To provide an in-depth analysis of the policy and practices involved at the point of police detention and the response to people with problematic drug or alcohol use in the sample countries, an ethnographic approach was used. This involved semi-structured, in-depth interviews with key criminal justice professionals, healthcare staff, government and NGO representatives and people with problematic drug or alcohol use who have experienced police detention.
The partners in the research played a key part in collecting data from their countries to inform the literature review and country reports. Data from a range of sources was used, including national policies that address problematic drug and alcohol use and official statistics demonstrating trends in use and associated problems, such as crime and public health problems.
2.1 Comparative research
The literature on comparative research into criminal justice is mainly focused on the United Sates and Western Europe. There is a lack of comparative studies that address Central and Eastern Europe. The need for research into criminal justice policy in Europe is particularly important in light of the expanding membership of the EU, especially for emerging democracies in the Central and Eastern European regions, as:
New democracies often face the challenge of transforming a police force that traditionally operated against the people into one that actually serves them (Pakes 2004).
Another key reason for comparative study is that criminal justice systems, for example in Europe, are likely to face similar challenges especially in the field of problematic drug use. As Pakes (2004, 49) argues.
Comparative research helps us gain a deeper understanding of the various types of relationship that exists between the police, the state and the people. It illustrates that policing may constitute both a promise and a threat, depending on the nature of these relations – to be protected from crime and disorder or more generally ‘looked after’ by benign servants of the people, or, on the other hand to be singled out for persecution, to be harassed or oppressed.
Research that adopts a comparative approach towards subjects involved in the area of criminal justice across national boundaries is difficult to find, due in some part to the problems inherent in such an approach. However, an ethnographic approach lends itself to such research and has been used in a
variety of European studies on problematic drug use in prisons that involve a number of different countries (MacDonald 2005; Decorte 2006).
There are various potential problems in undertaking comparative research that need to be considered and strategies developed to overcome these. One key problem is the use of interpreters, necessary in multi-country studies across Europe. When using interpreters, one is reliant on their skills and understanding of the key issues, whilst also ensuring they remain independent from the participants involved. Linguistic difficulties can present a major inhibitor of comparative research, unless the researcher is fluent in the language and cultural concepts of the countries being compared, as there is a danger of misinterpreting data. Without good linguistic skills it is possible to miss the subtleties of ‘intonation, nuances of speech, or most problematic of all, that which is left unsaid’ (Zedner 1995, 12).
The differences in the recording of data regarding drug and alcohol use in each country and the criminal justice response can also hinder the comparative approach; requiring that such information is confirmed from a range of sources.
Comparative research also raises problems regarding the different terms and definition used in different criminal justice systems and the need to establish correct understandings.
The comparative researcher also needs to be wary of organisations and agencies that appear similar across countries, as they share the same name, but which can operate very differently and have different working relationships. A good example of this is the concept of probation. Official descriptions of such organisations can also be problematic as they may not fully reflect the actual purpose and practices that exist. In addition, the lack of understanding about different societies, for example, ex-Soviet states may mean that a researcher from Western Europe may ask inappropriate questions. Equally, ‘insider’
researchers may also fail to grasp what are perhaps key features about that society as seen from the outside, whereas an ‘outsider’ may bring a different perspective to comparative research because of their geographical and cultural distance. This also allows the researcher to ask ‘naive’ questions that challenge presuppositions. Similarly:
as a ‘nobody’ one may be allowed access to information or be made party to disclosures which prudence might withhold from a fellow national’ (Zedner 1995, 18).
The differences in the organisation of the police, health services and the existence of community drug services also meant that not all questions were relevant to all the sample countries, for example, in Italy the role of the prosecutors during police detention is much more pronounced than in other countries.
Despite these difficulties, it is important to undertake comparative research to learn as much as possible about the current practice of the police and their response to problematic drug and alcohol users in Europe. This presents a
means by which such research can both fill the gap in knowledge in this area and provide examples of best practice and improve current policy.
2.2 Definition of terms
It is important to establish that, although in each country different definitions of the same terms and concepts exist, there are also terms that apply across countries, which need to be clearly defined.
2.2.1 Police detention
In the sample countries, police detention is the term used to refer to the period after arrest when suspects are taken to a police station for questioning about their offence, and where, generally speaking, they are held for a maximum of between 24–48 hours.
In some countries the police also run detention centres, which are similar to remand prisons in the UK, where suspects are held pending further investigation of their case. The various types of detention are explained further in Chapter 3 in each of the profiles of the sample countries.
2.2.2 Problematic drug and alcohol use
Problematic drug and alcohol use refers to use that has a detrimental impact on users’ health, financial status, social support networks, employment and can lead to them becoming engaged in criminal activity.
For the purposes of this report, the focus is on those users who come into contact with the police, and who may suffer health problems such as HIV/hepatitis if they are or have been injecting drug users, and during detention, may suffer withdrawal symptoms from a range of substances.
2.3 Aims and objectives of the study
The key aim of the study was to investigate legislation, policy and practice in relation to treatment of people with problematic drug or alcohol use in police detention in eight countries in the European Union (Bulgaria, Estonia, England and Wales, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania and Romania). In order to achieve this, the objectives set for the research were as follows. For each country in the study to:
• explore trends in problematic drug and alcohol use;
• examine national legislation and strategies in place to address problematic drug and alcohol;
• investigate the provision of healthcare and treatment services for problematic drug and alcohol users in police detention and establish who is responsible for this;
• consider vulnerable groups relating to problematic drug and alcohol use;
• identify gaps in service provision for people with problematic drug or alcohol use in police detention;
• identify and disseminate good practice identified by partners involved in the study;
• consider the impact of joining the European Union, where appropriate, on strategies and service provision for people with problematic drug and alcohol use in police detention.
2.4 Ethical and procedural guidelines
The sensitive nature of the research requires clear ethical and confidentiality procedures and guarantees for the participants. The key principles in place to ensure adherence to the ethical guidelines included ensuring that all researchers were made aware of their responsibilities and obligations to consider ethical issues arising from their research and that the dignity, rights, safety and well-being of participants must be the primary consideration. Therefore, it was imperative that all participants were fully informed of the purpose of the project and were asked to give their consent to participate, were guaranteed their responses would be treated confidentially and that data would be kept securely and that they were able to withdraw their participation at any time.
The primary method of data collection was in-depth, semi-structured interviews, which enabled a range of themes to be discussed that allowed flexibility depending on the participants’ role or perspective. Participants came from a range of government and non-government organisations, including ministerial staff (responsible for criminal justice, policing and healthcare), criminal justice staff from the police, prosecution service, courts, prisons and probation, drug-treatment centres in the community, NGOs who provide services for problematic drug and alcohol users and also promoted the human rights of users in detention, and problematic drug and alcohol users who had experienced police detention. Access to the participants in each country was facilitated by the partners who also compiled the country profiles (see Chapter 3).
Interview checklists were developed for different groups of participants, including ministerial staff, criminal justice staff, NGO staff and detainees9. The
9 The full interview checklists are available in Appendix A.
general issues for discussion with the ministerial and criminal justice agency staff (from the police, prosecutors, magistrates, prisons and probation services) were the extent of problematic drug and alcohol use in their country, the governance of the police and the key personnel involved in dealing with problematic drug and alcohol use, public perceptions of problematic drug and alcohol use and the national strategies in place. They also covered procedures and policy for police officers dealing with detainees’ with problematic drug or alcohol use, links with other agencies and NGOs, procedures for detainees medical records, vulnerable groups in police detention, the implementation of harm reduction measures, training for police officers, alternatives to prison for people with problematic drug or alcohol use, the impact of European Union membership (where appropriate), the adoption of good practice from other countries and the organisation, regulations and procedures of healthcare for detainees.
For police officers, in addition to the above issues, participants were asked about the regulations regarding the length of detention and problems that arise among those with problematic drug or alcohol use, along with detention as an opportunity for treatment or referrals, the appropriateness of the criminal justice response, specific initiatives in place to deal with problematic drug and alcohol use and the potential for the use of harm reduction measures in police stations and detention centres. Police officers and staff were also asked about their relationship with other agencies, their perception of the more vulnerable groups they come into contact with, the conditions of detention and treatment of detainees and to identify anything that would help them improve their effectiveness in dealing with problematic drug and alcohol users.
Healthcare workers, police surgeons and forensic medical examiners were specifically asked about the problems they came across when dealing with problematic drug and alcohol users, their relationship with the police, their training, links with healthcare services outside the police station or detention centre and their views on harm reduction, the conditions of detention and the treatment of detainees. NGO staff were asked to discuss their role and the aims of their organisation, their relationship with the police, their views on the national drug strategy and the key problems identified by their clients.
Finally, problematic drug and alcohol users detained by the police were asked to recount their experiences of police detention, including the length of time they spent there, the conditions, attitudes of the police, the access they had to medical care, assistance they received to address their drug or alcohol use and two things they would like to see changed in police detention.
There were two seminars for all the partners, one held at the start of the project (December, 2005 in Birmingham, UK) and the second towards the end of the project (January, 2007 in Romania). The first was set up to ensure that all partners agreed with the ethical and procedural guidelines developed for the research and the checklists to be used with the various participants (see Appendix A). It also provided an opportunity to set a provisional timetable for the fieldwork and for the partners to discuss issues specific to their country that
were important to explore in the fieldwork. This seminar was also important in providing guidelines to the partners on their role and in the production of the country profiles (see Appendix B). Due to the problems with differing definitions of terms and concepts in each criminal justice system, this seminar also provided an opportunity for the researchers to ensure they understood the various meanings and took them into account when conducting fieldwork.
The second seminar took place after all the fieldwork was completed and during the final phases of the analysis of the data. The main purpose was to discuss the principal themes emerging from the country profiles and fieldwork, and to agree the structure and content of the final report.
2.5 Use of translators
It was necessary to use translators during the visits to Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania and Romania. The interviews in Germany and in England and Wales were carried out by a native speaker. The translators used in the research ranged from professionals working in the criminal justice systems, representatives from NGOs and professional translators. Prior to the interviews the aims and objectives of the research and the methods used were discussed with the translators to ensure they had an understanding of the key issues. The interview checklist was used to act as a guide during the interviews, for both the researcher and translator, and was provided to key participants in their native language prior to the interview in order to enable them to understand the focus of the discussion. However, this approach must be treated with caution, as this does not guarantee full understanding as ‘despite the utmost efforts of the researchers, differences in meaning often creep in that can change the results’ (Taylor 2002, iv).
2.6 Issues arising from the fieldwork and data collection
The development of ethical guidelines and the invaluable assistance from country contacts and participants meant the majority of the fieldwork ran smoothly and produced some very useful data. However, some difficulties arose, many which could not be foreseen and it is important to identify these issues, both to inform future research studies and to contextualise the findings of this report.
The partners in each country and researchers completed fieldwork diaries to ensure that:
• the research design was appropriate;
• logistical problems were anticipated and addressed;
• the research ran to the specified timetable;
• the interpreter worked well with the fieldworker and understood the nature of the research and the key issues;
• the participants were appropriate for the aims and objectives of the research;
• the participants fully understood the purpose of the research, their contribution to it and their rights.
One of the most common issues was having group interviews instead of the planned one-to-one interviews. This often came about as a result of time constraints, of both the participants and the researcher, and emphasised the need to properly manage the group to ensure all participants had an opportunity to express themselves.
The use of interpreters in each country was generally very well co-ordinated, and in most cases, they were independent of any of the criminal justice or other government organisations involved in the research. On occasions where this did not happen, it was again due to resource and time constraints and it was made clear exactly what their role in the research was: that they would not be collecting and recording data themselves or be given any information after the interview by the researcher.
There were no major logistical problems and the country contacts had planned and executed the fieldwork very well. None of the participants requested not to be interviewed and all reported they were fully informed of their rights and of the purpose of the research.
The data collected gave an extensive list of themes and issues regarding the experiences of problematic drug and alcohol users in police detention, which were discussed extensively at the second partner seminar in Romania in January 2007. This seminar was also very useful in allowing all partners to express their views on the structure and content of the final report. It also enabled an exchange of ideas and raised issues regarding conducting comparative research and of examples of good practice found in each country and identified any errors.