Illicit drugs policy consists of decisions regarding the best ways to:
- reduce the supply of drugs and the criminal activity associated with drug use (law enforcement);
- prevent the commencement of drug use by young people (prevention);
- help existing drug dependent people (treatment); and
- reduce harms to drug users and the community (harm reduction).
These four 'streams' - law enforcement, prevention, treatment, and harm reduction - form the foundation of good illicit drug policy. There is much more to be known about what works within each stream, in which circumstances and in what combinations. Evidence is also lacking about the optimal balance of government investment across the four streams.
DPMP is undertaking innovative and sound research to improve the evidence base across these streams.
Melbourne Injecting Drug User Cohort Study (MICS)
Research team: Paul Dietze, Mark Stoove, Campbell Aitken, Peter Higgs, Duyen Duong, Adonis Espinosa, Danielle Horyniak (Burnet Institute) and Damien Jolley (Monash University)
Overview:
The health and social outcomes associated with injecting drug use are poorly understood in Australia. The Melbourne Injecting Cohort Study (MIX) will collect baseline data from a large cohort of young injecting drug users in Melbourne, establishing a framework for investigating the long-term outcomes of injecting drug use using record linkage. The work will be important for improving understanding of dynamic shifts in injecting drug use in response to changes in drug markets. The study began in May 2008, with recruitment of 50 participants in a pilot study of the survey instruments, recruitment and field methods. Recruitment for the pilot, involving 53 participants overall, finished in August. Initial findings from the pilot are that the current interview schedule takes less than 1 hour to complete, participants were comfortable with providing identifying information and that the handheld pocket pc’s and software worked efficiently at collecting data. Methods for data management and storage have been refined in order to minimise the possibility of data loss (data from an additional 5 participants was lost).
Expected completion date: 2010
More information:
pauld@burnet.edu.au
Problem-Oriented and Partnership Policing: LEAPS Evaluation
Research team: Paul Mazerolle, Lorraine Mazerolle, Patricia Ferguson and Simon Jackson (Griffith University)
Overview: The primary aim of the LEAPS initiative is to lower the incidence of drug and alcohol related problems (e.g. violence and incivilities) with the goal of making club and bar environments safer for all patrons. LEAPS embraces harm reduction values and utilises low impact enforcement on licensed premises not complying with mandatory harm reduction measures. A problem-oriented and partnership policing (POPP) initiative, LEAPS purpose is to scan Fortitude Valley for crime and safety problems, analyse the dynamics of problems located, respond to the problems in a relevant and proportionate manner, and assess the outcome of their response in terms of a lasting effect. The DPMP project aims to measure: the impact of partnership policing on place managers’ awareness of community problems and engagement in positive action; perceptions of procedural justice in a site with conflicting policing strategies; patrons’ perspectives on licensed premises lockout and late night safety; the impact of a drug education media campaign on a high risk group; the economic impact of LEAPS (cost-effectiveness analysis); and, the relationship between drug use and attitudes to police. Additionally, upon receiving crime data from the Queensland Police Service we will measure the impact (using interrupted time series analysis) of LEAPS on a series of crime outcomes.
Expected completion date: March 2009
More information:
p.mazerolle@griffith.edu.au
Reducing the Methamphetamine Problem in Australia: Evaluating Innovative Partnerships Between Police, Pharmacies and Other Third Parties
Research team: Lorraine Mazerolle, Matthew Manning, Janet Ransley, Jacqueline Drew, Julianne Webster and Ingrid McGuffog (Griffith University)
Overview: This project will measure the impact of a drug law enforcement initiative, Project STOP, with respect to its impact on suppressing the supply of amphetamines across Queensland and Victoria. Project STOP is a supply side drug law enforcement intervention aimed at disrupting the availability of amphetamines in Queensland and Victoria, thereby increasing the costs and risks associated with manufacturing the drug. The project is disaggregated into nine methodologies, which include: (1) examining law enforcement-led partnership with third parties (including retail pharmacies); (2) a review of existing drug law enforcement policies and procedures to identify current legal provisions that support law enforcement efforts (e.g. mandatory reporting of pseudoephedrine sales); (3) elicit perceptions and attitudes of pharmacists (in Queensland and Victoria) about mandatory reporting of pseudoephedrine sales; (4) understand the nature and characteristics of ‘other’ partnerships (ie. other than pharmacies) that have been formed to combat the methamphetamine problem;(5) evaluate the impact of drug law enforcement partnerships on drug treatment outcome trends; (6) measure the impact of Project STOP on patterns of drug use; (7) conduct an economic analysis of Project STOP; (8) assess the impact of key initiatives, particularly Project STOP, on drug-related crime in Queensland and Victoria; and, (9) explore the diffusion and displacement of crime, and the positive (and negative) side effects of police partnerships with third parties.
Expected completion date: November 2010
More information:
j.drew@griffith.edu.au
Integration and Implementation Sciences: Providing Concepts and Methods for Synthesising Disciplinary and Practice-based Knowledge and Connecting Research with Practice
Research team: Gabriele Bammer (ANU)
Overview:
DPMP, like other research programs addressing complex issues, needs effective ways to bring knowledge from different disciplines and from practice to bear. It also requires the most up-to-date techniques for influencing policy and other practice change. Integration and Implementation Sciences provides the necessary concepts and methods and is also intensely involved in their enhancement.
Five primary methods for integrating knowledge have been identified: dialogue-based techniques, particular approaches to modeling, using a guiding vision, building a specific product and developing and using a common metric (such as assigning monetary value, disability-adjusted life-years ie DALYs, or the Ecological Footprint).
In addition, Integration and Implementation Sciences works on four ways of connecting research with policy and practice: effective information provision, co-production of knowledge, engagement in political, policy and practice processes, and advocacy. This is coupled with detailed understanding of how to make change happen.
Effective integration and implementation also require attention to be given to:
- Underpinning values and their effects on research and practice,
- How issues and problems are framed and boundaries around them set,
- How ignorance and uncertainty are dealt with, and
- Concepts and techniques for effective collaboration.
The Integration and Implementation Sciences group is based at the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, ANU College of Medicine and Health Sciences, The Australian National University. In developing the Integration and Implementation Sciences field, we collaborate with sister groups on “systemic intervention” (Professor Gerald Midgley and Dr Wendy Gregory at the Institute for Environmental Science and Research (ESR) Ltd in New Zealand) and on “transdisciplinarity” (Professor Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn, Dr Christian Pohl and Dr Christoph Kueffer at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich – ETH-Zurich). We also host an international Integration and Implementation Sciences Network.
The ANU Integration and Implementation Sciences group has six members (Gabriele Bammer, David McDonald, Lorrae van Kerkhoff, Alice Roughley, Peter Deane, Caryn Anderson). Not all are directly involved in or funded by DPMP, but all work on projects that are relevant to enhancing DPMP processes.
Expected completion date: 2011
More information:
http://www.anu.edu.au/iisn/
Structural analysis of the Australian heroin drought
Research team: Jonathan Caulkins (Carnegie Mellon University), Peter Reuter (University of Maryland) and Martin Bouchard (Simon Fraser University)
Overview: The disruption of the Australian heroin markets that was recognized starting in late 2000/early 2001 was the most severe and prolonged of any documented disruption of a major drug market in a developed country. Before this “drought”, heroin use was associated with the great bulk of drug-related harm in the country, and key indicators such as overdose rates fell precipitously and have never returned to their pre-drought levels. Hence, there is considerable worldwide interest in Australia to understand what caused this singular “success”. The research team has tapped a variety of novel data indicators to develop a coherent empirical argument concerning likely causes, with results being written up as three separate papers: one analysing the causes of this event, a second describing what one would expect to see from a severe market disruption (to avoid a replication of specious arguments and misunderstanding concerning this event), and a third analysing Canada’s heroin markets, which have played a prominent role in the literature arguing that AFP actions could not have been an important driver of the drought.
Expected completion date: October 2009
More information:
alison.ritter@unsw.edu.au
Developing a common metric to evaluate policy options (the Policy Outcome Index)
Research team: Alison Ritter (NDARC)
Overview:DPMP is concerned with evaluating drug policy. In the main, DPMP is using models or simulations, as a primary method to evaluate policy options. It is intended that the simulations can derive reasonable and plausible effect sizes for the impacts of different drug policies. However, the models need standardised outcome measures. It is in this context that DPMP is engaged in a project to develop a policy outcome index. The purpose of the DPMP policy outcome index is to compare different policy options and their effects, using a common metric. The method applied for the DPMP Index involves determining an approach to outcomes, identifying all the outcomes, and quantifying them through the application of a social cost framework. Because each drug is different in its prevalence, consumption and most importantly harms, the Index developed by us is specific to individual drugs. In addition we distinguish between dependent and non-dependent use to manage the large variance in harms associated with patterns of use. The development and use of the DPMP index is an ongoing program of research.
More information:
alison.ritter@unsw.edu.au
Australian drug policy: an overview report on drug use and harms and their relationship to policy
Research team: Alison Ritter and Katrina Grech (NDARC)
Overview:The goal of the report is to produce an objective analysis of Australian drug policy that provides an accessible account of the Australian situation to date. Hopefully it will become the ‘source’ document for those wanting an overview of the Australian situation. The report will cover (i) the Australian context (socio-eco climate – employment, poverty, social cohesion); (ii) description of drug policy (policies, approaches, spending, structures, public opinion); (iii) prevalence of drug use and harms; and (iv) policy analysis.
More information:
alison.ritter@unsw.edu.au
The influence of drug prices on the patterns of drug consumption of methamphetamine users
Research team: Jenny Chalmers (NDARC), Craig Jones, Don Weatherburn and Deborah Bradford (BOCSAR)
Interviewing Assistants: Colleen Faes, David Bright, Caitlin Huges, and Rachel Ngui (NDARC)
Overview: After cannabis, methamphetamine is the second most used illicit drug on a lifetime basis in Australia. Supply control efforts that aim to reduce the demand for methamphetamine by making drug transactions more risky and the retail price higher are not without criticism. In response to price increases methamphetamine users may not reduce their consumption. Even if they do reduce their consumption of methamphetamine they may increase consumption of other drugs: a significant number of methamphetamine users are poly-drug users. To date very little is known about the responsiveness of methamphetamine users to price changes. A growing body of overseas literature has used behavioural economics techniques to explore such issues. Following their lead this project will survey approximately 100 methamphetamine users, asking them to make hypothetical purchases of a range of drugs (including methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, cannabis and alcohol) based on a price list and a drug budget. Holding the drug budget constant the prices of heroin and methamphetamine will be varied, one at a time, to explore the relationships between price and consumption. Important covariates may be the levels of dependence on methamphetamine and heroin and drug use experience.
Expected completion date: March 2010
Related publication: Chalmers, J., Bradford, J., & Jones, C. (2009, September). How do methamphetamine users respond to changes in methamphetamine price?
Crime and Justice Bulletin, 134.
Full text
More information:
jenny.chalmers@unsw.edu.au
Exploring socio-demographics and drug use
Research team: Jenny Chalmers (NDARC)
Overview: The aim of this project is to explore the relationships between socio-demographics and patterns of illicit drug use. The research is based on analysis of the National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS), a population survey representing nine repeated cross-sections covering 22 years from 1985 to 2007. The project will advance in two stages. Firstly, the repeated cross-sectional nature of the data will be exploited to construct pseudo-cohorts, enabling a thorough analysis of the changing nature of drug use over the last two decades. Subsequently, the evolving patterns of drug use will be compared with the socio-demographic background of drug users and socio-economic conditions in Australian society more broadly.
Expected completion date: June 2010
More information:
jenny.chalmers@unsw.edu.au
Drug law enforcement performance monitoring: The persistence of simplistic measures and barriers to moving forward
Research team: Caitlin Hughes (NDARC) and Steve James (University of Melbourne)
Overview:Drug law enforcement (DLE) is an expensive component of Australian drug policy. In 2002-03 Moore (2005) estimated that 56% of spending by Australian federal and state and territory government was directed at law enforcement efforts. In contrast, only 22% was directed at prevention, 18% at treatment and 2% at harm reduction. There is therefore a clear need to monitor the performance of DLE. Yet while researchers have argued for more than twenty years that seizures, arrests and clearance rates are measures of output not performance (see for example Wardlaw & Deane, 1986) such measures remain the dominant measures in use. The contention of the researchers is that in spite of the need for improved DLE performance monitoring, there are a number of critical drivers that impede the movement of the field: including the disparate arguments of the research field. The aim of this project is to identify barriers to moving the field forward and provoke consideration as to how we can improve the ability to assess DLE performance. Improved performance monitoring will be to the ultimate benefit of both DLE and Australian drug policy.
Expected completion date: November 2009
More information:
caitlin.hughes@unsw.edu.au
Cocaine epidemic in Australia: A real or illusionary threat?
Research team: Caitlin Hughes, Jenny Chalmers, Katrina Grech, David Bright, Francis Matthew-Simmons (NDARC)
Overview:There has been increasing attention to cocaine use in Australia and media reports of “boom times” as “Australia binges on cocaine” and threats of an emerging cocaine epidemic. Such reports have drawn on evidence of increased border seizures, increased arrests and to a lesser extent increased reports of cocaine use. Yet some critiques have argued this reflects shifts in activity, not market. This project seeks to determine whether there is any substance to such reports: Is the cocaine market expanding? i.e. are we seeing an influx of cocaine to Australia? How would we answer such a question? And if the market is not expanding, do such reports reflect changes in policy, for example increasing policing activity? The aim of this project is twofold: to illuminate the reality behind the reports and to provoke discussion as to how we can determine shifts in the cocaine market.
Expected completion date: November 2009
More information:
caitlin.hughes@unsw.edu.au
Print media reporting on illicit drug use in Australia: Trends and impacts on youth attitudes to illicit drug use
Research team: Caitlin Hughes, Michael Lodge, Francis Matthew-Simmons, Bridget Spicer, Kari Lancaster (NDARC) and Paul Dillon (Drug and Alcohol Research and Training Australia)
Overview:Many factors are known to influence attitudes towards and demand for illicit drugs. This project will examine the role of the print media, a medium that has a potentially important role in influencing social attitudes. This proposal seeks to identify national trends and patterns in media reporting on illicit drugs over the period 2003-2008 and to explore the degree to which media reporting impacts upon youth attitudes to illicit drugs. It will commence with a retrospective analysis of newspaper reporting on cannabis, amphetamines, cocaine, ecstasy and heroin from 2003–2008 to identify the dominant media portrayals used, and trends in the number of reports and types of portrayals used by drug type and region. This will be followed by a web-based survey and focus groups with youth aged 16-24 to determine attitudes towards illicit drugs pre and post viewing differing media portrayals. This research is jointly funded by the Department of Health and Ageing and the Colonial Foundation.
Expected completion date: June 2010
More information
caitlin.hughes@unsw.edu.au
A comparative analysis of drug court processes and outcomes in Sydney and London
Research team: Tim McSweeney (Kings College, NDARC)
Advisors: Caitlin Hughes, Alison Ritter (NDARC) and Paul Turnbull (Kings College)
Overview:In response to rising prison populations – a large proportion of which are considered to be ‘drug-related’ – and growing frustration with the relative ineffectiveness of conventional sanctions in deterring drug use and related crime, the use of drug courts and other post-sentence alternatives to imprisonment for drug misusing offenders is now proactively endorsed by the United Nations (UNODC, 2007), the Member States of the European Union (EMCDDA, 2005) and the Australian Government (Pritchard et al., 2007). However, the operation and effectiveness of these approaches varies considerably and more information is needed about the constituent components of effective diversionary practice. This project will conduct a comparative analysis of drug court processes and outcomes. The focus of analysis will be the adult drug courts in Sydney and West London, two drug courts established in 1999 and 2005 respectively. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods this research seeks to: identify the extent to which the Sydney and London drug courts adhere to established best practice principles; consider those programmatic features which impact upon processes and outcomes; and anonymously linking various administrative datasets with a view to assembling suitable comparison groups and monitoring health and criminal justice outcomes in these two drug courts.
Expected completion date: June 2012
More information
tim.mcsweeney@kcl.ac.uk
Literature review of the use of simulation as an aid to policy decision making
Research team: Alison Ritter and Louise Salkeld (NDARC)
Overview: In order to inform our work in the field with policy makers, we conducted a review of the literature on the uses of simulations and modelling in the context of policy decision making. The purpose of the project was to summarise the literature on the ways in which models or simulations are used as an aid to policy decision-making. We were not concerned with the software, the computer technology nor the simulations themselves per se, but with the ways in which models have been applied and used in practice with decision makers. The use of modelling spans a wide range of fields including pure mathematics, physical sciences, engineering, computer science, business, military, economics and social science.
A model is only a partial representation of reality, and as such is a simplification of the real world. The balance between realism and simplicity is a delicate one - a challenge is to develop the most parsimonious model that represents the key aspects of the system, whilst leaving sufficient complexity in the model to be relevant to solving a real world problem. The reasons why models are a preferred approach are numerous. Models can enable exploration of scenarios in complex environments where the outcomes may not be obvious or intuitive. They can enable group exploration of complex and ambiguous issues, and represent a diversity of views. Modelling provides a “common framework and opportunity for fruitful discussion”. Models are highly relevant tools for policy decision making because case studies in the real world are difficult. Perhaps more importantly, models can be effective and useful aids for decision-making processes, because they represent the complexity and dynamic relationships between important variables in the policy domain.
In light of the complexity of illicit drug problems and associated policy, models provide both a tool for handing complexity, but also opportunities for exploration of plausible alternatives. As put by Levin, models can ‘increase the role of reason over rhetoric’ (Levin, Hirsch, & Roberts, 1972). The DPMP can therefore confidently continue to explore the use of models in light of the above literature. We are making available a plain language summary of the literature review for the DPMP website.
Completed: July 2007
More information:
alison.ritter@unsw.edu.au
Common metrics - a tool for research integration
Research team: Gabriele Bammer (ANU), David McDonald (Social Research & Evaluation) and Peter Deane (ANU)
Overview: Common metrics provide one strategy for integration by encapsulating the range of relevant disciplinary and stakeholder knowledge about the problem in a single measure. Theoretical work on common metrics from the Integration and Implementation Sciences team has practical relevance for the DPMP work on a Drug Harm Index [see project 6]. We have written a paper which describes four common metrics – monetary value, global hectares of land, metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent and disability-adjusted life-years. The more familiar applications of the first two (monetary value and global hectares of land) are cost benefit analysis, ecosystem services analysis and ecological footprint calculations. The paper considers each common metric in relation to the different research questions that it is best suited to address. The paper also presents two real-world case studies, which illustrate how decision makers were involved in and influenced by the common metric research. The first case used the development of an ecological footprint analysis to raise awareness of and initiate action on sustainability issues in local government planning in Cardiff, Wales. The second case used a modified ecosystem services analysis to develop options for the sustainable development of a region in Victoria, Australia. The paper also discusses the limitations of this class of integration methods. The paper has been reviewed by a number of independent assessors and is now being finalised for submission to the journal “Ecology and Society”.
More information:
gabriele.bammer@anu.edu.au
Working estimates of the social costs per gram and per user for cannabis, cocaine, opiates and amphetamines
Research team: Tim Moore (University of Maryland)
Overview:
This work estimated the different social costs associated with different illicit drugs. More specifically, the research estimated the annual health and crime costs in Australia (circa 2004) associated with opiates, amphetamines, cocaine, and other illicit drugs separately between dependent users and non-dependent users. These were then combined with prevalence and consumption to generate estimates of the social costs per drug user by drug type; and social costs per kilogram (or gram) for each drug type. The results revealed that for cannabis, the annual social cost for one dependent user was $11,296. This compares to the annual social cost of a nondependent cannabis user of $192. For heroin, $105,342 was the estimated annual social for one heroin dependent person, compared to $$1,965 for a non-dependent heroin user. For amphetamines the social costs associated with dependent amphetamine use was estimated to be $44,665 per annum and for a non-dependent amphetamine user $926 per annum. Sensitivity analyses (95% confidence intervals) revealed that the plausible range for the estimates for dependent users of cannabis was between $6,998 and $17,437 social cost per annum; for opiates between $55,330 and $115,222; and for amphetamines between $18,258 and $48,757. There are several significant and important caveats. First, the analysis depends on the assumption that social costs can be linked to particular types of drugs, and a decrease in how much that drug is used will decrease social costs. While this is a reasonable assumption for small changes in use, it would certainly not hold for large changes. Second, it is important to understand that all social costs are allocated to illicit drugs as if their consumption has been constant over time. This has clearly not been the case, but there is not enough information to allocate current social costs between current and past use. Third, there are significant gaps in our knowledge about the relationships between drug use and social costs. Even in countries where they have access to longitudinal datasets of the type that make such relationships easier to understand, the findings are conflicting and uncertain.
This work is important because, by generating estimates such as these, we can begin to evaluate different policy responses in terms of cost savings to the community. Being able to specify the social costs per gram and per user for the main classes of illicit drugs means that we can evaluate policy responses – such as the potential cost savings of reducing the supply of a specific drug by X kilograms; or the cost savings of decreasing the number of dependent drug users by Y. The results were presented in a DPMP Monograph (Moore, T. (2007). Monograph No. 14: Working estimates of the social costs per gram and per user for cannabis, cocaine, opiates and amphetamines.
DPMP Monograph Series. Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre). This work has now led to the development of the Policy Outcome Index.
For the full report, click
here.
Completed: January 2007
More information:
alison.ritter@unsw.edu.au
The impact of Portugal's decriminalization of drugs
Research team: Caitlin Hughes (NDARC) and Alex Stevens (University of Kent)
Overview: Since July 2001 Portugal has decriminalized illicit drug use, possession and acquisition of all illicit drugs and introduced an alternate more therapeutic and educative system. This project was conducted in collaboration with the Beckley Foundation and aimed to provide an overview of the current trends and perceptions of key stakeholders regarding the major impacts, successes and challenges in adopting decriminalization. It drew upon data from the evaluations conducted to date and interviews with key stakeholders.
The statistical indicators suggested that following the reform there was increased use of cannabis, decreased use of heroin, a reduction in drug-related deaths, a reduction in infectious diseases, a reduction in the burden on the criminal justice system and an increase in the seizures of drugs.
Key informants largely supported the statistical trends, but also identified a broader range of perceived impacts upon drug use, drug-related problem and institutional practices. They argued that the foremost success of the reform was the reduction in drug use and drug-related problems, particularly amongst heroin users. Other positive impacts included reduced stigma, increased opportunities to discuss and debate drug issues and policy responses and increased collaboration between the health and law enforcement sectors.
A number of issues of contention remained. The major issues were whether the decriminalization had contributed to a rise in new drug use (cannabis and ecstasy) and/or to an expansion of the drug market. Stakeholders had differing opinions as to the whether such trends should be attributed to the reform. For example, the rise in new drug use was seen by many as an artifact of increased reporting of drug use. Another issue was the extent to which problems with the implementation had detracted from the impacts to date and whether and how such problems could be overcome.
Resolving these issues is critical for the establishing the costs/benefits of the decriminalization. Nevertheless, the impacts to date from the Portuguese decriminalization suggest that decriminalization may lead to increased tolerance of drug use, but also positive public health impacts.
For the completed report, click
here.
Completed: December 2007
More information:
caitlin.hughes@unsw.edu.au
A summary of diversion programs for drug and drug-related offenders in Australia
Research team: Caitlin Hughes and Alison Ritter (NDARC)
Overview: In Australia there has been a preference to divert minor drug users to drug education and/or treatment instead of applying the traditional criminal justice response. In recent years such a response has become more mainstream particularly after the adoption of the Council Of Australian Governments - Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative, a national agreement to divert minor drug users. Yet with over 25 programs across Australia there are considerable jurisdictional differences which have contributed towards confusion as to the current state of drug diversion in Australia. This project provides a jurisdictional overview of all drug diversion programs operating in Australia as of January 2007, including programs funded through and outside the COAG agreement. It summarises the program criteria, their target groups, diversionary procedures and legislative basis. The overview should have immediate benefit for policy makers, researchers and states and territories. The results were published in a DPMP Monograph (Hughes, C. and Ritter, A. (2008). Monograph No. 16: A summary of diversion programs for drug and drug related offenders in Australia.
DPMP Monograph Series. Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre).
For the full report, click
here.
Completed: February 2008
More information:
caitlin.hughes@unsw.edu.au
Uncertainty and Risk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives
Research team: Gabriele Bammer, Michael Smithson (ANU) and the Goolabri Group
Overview:Providing an evidence base for effective policy making on illicit drugs has two components. One is to pull together what is known about the problem and/or to generate relevant new knowledge. The other is to provide a helpful way of understanding and managing what is not known, as decisions must almost always be made in the face of incomplete evidence. Researchers who seek to influence policy inevitably concentrate on the former, largely because ways to approach the unknown are poorly conceptualised and limited. We have undertaken pioneering work in developing better understanding about the multifaceted nature of unknowns, as a first step in enhancing our ability to provide more complete policy advice.
In 2005, as part of Stage One of DPMP, Gabriele Bammer and Michael Smithson organised a symposium to trade ideas between different disciplines and practice areas on the nature of uncertainty. The symposium papers and subsequent synthesis of ideas have been published in the book “Uncertainty and Risk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives” (London: Earthscan), edited by Bammer and Smithson. The book was launched on Thursday 8th May, 2008.
An important aspect of the book was to begin the process of applying diverse ideas about uncertainty to the illicit drugs area. Alison Ritter provided a chapter which presented three aspects of the heroin problem which are rife with uncertainty: estimating the number of heroin users in Australia, policy to reduce harms from heroin use, and managing suicidal drug users. In the book’s three synthesis chapters the insights from the various disciplines and practice areas were used to cast light on these issues. For example, a taxonomy of different kinds of uncertainty showed that ‘incompleteness’, ‘irrelevance’, ‘vagueness’, ‘fuzziness’, ‘distortion’, ‘absence’ and ‘taboo’ are dimensions of uncertainty relevant to these problems, each invoking different management strategies. Further, the synthesis chapters demonstrated that policy formation typically involves a mixture of anticipatory and resilience stances towards managing uncertainty.
To order a copy of the book, click
here.
More information:
gabriele.bammer@anu.edu.au
A comparative analysis of research into illicit drugs in the European Union
Research team: Alison Ritter and Francis Matthew-Simmons (NDARC)
Overview: This brief project forms part of a large analysis undertaken by the European Commission on the state of illicit drug research across Europe. The analysis of illicit drug research across Europe includes examining the structures for research prioritisation, the funding mechanisms, topics of research undertaken and the level of investment. The European Commission wished to have three comparison countries for their analysis – USA, Canada and Australia. The DPMP was invited to prepare the research report for Australia. We have documented the history of Australian illicit drug research, the funding structures, the topics researched and the strategic processes for illicit drug research.
Completed: November 2008
More information:
alison.ritter@unsw.edu.au