Department of Criminology, Criminal Law and Social Law

Antwerp Monitor Youth, Alcohol and Drugs (AMYAD)

Research Period

1 January 2009 - 31 December 2009

Financing

SODA - City of Antwerp

Researcher

Julie TIEBERGHIEN

Key Words

local, monitoring, qualitative

Abstract

The Antwerp Drug and Alcohol Monitor focuses on daily (or almost daily) users of cocaine, heroin, amphetamines or benzodiazepines. The definition of the target population, described elsewhere, also leads to a (limited) view of the drug use among young people: young injecting drug users (-25 years), experimental use of young Moroccan and Turkish users (14-20 years), ... From a policy point of view there is a need for detailed information on the experiences and the patterns of drug use among youngsters. The insights may broaden the knowledge base on which policy decisions concerning prevention and harm reduction are developed.

Objectives

This pilot project objectives were two-fold:

  1. the development of a scenario for the implementation of a youth drug monitoring system for the City of Antwerp and
  2. the one-off testing of this monitoring system over a six month period.

Methology

We distinguish ‘youth of the streets’ (i.e. youngsters who live on the streets and are exposed to prostitution and unsafe drug use) and ‘youth on the streets’ (i.e. youngsters who hang around in public spaces frequently). Furthermore, we focus on ‘hardcore youngsters’ and truants. Finally, we discuss the perception of these youngsters on drug education.

To gather information about drug use among youngsters, the Antwerp Monitor Youth, Alcohol and Drugs (AMYAD) consists of qualitative methods: in-depth interviews with key informants, ethnographic fieldwork,... This methodology is based on an analysis of national and international literature concerning youth drug monitoring systems. By means of qualitative methods the youth monitor is intended to produce useful information on the nature and patterns of use among young drug users, current developments and trends, the accessibility and appraisal of local treatment and the presence of risk groups or risk factors.

Some Results

Youth on the streets 

The age of initiation among these youngsters is about 12-13 years. Mostly they start with alcohol and/or cannabis. Other drugs, like xtc, cocaine or amphetamines, are explored afterwards. All youngsters are feeling hesitant about the use of heroin. Next to ‘classic’ drugs, they also get acquainted with ‘new’ drugs like ketamin, GHB or mepedrone. However, the use of ‘new’ drugs often is temporary.

Several aspects play a role in the increase or decrease of use: home situation, friends, school and work situation. Especially friends have an unmistakable impact: friends use together, are sources of informal social control, etc.

Youngsters are aware of the physical and psychological health risks of drug use. Some stakeholders point at the importance of ‘bad examples’ in alerting to the risks. Nevertheless, it seems that youngsters do not (or to a lesser extent) pay attention to the (un)safe use of paraphernalia.

Community fieldworkers claim that youngsters are well-informed about the effects of drugs. Their knowledge is acquired through own experiences or experiences of friends, through parents, the internet or education on school.

Youngsters on the streets consider drug treatment organizations accessible. However, not many youngsters really have a need to participate in drug treatment. Problem understanding and/or motivation to access treatment are usually absent.

Youth of the streets 

Among youth of the streets, poly drug use of cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, alcohol and/or benzodiazepines prevails. However, the duration of homelessness is crucial for the evolution in drug use. Homelessness often implies the beginning of (injecting) use and the use of heroin and/or benzodiazepines.

They often have a problematic relationship with their parents and family. As a consequence, they get in touch with other homeless youngsters or marginalized drug users. Consequently, their living conditions are unstable: they sleep on the streets, in night shelters or in an apartment or studio of friends.

Homeless youngsters are aware of the physical and psychological health risks of drug use. They are also well-informed about the effects of drugs. This knowledge is acquired through own experiences or experiences of “friends”. Although they do not express a need for more information, they mention some physical and psychological health problems. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that (un)safe drug use is not a point of interest.

Youngsters of the streets consider drug treatment organizations accessible. However, not many youngsters are really interested to participate in drug treatment.

Hardcore youngsters and truants 

Because of their difficult living conditions, homeless youngsters run a great risk to come into collision with police or justice. Youth on the streets have less contact with police or justice. If so, it is mostly as a result of (drug related) nuisance.

Truancy seems to be a crucial factor: nearly all homeless youngsters skipped school early. In the case of youngsters on the streets, truancy is one of the reasons to hang around in public spaces.

Education and prevention 

Effective drug prevention is very important. The age of initiation among these youngsters seems to be about 12-13 years which makes drugs education at this time useful. At this age, drugs education may also reach risk groups (like truants or hardcore youngsters). While the first drugs education must focus on primary prevention, the subsequent education messages have to be adapted. Here, secondary and tertiary prevention is essential.

Conclusion

We can conclude that monitoring of use patterns, risk factors and living conditions of youth on the streets and youth of the streets until 25 may help to assess incidents and panic signals correctly. Furthermore, these data may inspire policy makers, prevention workers, street workers, schools, police, etc. to intervene, to stimulate cooperation with several partners or to develop (and evaluate) ‘evidence-based’ policy.

Valorisation: publications and lectures

  • TIEBERGHIEN, J. & DECORTE, T. (2011). Geen dak boven je hoofd? Over dakloze jongeren en middelengebruik. Tijdschrift voor Verslaving, 7(4) (forthcoming).
  • TIEBERGHIEN, J. (2010). Antwerpse Monitor Jongeren, Alcohol en Drugs. Jongeren en middelengebruik in een lokale context. Paper presented at the 20e Forum Alcohol en Drugs Onderzoek, Utrecht (Nederland), 17 november 2010.
  • TIEBERGHIEN, J. (2010). Jongeren en middelengebruik in een lokale context: AMJAD. VAD-berichten, 9(4), 16-17.
  • TIEBERGHIEN, J. & DECORTE, T. (2010). Antwerpse Monitor Jongeren Alcohol en Drugs (AMJAD), Jongeren en middelengebruik in de lokale context. Leuven: Acco.
  • DECORTE, T. & TIEBERGHIEN, J. (2010), Antwerpse Monitor Jongeren en Alcohol en Drugs (AMJAD). Noden en behoeften van jongeren: enkele bevindingen nader bekeken. Presentation at the Studienamiddag “Jongeren en middelengebruik in een lokale context. Antwerpse Monitor Jongeren, Alcohol en Drugs”, Antwerpen, 17 juni 2010.
  • TIEBERGHIEN, J. (2010). ‘Een kwalitatief monitoring systeem als instrument voor een lokaal drugsbeleid: ‘hidden populations’ in beeld’. In PAUWELS, L. e.a. (reds.) Update in de criminologie. Actualia Strafrecht en Criminologie 2010 (Reeks Gandaius, V), Antwerpen: Maklu.
  • TIEBERGHIEN, J., (2010). Een kwalitatief monitoring systeem als instrument voor een lokaal drugsbeleid: ‘hidden populations’ in beeld. Paper presented at the Update in de Criminologie 5: Actualia in het strafrecht en de criminologie , Gent, 1 april 2010.