• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Drug and alcohol review >Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence? The role of evidence in the development and implementation of the Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative.
【24h】

Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence? The role of evidence in the development and implementation of the Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative.

机译：基于证据的政策还是基于政策的证据？证据在非法药物转移倡议的制定和实施中的作用。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

ISSUES: Evidence-based policy is promoted as the ideal in drug policy, yet public policy theorists suggest that policy-based evidence may be a more fitting analogy, where evidence is used selectively to support a predetermined policy direction. The following paper assesses the resonance of this notion to the development of the Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative (IDDI), an apparently pragmatic reform adopted in Australia in 1999 through the Federal Coalition 'Tough on Drugs' strategy. It utilises interviews with key informants from the Australian drug policy arena conducted in 2005 to assess the role of evidence in the design and implementation of the IDDI. KEY FINDINGS: The current paper shows that while policy-makers were generally supportive of the IDDI and viewed drug diversion as a more pragmatic response to drug users, they contend that implementation has suffered through a selective and variable emphasis upon evidence. Most notably, the IDDI is not premised upon best-practice objectives of reducing harm from drug use, but instead on 'Tough on Drugs' objectives of reducing drug use and crime. IMPLICATIONS: This paper contends that policy-based evidence may facilitate the adoption of pragmatic reforms, but reduce the capacity for effective reform. It therefore has both functional and dysfunctional elements. The paper concludes that greater attention is needed to understanding how to mesh political and pragmatic objectives, and hence to maximise the benefits from policy-based evidence.
机译：问题：基于证据的政策被提倡为毒品政策的理想之选，但公共政策理论家认为基于政策的证据可能是一个更合适的类比，即有选择地使用证据来支持预定的政策方向。以下论文评估了这种观念与非法药物转移计划（IDDI）的发展的共鸣，该计划是1999年在澳大利亚通过联邦“强硬毒品”战略通过的一项看似务实的改革。它利用对2005年澳大利亚毒品政策舞台上关键人物的采访，来评估证据在IDDI设计和实施中的作用。关键发现：当前的文件显示，尽管政策制定者普遍支持IDDI，并将毒品转移视为对吸毒者更为务实的反应，但他们认为实施工作受到了选择性和可变重点的重视。最值得注意的是，IDDI并非以减少吸毒危害的最佳实践目标为前提，而是以减少毒品使用和犯罪的“严厉吸毒”目标为前提。涵义：本文认为，基于政策的证据可能有助于通过务实的改革，但会降低有效改革的能力。因此，它同时具有功能和功能失调的元素。本文的结论是，需要更多的注意力来理解如何划分政治目标和务实目标，从而最大程度地从基于政策的证据中受益。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号