Research Partnership with Ukraine: International Coordination Board Meeting
The first official meeting of the U.S.-Ukraine International Coordination Board (ICB), was held at the Office of Justice Programs in Washington D.C. on Tuesday, November 21st, 2000. The ICB is the coordinating body for the research partnership project between the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), U.S. Department of Justice, and the Ukrainian Academy of Law Sciences (UALS). Eleven out of the twelve appointed members of the Board, project participants and support staff were present at the meeting. The board members were asked to assess the overall progress of the project and determine ways to resolve project challenges faced by both U.S. and Ukraine participants. This document presents the minutes from the three hour meeting.
Richard Ward opened the meeting by providing some background of the Office of Justice Programs. I want to begin by stressing the importance of the current project between NIJ and UALS. It is essential that we use research in our approach to crime and particularly the way we conduct our evaluations. We have an obligation to maintain the integrity and objectivity of research so that our policies are more responsive, more useful and more cost effective. The focus of the meeting should be aimed at ensuring that the researchers are empowered with the tools and resources they need to complete their research.
Vasyl Tatsiy expressed greetings to all participants and thanked them for fruitful cooperation over the last year. This project is the first large-scale cooperation project between Ukrainian law enforcement agencies.
Acting Director of NIJ provided some brief information about NIJ, its activities and participation in the project. The task today is to try to determine how best to maximize the value of this partnership. We all desire the best quality product that will be of use to researchers and to policy makers. The globalization of crime demands more partnerships like this one to bridge the gap research practice and policy at a level unprecedented in the past. The U.S.- Ukraine partnership is a critical and essential step in the battle against transnational organized crime.
Jim Finckenauer provided some history and general information about the project: The research program was formed under the Gore-Kuchma commission. One of the tasks of this bi-national commission was to determine how best the U.S. and Ukraine could work together to deal with crime problems and improve Ukraine's criminal justice system as it moved towards reform. In this context, this program was developed with three aspects: the research partnership (project A); an assessment of U.S. delivered law enforcement training in Ukraine (project B); and the development of an Internet Infrastructure in Ukraine to support the research Projects A and B.
Our efforts have involved a lot of trial and error, but for the most part the overall project has been quite successful. Each of the three project areas have their own separate focuses, but they all operate together in a collaborative format. Today you will hear a discussion by participants in each of these three areas what their experience has been, what kind of progress had been made, and the outlook for what we hope to learn as far as getting final results
Volodymyr Stashys: reported on Project A progress and current results.
Mr. Stashys said that the project is now halfway to its completion and certain objectives were achieved so far. Taking into consideration that crime does not know borders, the development of international cooperation is extremely important. Mr. Stashys especially stressed on the significant amount of work fulfilled by Ukrainian researchers. In total, there are 52 Ukrainian researchers participating in this project, working on 22 scientific themes. Also, Mr. Stashys underlined the great administrative and organizational work conducted under the project.
All Ukrainian researchers were divided into 5 working groups:
1) Trafficking in Human Beings (Ukrainian researchers T. Denisova and A. Shevarikhin): the survey and interviews of different categories of population were conducted on the issues of trafficking in women and children with the purpose of their sexual exploitation. Based on these materials the international Round Table was held in May 2000 in Zaporizhia (Ukraine) in order to discuss issues in question. Ms. Denisova has developed the scheme for law enforcement, which allows to exchange information and to discover the faults. Also, the essay was published under the project outlining the necessity of amending the Ukraine legislation to bring in into compliance with European Convention on Prohibition of the Trafficking in Human Beings.
2) Illicit Drugs Turnover (Ukrainian researchers M. Khruppa and A. Muzyka): the researchers conducted search and selection of the scientific publications in Ukraine and CIS on the issues in question. They have also fulfilled significant amount of work on creation of the electronic database on illicit drugs turnover.
3) Comparative analysis of organized crime groups (Ukrainian researchers A. Yarmysh, A. Pyasetsky, O. Vershynyna, V. Petrov, V. Tuliakov): the researchers conducted analysis of the legislation, interviewed the entrepreneurs, conducted comparative analysis of the criminal groups' features and now work on creation of the model of interaction between the organized crime and social environment.
4) Law enforcement activities on combating the organized crime (Ukrainian researchers ù. Kalman, ù. Popovych, V. Konovalova, ù. Kulik, ù. Kryvochenko, Sybiliova, Gorodysky, ù. Perepelitsa): the researchers have studied the total of 1839 criminal cases on economic crimes. They now are developing recommendations on de-shadowing of the Ukraine economy. The questionnaire for evaluation of the law enforcement activity is developed. The researchers have conducted analysis of the international legal acts, analysis of the law enforcement activities on counteraction to money laundering in Germany, USA, Russia and other countries as well as study of forensic practice.
5) Computer crime (Ukrainian researchers Dudnikov, Matusovsky, S. Vertuzaiev, P. Bilenchuk, V. Golubev): the researchers study the issues and technical peculiarities of the Internet in Ukraine, as well as issues of prevention and investigation of computer crime. There has been developed the questionnaire for law enforcement on new effective methods of investigating the economic crimes committed using computer technologies.
All of the above mentioned is only small part of the great work conducted by Ukrainian researchers during 9 months of this year. The successful progress of Project A was ensured by participation of experts (Mr. Groshevoy, Mr. Zakaluik, Mr. Panov), as well as significant organization work conducted by administrative personnel of the Project A. Mr. Stashys thanked the Rule of Law Foundation and its President, Mr. Chapkey, personally, for technical support and equipment provided to the researchers. He also stressed the great importance of the opening conference (November 1999 Kyiv, Ukraine) and greatimportance of the project for combating the organized crime all over the world. Mr. Stashys thanked NIJ, U.S. Department of Justice, US Embassy in Ukraine, in the person of Mr. Sulzynsky, the Rule of Law Foundation, in the person of Sergey Chapkey.
Jim Finckenauer: The main purpose of the International Coordination Board meeting is to fulfill one of the provisions of Article 1 of the Agreement between NIJ and UALS. Article 1 describes the responsibilities and the purposes of the ICB and specifically states that: "The ICB shall secure the coordination between members of American and Ukrainian academic institutions and law enforcement agencies for the implementation in areas of the program." This is a very important provision and one we will come back to when we discuss the resolutions. Finally, the agreement states that "The UALS will assist in establishing contacts between the respective law enforcement agencies and the ICB to support the research program and to carry out the activities in Ukraine as requested by NIJ."
Mary Layne: Project A, Research Group # 2, Illegal trafficking in Drugs from Ukraine, presented on behalf of the American Researchers in Project A. In preparation for this, I contacted all of the U.S. researchers to get a candid assessment of the progress and any problems they may have had during this research.
An extremely successful part of this project has been the successful establishment of truly collaborative teams in which nothing was being dictated from one side. Each side had input, there was a free flow of ideas, and every opinion was valued. That in itself has been an incredible feat, given the distance between the U.S. and Ukraine. More importantly, relationships have been built around trust and friendship. We have also done some extraordinary research that has yielded excellent preliminary results, which we hope will lead to even better results and recommendations for the Ukrainian government.
This excellent progress has been made in the face of some very daunting challenges and issues involving:
communication; differing research standards; and project administration.
Communication issues- This is hard enough given time and language and geographic differences. At the beginning of the project, we were hopeful that there would be E-mail communication. The results of this,
however, have been mixed. Some U.S. researchers have been very frustrated by the lack of email
communication with their Ukrainian counterparts. As a result, we have had to be very creative in our communications. Each American researcher has been to Ukraine at least once. The communication between face to face meetings is essential to maintain the momentum between these meetings - - which can be very difficult unless we have good communication procedures in place. Because of Kate Zuzina's willingness to translate for me, I have been able to communicate with telephone calls.
The translation of U.S. materials has been an issue of concern for both American and Ukrainian researchers. The Ukrainian researchers say they have no budget for translation. A lot of our research is comparative of American and Ukrainian policies and practices. I have provided my researchers with stacks of important materials, but they have been unable to get them translated. Some of the U.S. researchers have noted that exchange of information between Ukranian researchers seems limited. The U.S. researchers are constantly in communication, sharing both positive experiences and frustrations. It seems like many of the Ukrainian researchers know more about U.S. research then what is going on in their own country, frequently within their own group. Perhaps that is a cultural difference. Perhaps the U.S. encourages more collaboration in this respect. But I think this is something we can learn from each other.
Research standards and data collection methods- When you perform research in the U.S., one has to spend a great deal of time reporting on data sources to establish the legitimacy of their research. If you do not disclose how you collected your data, then no one will believe your results. However, the problem in Ukraine is that often the people who provide data do not want to be identified - - by name or by agency. There is no methodology that enables us to report on some of our data collection. So that is an issue, but understand it is a reality and we understand that there are constraints that often people must give information under in Ukraine.
Interviews are a huge part of any research program and there is lots of interviewing in U.S. research projects. We must operate under very rigid rules when we conduct human subjects research in the U.S.; not only in how we conduct these interviews, but how we protect our subjects. There are many protocols for protecting human subjects, however, this does not seem to be the case in Ukraine, and this is also something that surprises and concerns the U.S. researchers.
U.S. researchers are told by their Ukrainian counterparts that research findings have to be published in Ukraine first, before they can be published in the U.S. This feels like a violation of U.S. researcher's academic freedom.
Project administration has been the most problematic from the U.S. researcher's standpoint. American researchers are responsible under ethical and legal constraints to spend research money properly, but we spend the money at our discretion. We know exactly how much money we have, exactly how much we have for travel etc. The Ukrainian researchers are not in this position - -some of the complaints from them have been that they don't have budgets, and they are unaware of how much money they have for travel. It is very hard for us, because when U.S. researchers do travel to Ukraine, they ask us for financial assistance for basic items like paper, diskettes, and pencils. However, U.S. auditing standards make it impossible for U.S. researchers to transfer project monies to them. Thus, we often pay out of our own pockets. Many Ukrainian research partners are suffering financial hardships in order to get this research done. An important and unique part of this project is the fieldwork that must done in Ukraine. But the researchers do not have money to conduct the necessary field work that is integral and essential to the research.
Recommendations for this project and other projects of this nature- It is easy when you are involved in something to look back and recognize what should have been done differently, but this is how we learn from these experiences. Research standards (data collection methodologies, how data is recorded, human subject protection issues, publication issues, etc.) should be established at the beginning of the project. That was not the case for this project. I suggest that we start to do this now and move on. From the American researcher's perspective, it would be beneficial if the Ukrainians had more freedom to do their work - - better access to money and a budget to undertake what they have been tasked to do. The Ukrainian researchers are eager, smart and they want to do this work.
This has been the most exciting research project that I have been involved in. It has been wonderful meeting my research partners. I feel very honored to be part of this project.
Olexander Perepelitsa: Ukrainian Researchers' Perspective
Mr. Perepelitsa gave a brief description and some general information about 4th direction of Project A (Law enforcement activities on combating the organized crime) - 8 Ukrainian researchers and their 9 colleagues work on 7 themes related to law enforcement efforts in combating the organized crime. Combating organized crime is very complicated issue. First of all it is necessary to reach understanding of the organization crime phenomenon for which purpose it is necessary to consider and study its different aspects.
Mr. Perepelitsa further described issues related to conducting the research, namely:
1) Financing: in general the Ukrainian researchers are concerned about delays in financing. As of today the researchers have received financing due end of June 2000. According to Project A administration the delays in payments were caused by delays in transferring funds from U.S. side. Moreover, there is established order of funding the Ukrainian research: after the researchers submit their quarterly research report upon positive evaluation of such report the researcher should receive payment for the reporting period (quarter), in the case of negative evaluation the report is returned to the researcher for further work on it; however, the financing can only be received upon positive evaluation of the research report.
2) Foreign languages translations: Mr. Perepelitsa said that he did not have any problems so far, however, it should be mentioned that he did not need any translations yet. In general, the procedure is as follows: the researcher addresses the translation issue to project administration, the administration, in turn, either arranges for the translation to be done or, after fulfillment of the work under the contract between researcher and translator, pays for translations services directly to translator. Mr. Perepelitsa expressed common researchers' opinion that it is necessary for them to receive some basic knowledge of English, for which purpose the project administration should consider the possibility for appropriate training.
3) Contacts with U.S. partners: Mr. Perepelitsa stressed on great importance of meetings between researchers, which is confirmed by high evaluation of working group meetings with the U.S. partner, Mr. Picarelli. The researchers suggest that such meetings should occur more often.
4) Technical equipment: the necessary equipment has been provided to the researchers. Unfortunately, some of the researchers are illiterate in computer technologies, e-mail and Internet environment, and this affects the effective information search and exchange. Mr. Perepelitsa, on behalf of Ukrainian researchers, suggested organizing computer and Internet training for the researchers.
Dennis Kenney provided the U.S. partner perspective for Project B.
This project has been underway for about one year. We first gathered information from the U.S. side as to the kinds of experience exchange efforts that have taken place. Although the information was incomplete, we were able to assemble a fairly good picture of the kinds of training activities that had been occurring over the past several years and the kinds of processes that were involved in the development of those kinds of activities. Using that information, we conducted a series of interviews, to enhance our understanding of the similarities and differences in U.S. and Ukrainian law enforcement. Working jointly with our Ukrainian partner, in a process of give and take and exchange, we developed a series ofinterviews. We were able to get a fairly sizable sample of participants and we conducted surveys of participants to learn their views of not only the experience exchange itself but the kinds of things they felt should be focused on in the future. Interviews were also conducted with officials from the Ministry of Interior, Procuracy and police agencies at the Oblast level. In each case we inquired as to the kinds of things that were of the greatest importance to them, the kinds of things they would like to see programs on, and the types of programs that they would like to both participate in and would like to support. From those survey results we conducted a series of four focus groups in Kiev with prosecuters and police officials. This provided us an opportunity to further explore the survey information with police officers and prosecuters and develop a much better understanding. We expect to assemble a very useful and beneficial model, not only for how experience exchange programs should be developed, scheduled and presented, but also a framework to guide the process and the different kinds of exchange that can take place.
We anticipate we will have the first draft of the report completed by early January and translated to be first disseminated to the sample of police officials in Ukraine, to get reactions and feedback as well as reactions from U.S. officials. The final data that will be collected and added to that report is a survey that is underway now of U.S. police agencies to learn of the kinds of programs that they would like to participate in and what types of information that they would be prepared to share and receive. We anticipate completely finishing the report by some time in the middle of the first quarter of next year.
Anatoli Zakaluik: Mr. Zakaluik indicated that since Mr. Kenney already had given a general overview, he would describe in more details the project outcomes and concepts of further experience exchange between U.S. and Ukraine law enforcement. We all shall understand that U.S. and Ukrainian law enforcement are in conditions of different systems, in different countries, in different societies, and, therefore, besides professional issues the experience exchange should contain social issues as well. The research stage of the project is already completed and now they are working on recommendations. The experience exchange for the last two years was studies under the project. It appeared, that in spite of high positive evaluation expressed by Ukrainian participants with respect to topics, new forms of training and excellent U.S. trainers, notwithstanding the desire to continue the experience exchange, only small part (25%) of the Ukrainian participants could confirm that they actually use this experience in practice. Why is that happening? The task of the Project B personnel was to answer this question. The conclusions made during the project are as follows:
With respect to the topics of experience exchange: different topics should be selected depending on what law enforcement agency participates in the experience exchange. The inquired law enforcement officers noted that before discussing more concrete aspects of the law enforcement activity it would be useful to receive more knowledge about general legislative provisions, U.S. law enforcement system, competence and functions of different law enforcement agencies, their organization and management.
With respect to the forms of experience exchange: it was determined that all inquired persons consider visits to USA, training in relevant law enforcement agencies of USA and collaborative work on real cases as extremely useful.
Certainly, the experience exchange should be organized taking into consideration the professional specialization of the law enforcement officers.
The recommendations will include the proposals as to bilateral experience exchange, improving its organization and coordination. The general overall scheme of experience exchange will be designed, which will include topics, mechanisms, organization / coordination, evaluation criteria, etc. This system should be directed to final result, namely to use of the experience in practice, and the process of training should be rationalized as well.
Sergey Chapkey: Sergey Chapkey provided the status and progress and challenges involved in the Internet Technical Infrastructure (Project C) component of the program.
Our job was to provide the tools the researchers needed to carry out their research. We did this through a small grants given to the Ukrainian participants. Twenty-one grants were awarded to organizations for a total of $200,000. There are currently 70-80 professionals connected to the Internet. Technical assistance has included providing computers, Internet access, technical support and training, help with the development of websites and organizing electronic publishing. A highlight of the agencies that have technical capacity include the: Ministry of Justice, Internal Affairs, Procuracy General, Supreme Court and the Security Service. The Internet provides quick and inexpensive access to the information the researchers need (crime data, crime statistics, court decisions, legislation etc.).
The agencies have the technical ability to share their data, yet lack the policies and procedures needed to facilitate this. This prevents them from sharing the data. This is beyond a technical problem and requires resolution by the agency head. The Supreme Court is now online and has over 2000 court decisions stored locally. But the problem is they the lack the policies and procedure to place them online. They are unsure which documents should be made public, whether they should provide them to authorized individuals only, or only to certain agencies. There is no organizational mechanism or procedures for dealing with this important issue.
The work currently going on includes: training and technical support, helping with the web presence, translation and increasing public awareness of this project. A good indicator of the project's progress is the fact that the Security Service, formerly most closed agency in Ukraine, has gone online.
We now have a number of little technical islands scattered across Ukraine. We envision the next step should be to connect them togther into a ROLF information network framework. This national network could then be part of the larger global network of the World Justice Information Network. (a virtual library of 500,000 electronic publications and a global community of 7,500 of criminal justice professionals and scholars from 115 countries). We would be delighted if Ukraine would join this network and become part of the world community.
Jim Finckenauer introduced the draft resolutions of the ICB meeting to the participants for consideration and discussion. These Resolutions were prepared in conjunction with the UALS. The purpose of these resolutions is to address number of the issues that have been described today by our presenters in a way that allows the projects to move forward as effectively and as efficiently as possible. We would like to see a final research conference occur in late summer to present our findings.
Dr. Finckenauer asked the board members to pay particular attention to a few specific resolutions:
Item B Access to crime data - - as indicated by presenters. There is a concern that the researchers in the project have relatively complete access to crime data from the criminal justice agencies in Ukraine. This does not include data that is confidential or data that has to do with ongoing criminal investigations. But data that would be in data archives; the kind of data the researchers need in order to assess the various crime problems they are focused on, and some sense of what has been the criminal justice response. Our purpose of including this resolution is to get the board on record of supporting this idea. Since we have representatives of at least three of these agencies as members of the board, we hope that you would concur in supporting that the agencies should be open and should give researchers access to the crime data that they need.
Secondly, this resolution asks that the agencies develop a common interagency policy that will specify the nature, the terms and the procedures by which the researchers can access these data. The purpose of this is two: to establish such a policy, and secondly so the researchers understand that there is a procedure they should follow so it will not be ad hoc, or created, or be different from one agency to another.
U.S. researchers are very much bound by law with respect to human subjects. That is why we have included this resolution and I ask that you pay particular attention to that. In particular I would invite your attention to the last sentence, "All five joint research teams should have privacy certificates that are where both U.S. and Ukrainian project administrations have agreed to protections for human subjects."
I think we reached resolution on a number of grants management and accounting issues from discussions among project managers in San Francisco. It is critically important to the success and the completion of both in Project A and B, that the researchers are able to get access to their research money, and they are able to do this in a timely fashion, that will allow for the research to go forward. This will help ensure that the project is completed in a timely fashion as well.
The floor was then opened up to discussion of all resolutions:
Mr. Tatsiy asked to clarify what agreements are meant in "All government agencies and institutions that have received grants through the Rule of Law Foundation for developing Internet capacity should, as agreed in accepting the grant, provide online access for researchers to their crime and criminal justice data and documentation."
Mr. Chapkey answered that in the beginning of the Internet grants project each grantee (law enforcement agencies and their research and educational institutions) signed the Grant Agreement, providing that indicated agencies and institutions should build technical abilities to make their materials accessible through Internet. Such technical abilities either have been built or their creation will be completed by February 2001. However, the top management of the law enforcement agencies should make the decision as to which materials will be accessible and whether the access will be free or limited/authorized.
Mr. Tatsiy assured that UALS will conduce to law enforcement agencies - grantees in making such decisions.
Mr. Anufriev expressed his agreement with the preliminary conclusions under Project B with respect to experience exchange. In response to Mr. Chapkey's question as to whether the Ministry of Interior is going to make the decision on publishing the statistic materials on their Web site or on-line access to statistics databases, Mr. Anufriev said that this issue will be considered and the decision will be made in accordance with Ukraine legislation in force.
Vasyl Tatsiy thanked all the participants and, on behalf of Ukrainian delegation, approved the resolutions.
Richard Ward: We appreciate the time you've spent considering this resolution and recognizing the importance of the resolution in achievement of the objectives of the partnership. We will also work with you in any further way that we need to with respect to disclosure issues. Achieving consensus between the Ukraine and the U.S. government in this document is very important.
Jim Finckenauer: An enormous amount of progress has been made in this project. We have overcome great difficulties and a terrific foundation has been laid to build further activity in Ukraine, as well as a useful model to look to other countries when doing research assessments and building communications capabilities. Thanks to all of you for giving your time and your thoughtfulness to this meeting today.