91É«ÇéƬ

The aim of this project was to document and analyse advocacy processes using a case study of the recently introduced policy to make naloxone available to potential overdose witnesses in the ACT (the ENAACT program). This unique initiative is an example of successful policy advocacy by a circumscribed group (the Expanding Naloxone Availability in the ACT Committee) guided by the Canberra Alliance for Harm Minimisation and Advocacy (CAHMA, a consumer group), and therefore as a case study has the potential to provide a rich source of new knowledge about policy advocacy.

It is the process leading to the program’s establishment which has been the subject of the case study analysis. This case provides an example of how drug policy development occurs in a time of ‘non-emergency’ (that is, in the absence of an acute ‘crisis’ or heightened political and media concern, which is not to say that overdoses were not occurring). The case study analysis aimed to demonstrate the ways in which a collective process was used to achieve successful outcomes.

This analysis of the process leading to the successful establishment of Australia’s first peer-administered naloxone program adds to the existing case study literature which has sought to describe and better understand the mechanisms and conditions which facilitate the implementation of new drug policy initiatives. Such analysis of how policy processes happen in real-world, contemporary settings is essential for generating new and timely learning which can be interpreted and applied to inform approaches across jurisdictions, and other drug policy issues.