality strategy being used as the framework within which divisions or sections or decentred units can develop their relevant race equality action plans? Does this lock into the organisation’s strategic/business/service planning systems and processes? Are these identified race equality responsibilities disaggregated into employees’ supervision sessions and appraisal interviews? Are these reflected in the person specification? Are the race equality responsibilities built into the job descriptions? Are these reflected in the advertisement? Are these responsibilities covered in the interviews? Are the race equality considerations built into the budgeting process? Is there a need for a ring-fenced equality development part of the budget? Is there proper organisational support for Racial minority Workers Fora if these are established?


51

Employment

Is there a human resources function in your organisation? How has the human resourcing function in the agency/organisation been

structured? Is it centralised? Is it devolved? Who is responsible? Is there a human resource strategy covering, at the minimum, induction, recruitment and selection, employee development and employee relations,

work/life balance, re-organisations and redundancy, and organisation exiting? Does employee development have action points on an employee skills’ deficit

audit that flows from identified objectives and allied action? Does it therefore have action points on appraisal and/or a supervision policy?

Is there a policy or intention to recruit more racial minority employees? If not, can it be developed? If so is this in the form of an equalities’ targeting policy aimed at recruiting more staff from racial minorities, e.g. the organisation wants to recruit X% more staff from racial minorities by 2008? Is there an action plan covering the intention to recruit more staff from racial minorities or achievement of the targets? Is there an equality based recruitment and selection process based on objective criteria covering job descriptions, person specifications, advertising, shortlisting, interviewing, appointing, e.g. under advertising all jobs will be externally advertised in media which includes those more accessible to racial minorities?

Check your HR strategy Is there an employment ethnic monitoring process, and is the information analysed?

Is there an induction process for new employees? Does this include how your organisation is tackling the issue of race equality? Is there an employee development programme, i.e. how employees learn and develop in the organisation? Does this therefore lock into the supervision and appraisal processes? Is the training budget targeted on priorities?

Check the skill deficit audit? Don’t distribute the training budget out equally amongst all employees.

Is access to the training budget on the basis of clear objective criteria? What about equality based HR training for managers covering R and S, employee relations etc.?

Check your employee development programme. Is there a need for a positive action element, i.e. setting aside funds for racial minority staff? How does this lock into the employee development programme?


52

On employee relations, do, at the minimum, your grievance and disciplinary processes have explicit references to the race and gender dimensions?

Does your HR strategy include the development of a charter for employees setting out acceptable and unacceptable standards of behaviour?

Are there structures and/or initiatives aimed at staff participation? Do these ensure that the views of staff from racial minorities are heard? Is there a racial harassment procedure in your organisation? In terms of redundancy and/or redeployment, is there an explicit race equality consideration.? Are there exit interviews for staff leaving the employ of the agency? If there are joint employment responsibilities with partner organisations, do these have the relevant race equality component?

Community Needs’ Profile

Does the agency know what needs exist in relation to drug use in the different communities in the catchment area, especially those from racial minorities?

Can information about needs be accessed through research, secondary sources Can it be accessed through networking directly with groups or activists in those

communities? Is there a need for an outreach service? Is there a need for suitably translated information and/or use of interpreters? Do the racial minority communities include users and/or communities whose

immigration status is unsure? Is there a comprehensive intelligence gathering process aimed at delivering up

to date information on a multi-faceted community profile, including needs? Does this include user and/or community feedback on services, especially

those from racial minorities? Does this involve relevant partners? Is there a need for specific research projects on the needs of racial minorities? Has an analysis been done of organisations’ own internal information

databases? Has the information on needs been collated into a comprehensive database? Is this updated regularly? Does the information on needs feed into the organisations’ service

development processes, commissioning processes and other relevant decision making fora?


53

Services

Is there a service development programme in the agency/organisation involving managers, front-line staff, users and community representatives in its design,

implementation and evaluation? Does this involve setting priorities for action, targets and timetables, monitoring

and evaluation? Is there a comprehensive service ethnic monitoring system? Is the information collated and analysed? Is it fed into the relevant management fora? How accessible is the agency for racial minorities? Is your service publicity reaching the target communities, especially racial

minorities? How do you know? How does it reach women in the different communities? Which media are being used, and does it include media racial minorities

communities are likely to use more? Does it find its way to relevant community organisations and groups? Does it stress confidentiality, especially with regard to police and immigration

matters? Is it translated into appropriate languages? Is the translation properly done, i.e. has it been piloted with relevant language groups Does the translated text take into consideration issues of gender and culture Is it possible to, and does it then offer access to a woman and/or racial minority

worker on first contact if so desired? Are there partnership groups and/or volunteers from the different communities

which can be used as surrogate contact points? If not is there a need for an outreach function in those communities? Does your outreach function cover taking services out, identification of need and/or preventative work? Can your agency provide the necessary training for such partnership groups? If not local community groups, are there are other drug agencies in the vicinity with whom you can work in partnership? What about shared funding? Is the first contact with your agency welcoming and non-threatening? Are your reception staff properly trained? What image is portrayed when a racial minority user walks through the door? Is it still predominantly that of a white agency? If you use an appointment system, is this necessary? Can you offer a woman and/or racial minority worker if the user requests it?

(Check your employment action points)


54

If not, are there volunteer or partnership community groups you can work with?

What employment/training links exist between racial minority volunteers and the agency? (Check your equality employment plan)

Does the agency need an interpreting service? Does the assessment process pick up on issues of race, culture, gender or

religion as appropriate? Is the assessment process comprehensive enough to cover aspects of need more likely to be experienced by the different racial minority communities? How geared up is your agency for working with clients who use differing drugs? Do staff need training?

Check your employee development plan Are their extra resources involved? If appropriate and relevant can and does the agency work with families as part

of the treatment? Is this the most appropriate intervention? Are staff trained to do so?

Check your employee development programme Or do you have racial minority staff with the appropriate skills? What’s their role in the organisation? Surely not as dumping grounds for all

racial minority clients? Can they be mentors for white staff working with racial minority users? How attuned are your information giving, counselling and /or psychotherapeutic services to dealing with issues of race, culture and gender? Is there training your staff can undertake?

Check your employee development plan How rigorous is your agency’s follow-up on clients who break their counselling or other appointments? Are there specialist services provided by racial minority agencies which can be

bought in or brokered? If a racial minority service agency has been merged with your agency what

guidelines exist on supporting that agency’s service autonomy? If a residential agency, how geared up are you to receiving clients from different racial and cultural backgrounds? For example, how many racial minority staff do you have? Are your internal service processes attuned to working with a multi-racial clientele? Do you have an explicit policy and practice covering racism by other clients and staff? Do you take into consideration such factors in your therapeutic services? Your dietary considerations? Your leisure initiatives? Do you encourage family contact? Can you provide help for families wanting to maintain contact? or do


55

you need help in that area? e.g. using partnership community agencies etc. If racial minority users are dropping out at a faster rate, do you bother to find out why? What work do you undertake with your referral source agencies to ensure that racial minority clients are referred on? Do you advertise your services in ways that can generate demand from potential racial minority users? What guaranteed minimum services can be provided to users without proper

immigration papers? Are there appropriate agencies, groups or individuals who can be brought in at

short notice to help sort out immigration matters? If clients have to be referred on to other agencies, what race equality checks are

conducted with those agencies? Before the user leaves the agency, is there a formal process of eliciting his/her

views about the services provided? Check your service development plan.

Is the agency geared up, to advocacy work around discrimination issues? e.g. helping a user to pursue, or pursuing on his/her behalf, an issue around racist housing allocation practices?

Can the agencies aftercare exploit the positive action potential of the legislation?

Is there a possibility of joint positive action schemes with other drug agencies, or with funding local authorities?

Are there commercial fora which can be canvassed to encourage private employers to do the same?

Is the aftercare linked to networks in the relevant communities? Are your quality processes locked into your equality action points/plans? Are all relevant service processes monitored? Is the information from this fed into the relevant implementation processes

covering the agencies race equality strategy? If your agency or organisation undertakes any of the above can this be put

together as an action plan? If your agency or organisation undertakes any of the above is there the

mechanism to review and evaluate these actions? Partnership

Is your agency the lead partner? Are you a support partner? In either case can your institution ensure that the partnership’s aims and

objectives have a clear race equality component? Can you ensure that a race equality audit is undertaken of the partnership which

includes developing/contributing to, a comprehensive community profile, an examination of the state of race equality in the partnership agencies, an


56

assessment of local race equality priority issues, and the evaluation of local race equality resources?

Can you ensure that the partnership develops a race equality strategy? Can you ensure that there is an implementation strategy and infra-structure? Can you ensure that this whole process is monitored and evaluated? Can you ensure that for all the key elements, local racial minority communities

are involved? Commissioning – Procuring Services through Contracts

Is there a detailed community needs profile? (See points relating to community needs)

Are the needs of racial minorities part of this? Are these the bases for the service specification? If commissioners use a preferred list of contractors, does this include relevant

racial minority organisations and/or businesses? Are contracts awarded to contractors on their ability to meet the specification,

especially as these relate to racial minorities? Are contracts properly monitored and evaluated, especially in relation to race

equality? Democratisation – increasing the level of community, user and employee participation

If the organisation has a management committee/board of trustees etc., what is it going to do about increasing the level of relevant racial minority members on the management committee/board of trustees?

Will it canvass relevant networks for racial minority people with relevant expertise? How well does your organisation know about local racial minority communities, their organisations, activists or other people with relevant knowledge and expertise? (See questions around community needs) Is this updated regularly? If there is a poor level of information, do you know where to go to get help? What kind of consultative, involvement and/or participation links exist with racial minority communities? Does your organisation work with a set of participation protocols? How do the deliberations resulting from any participative initiatives with racial minority organisations, activists etc. feed into the service planning, implementation and evaluation processes in your organisation? Are staff in the organisation trained to undertake participative exercises? Is the level of involvement of community organisations and activists in your organisation to be simply consultees or part of decision making?


57

If your organisation is part of a partnership with others, does that partnership have a participation strategy with racial minority communities? How are racial minority users or their surrogates involved in the evaluation and

planning of services? Is there be a formal user participative structure? What is their level of involvement; consultees or part of decision making? How do employees participate in the decision making processes in your

organisation, apart from the normal trade union negotiating mechanisms? What steps are taken to involve racial minority employees?

Neville Adams T3E(UK)/DCD Oct., 2005

race and the criminal justice system europe 1ab · criminal justice system ... 2008. however, the...

Documents