A critical examination of the introduction of drug detection dogs for policing of illicit drugs in New South Wales, Australia using Kingdon’s ‘multiple streams’ heuristic

Abstract

This paper critically analyses the introduction of drug detection dogs as a tool for policing of illicit drugs in New South Wales, Australia. Using Kingdon’s ‘multiple streams’ heuristic as a lens for analysis, we identify how the issue of drugs policing became prominent on the policy agenda, and the conditions under which the alternative of drug detection dogs for illicit drugs policing came to be endorsed by decision makers. By applying Kingdon’s heuristic, we also consider how this approach may be used to illuminate the limitations of the evidence-based policy paradigm in the context of policing policy.

Rules-of-thumb for problem-structuring policy design

“…In many cases of real-life policymaking, satisficing or incrementalist heuristics and strong political pressure decide the choice for merely doable, suboptimal solutions (Grossmann 2014;Lancaster et al 2017).This is because the results of formal multi-criteria analyses raise choices, dilemmas even, that cannot be decided by analysis alone, but require political negotiation, bargaining and logrolling. In this sense, problem definition requires a political decision to stop thinking and shift to public action.…”

Heuristics for practitioners of policy design: Rules-of-thumb for structuring unstructured problems

“…Practitioners rather ‘shoot from the hip’ and engage in some incrementalist or satisficing heuristics in arriving at conclusions about net problem reduction (Gigerenzer et al., 1999). In many cases of real-life policymaking, satisficing heuristics and strong political pressure decide the choice for merely doable solutions ( Grossman, 2014 ; Lancaster et al., 2017 ).…”

Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework and Multiple Streams policy theories to examine the role of evidence, research and other types of knowledge in drug policy

“…We have previously applied the MS and the ACF to examine the police deployment of drug detection dogs (22,23). Drug detection dogs for street-level policing of illicit drugs are used in many parts of the world including the United Kingdom, Europe, and the United States (24)(25)(26), and in Australia are deployed to detect illicit drugs on people in public places, notably nightlife districts, railway stations, and at music festivals.…”

“…Despite this extensive critique, the NSW deployment of drug detection dogs has not only continued unabated (35) but has expanded (23). The focus of the MS analysis of the drug detection dogs policy was on an account of the establishment of drug detection dogs (22), which examined how the three streams (problems, policy and politics) came together in a window of opportunity in 2001 to provide a legislative basis for this program in NSW. This analysis highlighted the production of different problem framings, the importance of drug detection dogs as a 'viable alternative' available for adoption at a particular moment in time, and the high political salience of law and order issues, as well as the importance of institutional venues for re-categorising problem framings and as arenas of contestation (22).…”

“…The focus of the MS analysis of the drug detection dogs policy was on an account of the establishment of drug detection dogs (22), which examined how the three streams (problems, policy and politics) came together in a window of opportunity in 2001 to provide a legislative basis for this program in NSW. This analysis highlighted the production of different problem framings, the importance of drug detection dogs as a 'viable alternative' available for adoption at a particular moment in time, and the high political salience of law and order issues, as well as the importance of institutional venues for re-categorising problem framings and as arenas of contestation (22). The ACF analysis (23) examined the policy persistence of drug detection dogs in NSW through identification of three different coalitions (the law and order; civil libertarian; and harm reduction coalitions) and their beliefs and power/capacity to use resources.…”