Search

The engagement of young people has been a neglected area in youth justice and drug policy and practice. This paper explores the concept of 'engagement' in relation to drug interventions in custodial and community settings in different European countries. Interviews were undertaken with young people (aged 14–25 years) in contact with the criminal justice system who use illegal drugs and with practitioners involved in the delivery of interventions for our target group in Denmark, Italy, Poland, and the UK. The key techniques to engage young people were described in similar terms across the countries. These included forming relationships based on trust, honesty, and empathy, setting goals collaboratively, and employing practitioners with lived experience and understanding. The objectives and activities on offer are often constrained by criminal justice contexts. Despite the differences between the countries in terms of criminal justice systems and the structure of drug interventions, there were remarkable similarities in the ways young people and practitioners described effective engagement. Strong emphasis on operational engagement to ensure positive relationships between young people and practitioners was important in the design and delivery of interventions. Practitioners working in criminal justice contexts need to have flexibility and autonomy to work creatively to find ways to engage, connect, and inspire young people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on research undertaken as part of the EU funded EPPIC project, this paper aims to update and elaborate on the relationship between drug use and offending behaviours by exploring variations within a cross-national sample of drug-experienced young people in touch with criminal justice systems. Adopting a trajectory-based approach, interviews were undertaken with 198 young people aged 15–25 in six European countries (Austria, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Poland, and UK). Data were analysed by applying the Bennett and Holloway categorization of the drugs-crime link, with a focus on the concept of social exclusion as developed by Seddon. Three main types of mechanisms (economic, pharmaceutical, and lifestyles) are used to interpret the data, showing how the relationship between drugs and offending can vary according to type of substances and over time. Furthermore, it can be associated with very different degrees of social exclusion and needs. The results suggest that while economic inequalities still play key roles in explaining drug use and offending, both behaviours can originate from a state of relative deprivation, resulting from the contradictions inherent in 'bulimic societies' that raise aspirations and desires while providing young people scarce opportunities for self-realisation and social recognition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing upon data collected within 20 focus groups with consumers from five European countries, in this article we investigate how perceptions of human health risk and current anxieties regarding agricultural food production affect citizens' acceptance of the use of an emerging biotechnology, synthetic biology, in the development of vaccines for animals bred for food production. In focus group discussions in Austria, the UK, Poland and Denmark, participants tended to value the positive potential of synthetic vaccines if they could solve existing problems. Participants argued that the technology could be beneficial for animal welfare and was a potential solution to the problem of risks to human health posed by the use of antibiotics on livestock. The perceived drawbacks of antibiotic use affected the discussions towards acceptance of synthetic biology and the use of vaccines in meat production despite concerns over the potential risks. The participants from Spain stood out in that their acceptance of the synthetic vaccine appeared to be disconnected from concerns about risks related to the use of antibiotics. Participants from all countries found the vaccine to have potential uses, but also expressed concerns about health risks for consumers. In general consumers were perceived as those bearing the heaviest burden of risk, while pharmaceutical companies were perceived as likely to benefit most from production of the vaccine. We found that institutional trust and national contexts of (dis)engagement with science influenced the participants' understandings of the degree to which the synthetic livestock vaccine had a fair risk-benefit balance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]