Creating the evidence for better Australian drug policy and developing tools to apply that evidence assumes that the only driver of drug policy is evidence. This is clearly not true.
Drug policy is influenced by the research evidence but also by politics, lobby groups, public opinion, and various windows of opportunity.
DPMP is alive to the contexts in which policy decisions are made. Our research program includes work to better understand how policy is developed and the opportunities for and threats to evidence-informed policy.
Public opinion, the media, and illicit drug policy in Australia
Research team: Francis Matthew-Simmons (NDARC)
Overview:It is often desired that public policy should be based in rationality, and where possible, scientific evidence. However, the realities of democratic politics dictate that many policy decisions also need to be acceptable to a majority of the voting population. Previous research has shown that in many cases, policy decisions do accord with public opinion. This project aims to determine if this is the case regarding illicit drugs in Australia. By examining a number of different case studies (such as the legal status of cannabis, and treatment for heroin dependence) this project will determine if there is any relationship between shifts in public opinion over time and changes in policy, and what the nature of this relationship might be. The project also aims to examine what factors can shift public opinion in the first place, and the extent to which the news media can influence opinion change in Australia.
Expected completion date: June 2010
More information: francis.simmons@unsw.edu.au
An analysis of Australian illicit drug policy coordination
Research team: Caitlin Hughes, Michael Lodge and Alison Ritter (NDARC)
Advisor: David McDonald (Social Research & Evaluation)
Overview: Coordination has become one of the key objectives and mechanisms to delivering effective drug policies in Australia. Since 1985 there have been numerous changes in the governance structures and mechanisms for coordinating the National Drug Strategy. Yet, there has been a dearth of attention to how and where coordination occurs and the capacity of current structures and processes for delivering their desired objectives.
This project aims to examine illicit drug policy coordination through the lens of internationally endorsed good governance principles. We will conduct a literature review of best practice coordination and good governance, devise a tool for measuring the application of good governance principles and undertake a survey of key stakeholders involved in illicit drug policy coordination. In so doing we seek to contribute to debate on the current strengths and weaknesses of national coordination processes and to highlight potential directions for improving Australian illicit drug policy coordination.
Expected completion date: November 2009
More information: caitlin.hughes@unsw.edu.au
The rhetoric of partnerships involving people who use illicit drugs and the reality of 'partners' experience
Research team: Peter Lucas (University of Tasmania)
Overview: This research examines the discourse of partnerships in illicit drug policy. It also investigates perceptions among members of the ‘drug policy community’ about how successful the concept of partnerships in drug policy has been. The main focus will be on Tasmania where no funded user advocacy organisation operates, however, other States where such organisations have operated for a number of years will also be looked at.
The concept of partnerships and the role of consumers in developing effective policies and service delivery models is a central tenet of the ‘New Public Health’. In chronic disease fields such as asthma and diabetes, partnerships, as well as disease self-management, are regarded as essential in achieving better health outcomes and reducing the burden of disease. However, this does not appear to have been the case with illicit drugs.
The methodology will comprise two components. The first will involve analysis of a range of policy documents relating to illicit drug use to trace the evolution of the concept of partnerships with people who use illicit drugs. The second component will involve in-depth interviews with members of the ‘drug policy community’, including policy makers, service providers and members of user advocacy organisations.
The research will adopt a theoretical framework of ‘governmentality’ initially proposed by Michel Foucault. A ‘governmentality’ approach identifies the rationalities behind strategies adopted to enhance the productivity of populations, as well as the ‘technologies’ employed to achieve desired outcomes.
Expected completion date: October 2009
More information: p.v.lucas@utas.edu.au
Track Marks
Research team: Wayne Capper (Australian Injecting & Illicit Drug Users League)
Overview:This consumer-driven project is being conducted by the Australian Injecting & Illicit Drug Users League (AIVL) to document the contribution that Drug User Organisations and people who use/have used illicit drugs have made to drug policy in Australia. AIVL is the national peak body for state and territory Drug User Organisations and represents issues of national significance for those who use/have used illicit drugs. AIVL operates on a peer-based user-centred philosophy, encouraging and supporting people who use/have used illicit drugs to speak on their own behalf and to participate directly in all levels of the organisation. For this project a nationwide consultation process will be undertaken with the aim of producing 3 key outcomes;
- Development of a set of ‘key principles’ for supporting meaningful engagement with drug user organisations and people who use drugs in drug policy development.
- Development of an on-line ‘Meaningful Engagement Kit’ to include a copy of the report from the consultation phase and a copy of the ‘Key principles and Checklist’ for drug user involvement
- Development of an on-line ‘interactive timeline & archive’ to document the history of drug user involvement in Australian Drug Policy for the AIVL website.
Expected completion date: December 2009
More information:
waynec@aivl.org.au
www.aivl.org.au
Dialogue methods for research integration
Research team: Gabriele Bammer (ANU), David McDonald (Social Research & Evaluation) and Peter Deane (ANU)
Overview: Developing an effective knowledge base to support policy making in the illicit drugs area often requires bringing together perspectives from different disciplines and practice areas (representing stakeholders). Dialogue methods are one integrative tool that can advance evidence-informed illicit drug policy. We have produced a book “Dialogue Methods for Research Integration” which presents 14 dialogue methods that can be used for knowledge synthesis.
We classify them into two groups as follows:
“I. Dialogue Methods for Understanding a Problem Broadly: Integrating Judgements”, namely Citizens Jury, Consensus Conference, Consensus Development Panel, Delphi Technique, Future Search Conferences, Most Significant Change Technique, Nominal Group Technique, Open Space Technology, Scenario Planning, and Soft Systems Methodology; and
“II. Dialogue Methods for Understanding Particular Aspects of a Problem: Integrating Visions, World Views, Interests and Values”, namely Appreciative Inquiry (integrating visions), Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (integrating world views), Principled Negotiation (integrating interests) and Ethical Matrix (integrating values).
The book provides a description of each method, along with case studies of the method’s application in a research integration context. Case studies are drawn from four research areas – environment, public health, security, and technological innovation, to promote cross-fertilisation between these areas. We also provide a commentary on how the applicability of each method for research integration could be enhanced. We conclude by teasing out which sorts of research integration problems particular dialogue methods are best suited for, using illegal amphetamine use as an example.
The book is currently under consideration by a publisher.
More information: gabriele.bammer@anu.edu.au
Models of policy making to inform the use of evidence
Research team: Alison Ritter (NDARC) and Gabriele Bammer (ANU)
Overview:
Researchers are often frustrated by their inability to influence policy. We describe models of policy making to provide new insights and a more realistic assessment of research impacts on policy. Methods: We describe five prominent models of policy making and illustrate them with examples from the drugs field, before drawing lessons for researchers. Results: Policy making is a complex and messy process, with different models describing different elements. A technical/rational approach outlines the key steps in a policy process from identification of problems and their causes, through to examination and choice of response options, and subsequent implementation and evaluation. There is a clear role for research, as we illustrate with new medications, but this model largely ignores the dominant political aspects of policy making. Such political aspects include the influence of interest groups, and we describe models about power and pressure groups, as well as advocacy coalitions, and the challenges they pose for researchers. These are illustrated with reference to the alcohol industry, and interest group conflicts in establishing a Medically Supervised Injecting Centre. Another model of the processes of policy is the incrementalist model, which highlights small amendments to policy, as occurs in school-based drug education. Finally, we describe the multiple streams framework, which alerts researchers to ‘windows of opportunity’ and we show how these were effectively exploited in policy for cannabis reform in Western Australia. Conclusions: Understanding models of policy making can help researchers maximise the uptake of their work and advance evidence-informed policy.
A paper has been submitted for review (Ritter, A. and Bammer, G. Lessons from models of policy making: putting alcohol and other drugs research to use. Submitted to
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 17/8/08). This work on models of policy making grew out of the research-policy nexus reading group (see next project), and has also been used in a number of presentations to both researchers and decision makers (for example: Ritter, A. (2006). Policy making on drugs: the relevance and influence of research. Presentation at the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and Other Drugs (APSAD) Conference 2006, 8th November 2006, Cairns).
Completed:
February 2007
More information:
alison.ritter@unsw.edu.au
Priority areas in illicit drug policy: perspectives of policy makers
Research team: Alison Ritter (NDARC)
Overview:
When faced with the opportunity to conduct policy-relevant research on illicit drugs, the most obvious question is: What are the current priorities? This project set out to identify the priority areas in illicit drugs from the perspective of government policy makers. In order to substantially enhance the likelihood that research is relevant and potentially influential, knowledge about the priority areas of government policy makers is vital. This study aimed to document the priority areas in illicit drugs from the perspective of Australian decision makers. Thirty-nine senior policy makers across health and police portfolios were interviewed about priority areas in illicit drugs. Data were thematically analysed and grouped into main priority areas for drug types, interventions, service systems and policy analysis. The top priority area was methamphetamine, followed by prevention. Diversion of offenders into treatment and cannabis interventions were also identified as important. Research into service planning and funding systems was called for. Policy research priority areas including examination of whole of government approaches, economic evaluation, policy frameworks and measuring policy outcomes. Overall, many priority areas were identified including specific research questions on individual drugs, the call for new methods and comparative analyses and questions about service systems. DPMP has used this work to set our priority areas. It is also rich fodder for those seeking a relevant research topic. The results were published in a DPMP Monograph (Ritter, A. (2007). Monograph No. 15: Priority areas in illicit drug policy: Perspectives of policy makers. DPMP Monograph Series. Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre)
.
Click
here to access Monograph 15.
Completed: February 2007
More information:
alison.ritter@unsw.edu.au
Research-Policy Nexus Reading Group
Research team: Gabriele Bammer (ANU), Alison Ritter (NDARC), David McDonald (Social Research & Evaluation), Peter Deane, Lyndall Strazdins, Helen Berry and Lorrae van Kerkhoff (ANU)
Overview:
In 2006-7, this team formed a reading, writing and discussion group to expand considerations about effective ways for research to support policy making, especially for complex issues. We reviewed a broad range of literature on a) the policy making process, b) how the research-policy nexus works, c) research that is influential, and d) evaluating research-policy interaction. Our findings included checklists which enhance appreciation of differences in research and policy perspectives and we identified special roles to bridge these two communities, such as knowledge brokers or boundary spanners. We noted complexities introduced by the diversity in types of researchers and policy makers. We also considered inherent limitations in the nature of the research enterprise of direct relevance to policy: research often enhances rather than reduces uncertainty, it lacks uniform standards of quality, and capacity is limited and uneven. In terms of evaluation of the research-policy nexus, we found that it is extremely limited and would benefit from considerably more attention. We concluded that the search for a single ‘best’ model of research support for policy making is unrealistic, given the complexity of the policy making process.
We have finalised this stage of work which was co-funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council support for the Global Environmental Change and Food Systems Project (
www.gecafs.org) for which Gabriele Bammer is a CI. The full results are available in an unpublished GECAFS report. Results of different parts of the project are published or submitted in a)
Integration Insights #11, b) a paper sent to Drug and Alcohol Dependence [see project 31] and c) a chapter in a book on knowledge brokering which is currently in preparation. The reference database is available on request to selected collaborators.
More information:
alison.ritter@unsw.edu.au
Where do policy makers go to source research evidence
Research team: Alison Ritter (NDARC)
Overview:
Policy decisions are informed by a number of factors: politics, ideology and values, perceived public opinion, and pragmatic constraints such as funding. Research evidence is also used to inform decision making but must compete with these other inputs. Understanding how policy makers access research evidence may assist in encouraging greater use of this evidence. This study examined the sources of research evidence that Australian government drug policy makers accessed when faced with their most recent decision-making opportunity. Method: Drug policy makers across health and police government portfolios were interviewed (n=31) and asked to report on the sources of research evidence used in their most recent decision-making.
Results: Nine sources were reported, the most frequent of which were seeking advice from an expert and consulting technical reports. Accessing the internet, using statistical data and consulting policy makers in other jurisdictions were used in about half the cases. The least frequently used sources were academic literature, relying on internal expertise, policy documents and employing a consultant. Conclusion: There is a tension between the type of information source most suited to policy makers - simple, single-message, summative and accessible - and the types of information produced and valued by researchers – largely academic publications that are nuanced and complex. Researchers need to consider the sources that policy makers use if they wish their research to be utilised as one part of policy making. This work has been accepted for publication (Ritter, A. (2009). How do drug policy makers access research evidence?
International Journal of Drug Policy,
20(1), 70-75).
Click
here to access the abstract.
More information:
alison.ritter@unsw.edu.au
A review of Australian public opinion surveys on illicit drugs
Research team: Francis Matthew-Simmons, Stephanie Love and Alison Ritter (NDARC)
Overview:Public opinion can be an important influence on political decision making. This project aims to identify recent trends in Australian public opinion towards illicit drug issues. We have reviewed existing opinion surveys on illicit drugs, and where possible combined the results in order to gain a sense of the current trends. The issues covered include questions about the perceived harms caused by illicit drugs, attitudes towards drug law reform and government spending, and attitudes towards different interventions. This work resulted in the Monograph 17 (Matthew-Simmons, F., Love, S., and Ritter, A. (2008). Monograph 17: A review of Australian public opinion surveys on illicit drugs.
DPMP Monograph Series. Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre.)
Click
here to access Monograph 17.
Completed: December 2008
More information:
francis.simmons@unsw.edu.au