The 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference

Conference photos available

Conference photos available

In the conference participated 317 participants

Conference programme published

Almost 250 conference participants from 36 countries participated

Conference Report

The 28th NISPAcee Annual Conference cancelled

The 29th NISPAcee Annual Conference, Ljubljana, Slovenia, October 21 - October 23, 2021

The 2020 NISPAcee On-line Conference

The 30th NISPAcee Annual Conference, Bucharest, Romania, June 2 - June 4, 2022

An opportunity to learn from other researchers and other countries' experiences on certain topics.

G.A.C., Hungary, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

Very well organised, excellent programme and fruitful discussions.

M.M.S., Slovakia, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

The NISPAcee conference remains a very interesting conference.

M.D.V., Netherlands, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

Thank you for the opportunity to be there, and for the work of the organisers.

D.Z., Hungary, 24th Conference 2016, Zagreb

Well organized, as always. Excellent conference topic and paper selection.

M.S., Serbia, 23rd Conference 2015, Georgia

Perfect conference. Well organised. Very informative.

M.deV., Netherlands, 22nd Conference 2014, Hungary

Excellent conference. Congratulations!

S. C., United States, 20th Conference 2012, Republic of Macedonia

Thanks for organising the pre-conference activity. I benefited significantly!

R. U., Uzbekistan, 19th Conference, Varna 2011

Each information I got, was received perfectly in time!

L. S., Latvia, 21st Conference 2013, Serbia

The Conference was very academically fruitful!

M. K., Republic of Macedonia, 20th Conference 2012, Republic of Macedonia

 :: Anonymous user Login / Register 

Optimised for Tablet | Smartphone

 Paper/Speech Details of Conference Program  

for the  26th NISPAcee Annual Conference
  Program Overview
X. Non-Governmental Organizations in CEE
Author(s)  Iga Jeziorska 
  Corvinus University of Budapest
Budapest  Hungary
 
 
 Title  Harm Reduction Services in V4: Barriers and Challenges in Effective Service Delivery
File   Paper files are available only for conference participants, please login first. 
Presenter  Iga Jeziorska
Abstract  
  
Aims. Services for people who use drugs actively can still be considered controversial. While needle exchange programs are an important part of national drug strategies in CEE, the states' focus is still to a large extent concentrated on drug-free therapy to tackle the drug abuse problem. Needle exchange services for active drugs users, aiming to increase people’s well-being without forcing them to undertake abstinence-based therapy, are virtually exclusively delivered by non-governmental organisations. Still, NGOs largely rely on the states (legal regulations, policies, financing) and political will, and have to manage the relationships with local communities. This study aims to examine what are the major factors hindering service delivery for active injecting drug users, namely, needle exchange programs. The discovery of such factors can serve as a basis for negotiations between professionals working in the field, reform activists, and the decision makers over improvement of the services, given that such analysis has not yet been conducted in the region. Design and method. The research question of the study is “What are the barriers and challenges in effective service delivery that non-governmental organisations operating low-threshold harm reduction services experience nowadays in Visegrad countries?”. The study covers current situation and involves a comparative case study of 4 cases (Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Czech Republic). The data was collected through semi-structured interviews with services' employees. The data was analysed using MaxQDA software. Results. Comparative analysis shows that in 3 examined countries (Poland, Hungary and Slovakia) organisations encounter very similar problems. Czech case is significantly different, with fewer challenges and lower severity of the ones which do appear. Funding is a major problem, followed by political atmosphere, the incompleteness of the entire support system, local communities' hostility and characteristics of clients being a result of stigmatisation and marginalisation.