Young people and drug policy Alison Ritter, Kari Lancaster & Francis Matthew-Simmons Drug Policy Modelling Program National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Research funded by: ANCD and DPMP (Colonial Foundation Trust)
Policy and public opinion Relationship between policy and opinion • Policy leads opinion (creating norms: legitimation effect) • Opinion leads policy (elected officials do what people want: democracy) • Dynamic interplay (thermostat effect) Normative stand • Policy should be informed by the people it most directly affects: ethical • Participation is regarded as a principle of ‘good governance’ • Giving the community a voice in policy processes can better inform policy development, build trust and increase legitimacy
Who’s opinions get heard? • Academics/researchers • Practitioners • Advocacy groups • General public • Consumers • Those most directly affected….
Whose voices get heard? • Marginalisation of those who are most directly affected in illicit drug policy
Young people • Most likely to be group that tries different drugs, engages in harmful drug use, and experiences the consequences of policy • Not been systematically surveyed • Young people’s drug using behaviour frequently surveyed, but not their policy opinions • Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child guarantees young people the right to participation • In UK, national policy strategies explicitly state that “young people themselves should be consulted on what is most likely to make a difference” (2004) • ANCD identified surveying young people about their views about AOD policy as a priority • Aim: to describe and better understand young people’s opinions and attitudes towards alcohol and other drug policy
Engaging with young people’s views • Multiple mechanisms for engagement: – Consultations, roundtables, focus groups – Calls for submissions – Advocacy activities by peak bodies – Survey research • Surveys canvass the opinions of a large number of individuals affected by policy decisions • Not limited to the views of those who are the ‘loudest’ or the most politically powerful
Internet survey • Internet survey – potentially ideal for young people (16 to 25 yrs) Accessible Confidential & anonymous Representative Inexpensive Remainder of presentation Methods Sampling issues Ethical considerations
Methodology The survey domains Domain ¡ Area of enquiry; type of question ¡ 1. Attitudes to drugs and perceptions of Cognitive beliefs and emotional risk responses about drug use Risks associated with alcohol/drug use ¡ 2. Choosing between broad policy Choosing between prevention, law options ¡ enforcement, treatment, other measures ¡ 3. Perceptions about types of Attitudes to specific interventions: interventions ¡ extent of support or agreement with different types of interventions ¡ 4. Sources of information about drugs ¡ Most used sources of information ¡ 5. Alternate responses ¡ Suggestions for alternate responses ¡ 6. Demographics ¡ Gender, age, alcohol & drug use, education, location ¡
Method (contin) • Selected questions from existing surveys • Reliability and validity of questions • Question ordering • Extent of questions – maximum administration time 10 mins • Pilot work • Software KeySurvey tool • Recruitment over 3 months (Sept to Dec 2012)
Recruitment • Multiple outlets across Australia • Focused on websites and email lists • Facebook: ongoing paid advertisement, and a Facebook page • Other websites, forums and email lists, eg: • university & TAFE websites • online chat forums and blogs e.g. Bluelight • social networking sites e.g. Twitter • government, youth oriented, and youth drug and alcohol service websites, eg: Australian Clearinghouse for Youth Studies, Australian Youth Forum, Youth Action Policy Association, Vibewire, YSAS etc • Media release was also circulated nationally which generated regional and local press coverage, and radio interviews.
Getting the sampling right Our target • National sample, young people aged 16 to 25 years • At least n=2,000 • Broadly representative of the population distribution of each state and territory in Australia and evenly distributed by age and sex. State or Territory ¡ Proposed survey sample (16-25 year olds) ¡ ABS Estimates (16-25 year olds) ¡ No. of respondents ¡ Proportion (%) ¡ New South Wales ¡ 640 ¡ 32% ¡ Victoria ¡ 500 ¡ 25% ¡ Queensland ¡ 400 ¡ 20% ¡ Western Australia ¡ 220 ¡ 11% ¡ South Australia ¡ 140 ¡ 7% ¡ Tasmania ¡ 40 ¡ 2% ¡ ACT ¡ 40 ¡ 2% ¡ Northern Territory ¡ 20 ¡ 1% ¡ Total ¡ 2000 ¡ 100% ¡
Alcohol and drug use • Challenge: internet surveys tend to tap into experienced AOD users • Attempted to recruit young people who did not have past drug use experience by advertising through general youth websites and media, rather than heavily promoting the survey through sub-culture specific websites • All recruitment advertisements emphasised that young people did not have to have tried drugs or alcohol to participate • Partially controlled for representativeness throughout the recruitment period by adjusting Facebook advertising specifications so as to target different states, sexes and age groups where possible • ?Extent of our success…..
The sample • 3,326 respondents entered the survey, with n = 2,335 completed questionnaires (70%). • 61.7% were male (n=1,441) and 38.3% were female (n=894). Surveys of this kind usually over-represent females, however in this case more males than females participated in the survey. Age Proportion % ABS Figures % Number of respondents 16 162 6.9 9.3 17 227 9.7 9.3 18 218 9.3 9.4 19 282 12.1 9.6 20 310 13.3 10.0 21 273 11.7 10.4 22 246 10.5 10.4 23 220 9.4 10.4 24 209 9.0 10.5 25 188 8.1 10.6
Proportion % ¡ State/ Number of ABS Figures Territory ¡ respondents ¡ % ¡ NSW ¡ 826 ¡ 35.4 ¡ 31.2 ¡ VIC ¡ 561 ¡ 24.0 ¡ 25.2 ¡ QLD ¡ 383 ¡ 16.4 ¡ 20.3 ¡ WA ¡ 201 ¡ 8.6 ¡ 10.9 ¡ SA ¡ 170 ¡ 7.3 ¡ 7.2 ¡ ACT ¡ 113 ¡ 4.8 ¡ 2.0 ¡ TAS ¡ 52 ¡ 2.2 ¡ 2.1 ¡ NT ¡ 23 ¡ 1.0 ¡ 1.2 ¡
Drug type ¡ Ever used Used in last 12 NDSHS 2010 Ever Proportion months Proportion used (%) ¡ (%) ¡ (15 to 24 yrs) Proportion (%) ¡ Alcohol ¡ 95.1 ¡ 91.4 ¡ 80.6 Cannabis ¡ 71.9 ¡ 58.6 ¡ 33.1 Ecstasy ¡ 47.7 ¡ 36.0 ¡ 14.0 26.5 ¡ 16.9 ¡ Methamphetamin 6.8 e ¡ Cocaine ¡ 24.1 ¡ 13.6 ¡ 7.3 Hallucinogens ¡ 41.3 ¡ 29.4 ¡ 7.6 Inhalants ¡ 24.3 ¡ 13.5 ¡ 4.4 Heroin ¡ 2.8 ¡ 1.2 ¡ 0.5 32.2 ¡ 22.8 ¡ Prescription 13.5 drugs ¡ Ketamine ¡ 12.8 ¡ 6.5 ¡ 3.6 GHB ¡ 5.6 ¡ 2.2 ¡ 0.8 NDSHS may underestimate prevalence of drug use amongst young people (due to Any other illicit 11.5 ¡ 8.3 ¡ NA recruitment methods) just as our survey may overestimate (having tapped into an drug ¡ experienced group).
Ethical considerations • Ethics committee approval • Under 16 years of age? • Reimbursement for participation • Informed consent and anonymity – potentially identifying information • Special needs groups • CALD • People with disabilities • Indigenous young people • Appropriate advice & support from youth experts
Conclusions • Modern digital communication provides opportunities • Giving young people a voice • Internet surveys – various challenges • Eagerness and willingness to contribute (n=1,855 gave qualitative answers, 189 pages of text….unexpected) • Need to better understand the attitudes of young people….. • …across a full range of experiences and identities • In order to better represent their interests in drug policy deliberation and ensure that a rich breadth of knowledge and opinion helps to inform policy decision-making.
Thank-you Professor Alison Ritter Drug Policy Modelling Program, Director National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre UNSW, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia E: alison.ritter@unsw.edu.au T: + 61 (2) 9385 0236 DPMP Website: http://www.dpmp.unsw.edu.au
Recommend
More recommend
