from YAPRap September 2005
by Garner Clancey, CHD Partners
For many years now, the youth sector has been concerned about the use of banning notices in commercial spaces such as shopping centres (see Grant, C (2000) Banning the Banning Notice, Alternative Law Journal Vol 25, No 1, and Copeland, A (2004) Public Space: A rights-based approach, Youth Studies Australia, Vol 23, No 3).
In more recent times, banning notices have become more frequently used in council pools, libraries and youth centres (amongst other locations). As a means of trying to stem this practice and to explore alternatives to banning, YAPA decided to conduct a forum (for which they should be applauded).
How did I come to be involved?
I became involved in the forum because of my interest in this area. Having worked with NSW Police, delivered training to shopping centre security guards, rangers and leisure centre staff, worked on shopping centre protocols and a crime prevention plan, it has become apparent to me that banning and exclusionary practices are not just the choice of last resort in dealing with problematic or inappropriate behaviour in many locations. Young people in focus groups that we have conducted (as part of these projects) have described the 'move-on go-round', where they are asked to move-on or leave various venues by different coloured uniforms of social control (blue = police; grey = transit officers / rangers; yellow / white / navy = shopping centre security; etc) and workers (including leisure centre management, youth workers and security personnel) have openly discussed the use of banning notices. Exposure to these discussions and practices triggered an interest in finding less exclusionary strategies to manage behaviour.
Trying to understand exclusionary practices
Understanding the seeming growth in exclusionary practices, including the use of banning notices, is a task of some complexity. Simple analysis might focus on just the context of individual services or locations, placing responsibility on management, guards or workers. While this may be the case and it is undoubtedly true that there are very specific local and site differences in the use of banning, I am more interested in looking for wider reasons to explain the use of banning. While the concept of exclusion is not new, the growth in banning across diverse sites suggests to me that there are some wider trends influencing the popularity of banning as a tactic to manage behaviour.
In my search for wider explanations for the use of banning and exclusionary practices, I settled on the following 'model' (see Figure 1): dramatic social change in the last 30 years has been accompanied by socio-political trends toward 'responsibilisation' [where market economics dominate, individuals and services are responsible for managing their own risks (alarms, insurance policies, health care, OH&S committees, risk assessment, etc) and where government is smaller, regulates rather than provides services and is focused on maintaining a fair playing environment for the market].
Accompanying these trends have been an intensification of client needs (dual diagnosis, multiple disadvantages), which need to be met within an environment of shrinking services and resources. In this environment, 'inappropriate' behaviour then becomes a threat to the safety of workers, an embodiment of social decline and a reason to withdraw services. Exclusion more easily becomes the tool to manage behaviour, so that 'deserving' clients / customers can use a venue, and risks associated with that behaviour (or individual) are displaced elsewhere, as a means of risk-shedding (ie. the problem becomes someone else's to manage).
Figure 1: Drivers of Banning and Exclusion
While there are many different ways of reflecting on each of the three key elements of this 'model', only a small number of examples will be provided here.
Dramatic Social Change
It is accepted that there have been major and dramatic social changes in the last 30 years (see eg. ACOSS (2003) Communities and their capacity to tackle disadvantage, ACOSS Paper 130, Strawberry Hills). Australia's population now exceeds 20 million, with 91% of the population living in urban areas, as compared with 86% in 1975 (p14, Tiffen, R & Gittens, R (2004) How Australia Compares, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). The population is ageing, as is widely known. It is anticipated that within the next 10-15 years, there will be more Australians over 65 years of age than aged below 14 years of age. Families have also altered dramatically in this period, with the average marriage in Australia now being less than 8 years (p190, Tiffen, R & Gittens, R (2004) How Australia Compares, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). Couple-only families are rising at a similar rate as couples with dependent children are falling. Female participation rates in employment have increased substantially in recent decades (from 25% of the total workforce in 1960 to 44% in 2000), while male participation has fallen, 93% in 1960 to 85% in 2000 (p68, Tiffen, R & Gittens, R (2004) How Australia Compares, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). These, and many other changes, have altered the nature of our communities, our relationships and our views of the world.
Pressure on Services
There is considerable debate as to whether clients of youth and community services are presenting with more complex needs and whether there is a diminishing capacity of the sector to respond to these needs, due to reduced funding. Quantifying need and capacity is fraught. Some are cautious about claiming that clients are presenting with more complex problems, for fear of pathologising and demonising already marginalised groups. Others are inclined to point to figures on mental health, alcohol and other drug use, and well-being, which suggest that there are indicators of growing numbers of people requiring emotional support, welfare provision and intervention. Irrespective of one's position on how best to present and explain these issues, there are some compelling indicators that suggest increasing sections of the community are experiencing difficulties coping:
-
It has been suggested that somewhere between 20% and 33% of young people will experience distress at any one time (p158, Eckersley, R (2004) Well and Good, Text Publishing, Melbourne)
-
Depression will be the second leading cause of death and disease worldwide by 2020 (Garvin, S, McAllister, S & Robinson, P (2002) 'Children of parents with a mental illness: a national initiative', Youth Studies Australia Vol 21, No 2, Hobart)
-
Child protection notifications have increased sevenfold in the last 10 years in NSW (Niland, C (2002) Evidence to the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Child Protection Services, Standing Committee on Social Issues, www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf)
-
There are 23,000 deaths associated with alcohol and other drugs in Australia annually (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2003) Statistics on drug use in Australia 2002, AIHW, Canberra)
The growth in the 'psy' sciences (psychiatry and psychology) alone suggests that capacity to cope is being undermined by living in postmodern times. Psychological diagnostic manuals are expanding as we 'discover' even more syndromes and symptoms of stress, distress, sadness and general emotional malaise.
If people are having greater difficulties coping, then it is should be true that more social services are being provided and funded. This assertion conflicts with findings from the Australian Council of Social Services Australian Community Sector Survey (2005):
- Demand for services greater than expenditure and income
- 68% of services have turned clients away
- 69% target services more tightly than in the past
- 67% agreed that their clients had more complex needs than before. (ACOSS (2005) Australian Community Sector Survey, ACOSS, Strawberry Hills).
An environment of growing demand, more complex problems and less resources, is clearly likely to put pressure on existing services to exclude clients who challenge the smooth operation of that service. Rather than being able to invest time and energy into working with a client to tackle underlying causes of behavioural difficulties, exclusion enables more time to be dedicated to more 'deserving' clients.
Socio-political change
Providing a succinct, yet accurate analysis of socio-political change in recent times is necessarily ideological and contestable. This brief overview is unashamedly limited. It merely serves to provide some context to more localised developments.
Reflections on contemporary Australian society uncover particular themes:
-
Individualism / materialism / consumerism - recent times have been marked by increased pursuit of individual wealth at the expense of community or social well-being. The Australian dream probably still entails the quarter acre block, the Holden car and sufficient savings (or credit) to afford the important things (holidays, iPods, home entertainment systems, etc). Mortgages, real estate and stock market fluctuations are regular fare for news and current affairs programs and social discussion. Time poverty, born from working longer and longer hours, is the reason for decreased involvement in community activities, volunteering and sporting teams.
-
Economic rationalism - under this broad banner one might highlight movement toward private provision of essential (and other) services, removal of welfare safety nets (and a sustained attack on the welfare state) and the sustained focus on outputs, outcomes and measurable indicators. Through improved economic performance, it is argued, all sections of the community will benefit. Though as Peter Saunders laments, "Those who have benefitted from a growing economy seem increasingly focused on retaining their gains, leaving little scope for trickle down effects to the poor and excluded" (p 141, Saunders, P (2005) The Poverty Wars, University of NSW Press, Sydney)
-
Risk society - Over a decade ago, 'risk society' was a term coined to describe the growing fixation on the identification, management and transfer of risks, typifying many developments in the industrialised world. Where possible, 'responsibilisation' has seen these risks being pushed more and more to individuals. The provision of health care can no longer be guaranteed to be provided by the government; high crime rates have resulted in the employment of security guards to do what police were failing to manage; home security systems have sprung up to make home owners prevent theft; insurance policies have proliferated with income protection becoming a popular means of protecting against relying on the welfare system and the vagaries of the labour market; etc. The new global threat of terror adds to a society (world) increasingly attentive to the risks of living. News, crime shows and electronic games provide constant reminders of the dangers of the real world, forcing some to retreat into the safety of the virtual world.
-
Culture of control and culture of fear - Some (namely Garland and Furedi) suggest that we operate in a general culture of control and fear. Control in the context of the growth in imprisonment, the advent of electronic tracking of offenders, drug and alcohol testing in the workplace and the growth of the security industry. Furedi suggests a pervasive culture of fear, in which others are treated with caution, immigrants are demonised, children are ferried to school avoiding contact with pedophiles and suspicion is the basis upon which we view strangers.
These strands unite to make us generally fearful, more attentive to risks, less charitable and more stressed. At a wider level, if these threads of analysis are accurate, then it is little wonder that there is growing pressure on services to exclude or ban those young people who place the service, staff or other clients 'at risk', irrespective of how significant the threat truly is.
* * * * *
Other articles in You're banned? (YAPRap September 2005) provide suggestions on ways to withstand some of these pressures driving exclusion and division. Well trained and supervised staff, well developed policies and procedures, meaningful, engaging programs, clean, well maintained premises and a united, networked youth sector are some of the ways to ensure that banning will only ever be used as an option of last resort. Being mindful of these wider trends and their impact on pressure to exclude and ban locally, can help in resisting growing orthodoxy.
