Author: Harry Blagg and Giulietta Valuri
Crime Research Centre
University of Western Australia
with the assistance of:
Anna Ferrante
Donella Raye
Natalie St. John
To order any National Crime Prevention publications please contact:
Crime Prevention Branch
Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department
Robert Garran Offices
National Circuit
BARTON ACT 2600
Ph: +61 2 6250 6711
Fax: +61 2 6273 0913
Publications are also available at www.crimeprevention.gov.au
An Overview of Night Patrol Services in Australia
Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra
© Commonwealth of Australia, March 2003
ISBN 0 642 21169 8
The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the view of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Whilst all reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this publication,
no liability is assumed for any errors or omissions.
Design: Design Direction, Canberra
Print: Pirion, Fyshwick
Publisher: Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department
This project was undertaken by the Crime Prevention Branch of the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department in partnership with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.
The survey and database
A snowball process
The purpose of the survey
Site visits
Site visits to the Northern Territory, Queensland and New South
Wales
Towards a working definition of night patrols
Problems with terminology
What do night patrols do?
Initiatives designed to enhance community safety and security
– some international developments
Community warden schemes in Britain
The City wardens (Stadswacht) in Holland
Night Patrols in Australia: Reviewing some key literature
The Northern Territory
Addressing the Cycle of Failure
Establishing and planning night patrols
Women and family violence
Western Australia
Community justice in Queensland
Street Beat in New South Wales
South Australia and Victoria
Night patrols contacted
The main focus of patrols
Main target groups
Numbers contacted by patrols
Police/patrol contact
Patrol’s response to businesses and residents
Evidence from the night patrol survey
The Yamatji experience in Geraldton,Western Australia
A note on warden schemes in Western Australia
Law and justice
Funding responsibility
Women’s patrols
Police perspectives
Failed patrols
Innovations in the Alice Springs area
Innovations in the Top End - Ali Curung
The Ali Curung safe house
Acknowledging local competencies and value adding
Evidence from the Night Patrol survey
Patrols in Queensland
Patrols in New South Wales
Patrols in South Australia
Patrols in Victoria
Agents of the community?
Cultural authority
Street sweeping
Funding sources
A secure funding base
Crime prevention
Community leadership
Partnership
Women’s business
Accepting diversity and difference
Recommendations
Substantive literature
Other sources
Audio visual material
The aim of this project has been to produce a national profile of night patrol and similar services around Australia, including:
The research process has involved:
The aim of this research is to provide baseline knowledge about night patrols1 in Australia and to build a database containing primary information. Knowledge about night patrols has been assembled through the triangulation of three different sets of data:
A range of organisations (government and non-government) across Australia provided the necessary information to construct the database. A mailing list was developed on the basis of:
More than one hundred potential targets were reduced to approximately ninety-six following an initial contact. Of these, around fifty completed the survey. Follow-up contacts with schemes which had not returned surveys yielded a further thirteen3.
The survey became a primary research instrument in its own right. It had been anticipated that the database would simply constitute an outcome of the research process. Instead the database became a valuable tool in the research process.
There was a snowballing dimension to the research process, as is often the case with exploratory projects of phenomena that are situationally and organisationally dispersed. A number of night patrol initiatives were identified incrementally as contacts were made with communities and agencies during site visits and relevant meetings. For example:
This snowball phenomenon expanded the range of agencies and groups available for inclusion in the study.
There are in excess of one hundred night patrol schemes or similar services at various stages in the life cycle of such organisations. Many night patrols in remote areas in particular, operate intermittently, and they may suddenly cease to function due to a financial crisis, community conflict, loss of energy of key players, or a host of other eventualities.4
The survey was intended to gauge the scope and content of Night Patrol work and identify:
The return rate for the survey was sufficient to provide a wealth of detail.
The site visits undertaken by research staff were crucial in assessing the context in which night patrols operate. Research staff were significantly influenced by the views, opinions and experiences of patrollers and by those agencies and groups who liaise with them.
Field trips made in Western Australia, included:
A number of forums enabled research staff to participate in ongoing discussions. These included:
Information about patrols was also gathered through site visits outside Western Australia. These included visits to the south and top end of Northern Territory, Far North Queensland and Brisbane, northern New South Wales and Sydney.5
These visits were undertaken to gain an understanding of the various sites, key stakeholders and contexts within which community patrols operate.
An objective of the research was to obtain some kind of comparison between Indigenous night patrols and similar programs within mainstream agencies. This was done by contacting initiatives, such as Street Beat programs in New South Wales and the Management of Public Intoxication Programs in Queensland. It proved difficult to separate Indigenous and non-Indigenous programs, other than at the funding level. This is because many schemes set up to deal with problems such as homelessness or young people’s anti-social behaviour, serve both Indigenous and non-Indigenous clients.
This report provides an analysis of night patrols and related services across Australia. While there has been an attempt to capture the diversity of practice across Australia, the analysis has been tilted towards those schemes operating in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Debate about night patrols has tended to be more advanced in these two localities where there are significantly more schemes undertaking patrol based forms of intervention. In all, examples from Western Australia and the Northern Territory represent more than sixty per cent of projects in the responses to the survey.
What precisely are night patrols and from what perspective, or range of perspectives, should they be assessed? Are they essentially fulfilling a policing, crime prevention, community safety, or health role? Where do they fit with existing and emerging crime prevention philosophies and strategies? Should they be seen as new mechanisms for extending the reach of existing law and justice systems – or encouraging what European criminologists are calling responsibilisation6? Complementary initiatives in Europe, such as community warden schemes in England and the Stadswacht schemes in Holland, are playing an increasingly prominent role in the prevention of incivilities in urban settings. In what sense can initiatives in Australia be said to fit into a like category?
The Indigenous dimension brings to the discussion a particular constellation of historical and contemporary concerns quite unlike those emerging in European and North American debates about community self-policing. It raises questions about Indigenous self-management and governance. Do night patrols - at least those clearly working from within what Indigenous people call ‘Aboriginal Terms of Reference’7 - represent embryonic Indigenous community justice mechanisms or elements of an expanding and deepening Indigenous domain? Or should they be seen as simply filling a vacuum created by the absence, or inadequacy, of policing, crime prevention and community safety instrumentalities in Indigenous communities, better filled by mainstream services?
There are a number of potential (and equally valid) dimensions to an analysis of night patrols. Some dimensions are concerned with establishing forms of policing, security and crime prevention. Others are concerned with their specific relationship to Indigenous self-management and a range of conditions unique to the experience of Indigenous people.
What is a workable definition of night patrols? In a broad sense the patrols provide non-coercive community intervention, or order maintenance, services designed to prevent or stop harm, and maintain community peace, security and safety. Patrols carry out a form of community based policing, but they should not be confused with the police or private security.8
The service they provide generally includes a mobile-patrol of some form (on foot or by vehicle), and attempts to assist a target group of people in need, or at risk, by offering options other than those principally available to the police.
A patrol would generally emerge to serve and protect the interests of a particular community, initiated by members of that community.
Community, in this context, does not refer to a fixed, geographical locality, rather, it is a constituency or socio-cultural community. While some patrols do confine their work to a distinctly boundaried physical space, such as a remote community, a specific ‘hot-spot’ or cluster of ‘hot spots’, others may track a particular client group (Aboriginal youth for example) across a range of public and ‘privately owned-public’9 spaces to ensure their safety and/or prevent crime and anti-social behaviour. For purposes of this inquiry, it was important to select those projects across Australia involved in some kind of activity congruent with the initial description of a night patrol.
A community night patrol fits within the frame of reference established by this study if it operates without police powers, that is, special powers vested singularly in the public police to stop, question, detain and/or arrest people. Arrest remains the ‘special competence’ of the public police (Bayley and Shearing 1996 p.592). Other policing bodies, while they may borrow elements of the public police service’s organisational persona, cannot share in this competence. This is not to say that patrols do not carry out policing activities. As Bayley and Shearing (1996), established in their work on new forms of policing practices, patrols can be seen as one of a variety of policing innovations, in an era when policing is becoming more diversified and pluralised.
The term, ‘night patrols’ is not generic across Australia, having been coined to describe community initiatives developed in the Northern Territory to self-police Aboriginal communities and enforce community by-laws. Since then, however, Indigenous people and government agencies in other states have developed variations on this initial theme, and while they have adapted the model, they have tended to coin their own names to describe their local practice. Patrols in Western Australia, for example, tend to be called street patrols or community patrols. In South Australia they are known as mobile assistance patrols and, in Victoria, foot patrols. Patrols linked to Community Justice Groups in Queensland (particularly those in remote areas) have been described as bare foot patrols by Aboriginal people.
Patrols contacted in New South Wales are known as street beat programs (in Redfern, Kempsey, Ballina and Moree for example). Many urban programs in southern Queensland and New South Wales have a strong affinity to, and have emerged from, youth outreach work. Many of the programs deal with Indigenous youth, offer a safe transportation service and operate on a consensus and mediation model, according to principles of client empowerment which are principles common to night patrols. A number of street based programs in Brisbane and on the Gold Coast funded under Queensland’s Management of Public Intoxication Program would also fit into this category.
Night Patrols have become a distinctive feature of the communal landscape in Indigenous Australia:
The core functions of patrols are to provide basic services such as safe transportation, diversion from contact with the criminal justice system, and intervention to prevent disorder in communities. constitute the core function of patrols. However, the research found that many patrols are developing sophisticated case-work arms and are engaging in multi-agency liaison in their localities.
It also became apparent that patrols have emerged to deal with specific local issues not addressed by other bodies. These issues varied from place to place, for example:
Irrespective of their origins, many night patrols have shown themselves to be immensely flexible and able to develop initiatives as an adjunct to their own work and/or develop partnerships with other relevant agencies.
The increasingly familiar relationship between patrols, sobering up shelters and safe houses is an obvious example of these partnerships, but there is also evidence of expanding links between mental health, drug and alcohol, and family violence services.
The literature review focuses on two interrelated dimensions of this research, policing and crime prevention, and issues specific to Indigenous people and patrol services.
This literature review provides a framework for discussion about the roles, rationale and effectiveness of night patrols and related services in Australia. The review assesses literature on night patrols and related services. It also examines innovations of a similar nature overseas, as well as discussing pertinent theories about the direction of policing in society. Indigenous night patrols do not operate in a vacuum. They are influenced by a host of political, economic and cultural shifts taking place within society at large. These shifts will continue to have an impact on the way night patrols are viewed by government and non-government agencies.
On an international level, agencies such as the police are having to adapt to a world in which their own efforts are only a part of the overall policing of a modern society (The Report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, 1999, p 3). New policies and practices around coordinated crime prevention and what Bayley and Shearing (2001) call the ‘multilateralisation’ of policing, put greater pressures on night patrols while simultaneously creating new opportunities for the wider recognition of their value and attracting new sources of funding. Night patrols and similar services may represent a distinctly Australian variant of the multilateralisation process.
Internationally, three inter-related processes form the context for the emergence of locally auspiced initiatives in self-policing. These are:
Evidence from overseas reveals significant changes taking place in the ways many local communities and urban environments are being policed. Aside from the proliferation of private security firms (their numbers now dwarf those of the official police), a number of societies are also experimenting with new types of ‘community warden’ schemes (Holland, Belgium, Britain, United States of America). Many of these new private security organisations have emerged to regulate access to, and behaviour in, new urban and suburban environments such as shopping malls – referred to as ‘mass private property’ because, while they tend to be privately owned, they are widely accessible to the public (Shearing and Stenning 1981, p 9).
Others, such as wardens’ schemes, have developed because of popular concerns about anti-social behaviour and personal safety in cities and residential zones. These are of interest to this research because these schemes are largely operated by agencies other than official police bodies, offer services similar to many night patrols, and operate without recourse to policing powers.
This seems to be part of a global trend. Bayley and Shearing (2001), point to an historic restructuring of policing taking place on a world wide scale. They argue that it is an over-simplification to characterise this process simply as privatisation – since the very concepts of ‘public’ and ‘private’ are increasingly blurred, and constantly redefined, in contemporary society. Instead, they describe it as process of ‘multilateralisation’. What clearly distinguishes the process is the increased separation of ‘authorisation’ from ‘action’, and the transference of both away from government. Bayley and Shearing (2001) maintain that those who authorise policing are not always the same as those who provide it and increasingly agencies other than government are auspicing policing and related services (p.7).
Bayley and Shearing identify four such interest groups: economic interests (legal and illegal), residential communities, cultural communities, and individuals. Each is increasingly purchasing and/or providing its own security. While these new security organisations perform many of the same tasks, they employ distinct practices, in particular, non-governmental providers work by ‘exclusion and the regulation of access’ rather than resorting to the retributive criminal law (Bayley and Shearing, 2001, p.2). Government policy has been active in enabling this process of multilateralisation to take place. It has done so by creating permissive environments and by actively encouraging non-state police activity (Bayley and Shearing, 2001, p.9).
Since the early 1980s, governments across the developed world have actively fostered community participation in policing through community crime prevention and similar local partnership initiatives. These have been based on a multi-agency approach and identified community involvement as a key priority in dealing with local crime and disorder issues. Local partnership forums were encouraged to knit together a diversity of interest groups (government and non-government) to devise local solutions to crime problems (Blagg et al, 1988; Pearson al et, 1992; Crawford, 1995). These initiatives signalled a shift in the provision of urban security and safety. Crawford presents a broad typology of policies in Europe designed to increase urban safety. This comprises:
According to Crawford, the policies emerging from the new approach:
...call for a reconfiguration of the traditional policy process – which is both hierarchical and departmental – through the development of cross-cutting policies which combine the synergy of the various actors and partner organisations. It seeks to co-ordinate national and local polices and practices, as well as synchronise private and public provision of security services (Crawford, 2000, p.2).
A clear lesson from ten or so years of innovation in the area of partnership and decentralisation is a fundamental shift in thinking about the role of the ‘active citizen’ in community crime prevention. Citizens themselves are now considered to have valuable skills, expertise, knowledge and ideas about their own localities and how they could be made more secure and safe. The development of various forms of community-based self-policing initiatives and other forms of community crime prevention, bears testimony to the potential role active citizenship can play in improving levels of safety in local communities.
On the other hand, concerns have been expressed about the ‘genuineness’ of the commitment to partnership by some powerful State agencies. Too often, the ‘reality’ of partnership has not matched the ‘rhetoric’ (Blagg, et al, 1988; Crawford, 1998; Sampson et al; 1988), and powerful agencies have, on occasion, seen these processes as an opportunity to extend their reach, without actually sharing power. Often:
Irrespective of such reservations, there are some obvious advantages for many communities in the development of local partnering arrangements. Aboriginal communities, for example, may be able to negotiate protocols and memoranda of understanding with a network of agencies, over a diversity of issues.
The emphasis on a broad range of ‘hazards’ or ‘harms’ enables the emergence of new forms of co-ordinated planning and resource allocation, and the targeting of clusters of problems, rather than focusing on single issues. Good, ‘joined-up’ work ensures that the multiple problems of communities, and their most vulnerable members, can be dealt with conjointly rather than in a piece-meal fashion.
The dangers inherent in this multilateralisation process, according to Bayley and Shearing (2001), include issues of ‘justice, equality of protection, and quality of service’. The poor, in particular, may lose out because they lack the resources to purchase security directly from the market place.
Bayley and Shearing draw attention to the global dynamics at work. Shearing’s work has also been influential in allowing us to ‘think outside the box’, where policing is concerned. Shearing (1994) differentiates between the police and policing. He suggests that efforts are often focused on the best way to reform or extend the police rather than on nurturing alternative modes of policing. Shearing argues that it is important to refocus thinking from a preoccupation with the police organisation as a source of policing, to other sources of policing. He claims that:
Once policing is seen as something that is, and can be, done by other institutions besides the … police, new possibilities become available (1994 a, p.58).
In general, discussions about Indigenous people and the justice system in Australia have tended to revolve around concerns about the impact of policing on Indigenous people (the under-policing/over-policing debate), discriminatory practices, police accountability, human rights, and the recruitment of Indigenous people into the established police. Reform strategies have focused largely on changing police practice, rather than exploring alternative forms of policing.
The emergence of night patrols widens and deepens the parameters of the debate. Issues include the legal rights of suspects, police accountability, the police culture, recruitment of Indigenous people in to the police service, and the role of Aboriginal liaison officers. It remains crucial to look at the resources required to build capacity within Indigenous communities to provide, or purchase, their own order maintenance, including in areas where there is significant under-policing.
Community warden schemes of various kinds operate in the United Kingdom, Belgium, Holland and some cities in the United States of America. Their focus is on enhancing the ‘liveability’ of towns and cities. Warden schemes in Britain have been described as part of the ‘policing family’ and have emerged to, ‘improve the local environment, particularly in relation to litter, graffiti, and anti-social behaviour as well as promoting community safety’ (Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, 2000, p.17). They have a clear crime prevention function and are intended to complement, not replace, the work of the police.
Their goals include:
The schemes have been influenced by the city wardens in Holland and are widespread across Britain in most major cities. An evaluation of selected schemes was generally positive and supportive of warden schemes, particularly in relation to their role in reducing the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour, as well as improving the environment and the quality of life, although they did not appear to directly impact on crime rates as such (Stockdale, Whitehead and Gresham, 2001).
The Dutch City Wardens (the Stadswacht) are ‘supervisory officials charged with the reduction of petty or common forms of crime, particularly in city centres’ (Hauber, et al, 1996 p.199). The uniforms vary from city to city in Holland, but are different from police uniforms, or from those worn by private security officers. The wardens operate without formal police powers, their powers being the same as any citizen who sees an offence committed. Wardens become involved in preventing and intervening in minor street offences. They do this:
...at a lower cost than traditional police forces and with relatively few adverse consequences such as violence and escalation of the potential for conflict in interactions with members of the public (Hauber et al, 1996 p 356).
Wardens fulfil a diversity of roles, including providing ‘information and assistance to the public and intervening to talk to perpetrators of offences. Jackobson and Saville (1999) summarise their tasks as:
Hauber et al (1996) maintain that the conventional exercise of formal powers is not always appropriate, or necessary, when dealing with issues in contemporary social situations, particularly given that relationships between citizens and public officials in today’s civil society have become more horizontal. There is less unquestioning deference to authority and indeed, public demonstrations of authority can, in fact, have an escalating effect (Hauber et al, 1996 p.357).
On the one hand, there are public situations where the norms of appropriate social behaviour are violated. The solution is to remind citizens about their social responsibilities and obligations. The warden’s role is to step in and remind citizens of appropriate rules of conduct without recourse to force and coercion or formal criminal sanctions. As with night patrols, the emphasis is on negotiation and working from a position of moral authority rather than imposing formal powers. The wardens answer the needs of a large part of the population – especially the elderly – for locally presented uniformed officials to enforce public order in the public domain (Hauber, 1996, p.358).
Hauber at al, concluded that the very presence of the wardens had a reassuring effect. Interactions between the wardens and the public tended to be positive and did not escalate into confrontation. The job requires considerable social skills. The wardens are recruited from the unemployed. While there have been concerns about the skill level of some wardens, there have also been recommendations that a career path be established for them. They are funded mainly by the Dutch Department of Employment with a contribution by local authorities.
In 1998-9, around one hundred and fifty municipalities in Holland had warden schemes (Jackobson and Saville 1999). Research by Hauber et al, (1996) and by Eysenk, Smeets and Etman (2000) indicates that the warden scheme has a positive crime prevention and crime reduction effect. Moreover, the research found that people who used city places felt safer because of the wardens and believed they contributed to public safety and crime reduction (Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, 2000). Van Brakel (2000) also asserts that the schemes have enhanced the liveability of Dutch cities and have developed good relations with police. He emphasises a number of key issues, including the need for wardens to have recognisable uniforms and the need for continuity of staff (Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, 2000, p.23).
Warden schemes are viewed in some quarters as a new mechanism for increasing public confidence and sense of security by fulfilling functions that the official police are increasingly unable to perform. Australia has had considerable experience of community self-policing with a similar goal of enhancing the safety and security of the local community. Many night patrol schemes have been in existence for far longer than their counterparts in Europe.
There is little literature on night patrols in Australia offering a rigorous evaluation of their effectiveness. There is an amount of ‘grey literature’, that is literature featuring patrols but where the patrols themselves are not the main issue. For example, they appear in Memmott’s work on violence (Memmott, et al 2000) and Blagg’s work on family violence crisis prevention and crisis intervention (Blagg 1999, 2000a and b, 2001). Patrols are also discussed in the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.
The Law Reform Commission of Australia’s review of customary law discussed self-policing as part of Section 32: Aborigines and the Police. The report identified a core concern of Aboriginal people in relation to policing. That is, that Aboriginal people want a police presence and they want to have a voice in how this policing was carried out. The Commission noted, in relation to the Northern Territory, for example, that:
The Commission has not received any requests from Aboriginal communities for the removal of police stationed in their communities, nor has there been any denial of the need for police. On the contrary, some communities in the Northern Territory which have no permanent police station have sought one, and many Aborigines would strongly resist any attempts to limit their access to the police. What many Aborigines seek, especially those living in separate communities, whether in remote areas or on the fringes of country towns, is a greater degree of control over what takes place in the community. A central aspect of this is policing (Law Reform Commission – Australia, 1986, p.97).
The Commission noted the existence of a number of self-policing initiatives across Australia, some of which have elements in common with current night patrols. These included:
The Commission went on to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of self-policing and concluded that it ‘advantages both communities and the State and Territory police forces’ (Law Reform Commission – Australia, 1986, p.105). In relation to communities, the Commission argued that self-policing could ensure that communities were able to ‘deal with trouble makers in a more flexible manner...more appropriate to circumstances and more in accord with local customary law’. While the police might benefit because of reduced demands on their time, the Commission also maintained that self-policing, as in the Redfern case, could be of value in urban areas. The risks included unreliable services and the danger of partiality (Law Reform Commission – Australia 1986, p.105).
Much of the substantive literature on patrols has emerged in the context of discussions about alcohol control strategies and the de-criminalisation of public drunkenness, particularly in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. The focus in this work tends to be on the relationship between patrols, sobering up shelters and diversion from detention in police custody. The National Drug Research Institute evaluated night patrols largely in these contexts (Gray, Saggers, Sputore, and Bourbon, 2000; Gray and Saggers, 2000). The question about alcohol use still frames a good deal of the discussion of the role of night patrols (Parliament of Victoria Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee, 2001).
Some recent work in New South Wales has evaluated a number of street beat programs, from a crime prevention and human rights perspectives. Mainstream policing research literature has tended to be silent on the issue, so too has recent critical work on the private policing industry in Australia.
Cunneen (2001) refers to patrols as part of an Indigenous response to problems with mainstream models of policing. Memmott’s (2000) study on violence in Indigenous communities discusses the role of Geraldton Streetwork (Western Australia) in terms of the support programs they offer following family violence and in ‘strengthening identity’ (Memmott et al, 2000, p.65). A number of other patrol services – Yamatji and Wunngagutu (Western Australia), Tangentyere, Julalikari, Kalano and Ngukurr (Northern Territory) have been identified by Memmott as forms of community policing and monitoring services. Memmott categorises these programs as fulfilling a policing role in relation to violence and alcohol abuse.
Their tasks include intervention, mediation and dispute resolution between people in conflict, and the removal of potentially violent persons from public or private social environments (Memmott et al 2000, p.67).
Memmott argues that the idea has enormous potential:
Its capacity as a self-controlled volunteer community intervention program with a relatively low budget has great utility and potential…Properly managed, such programs also have great potential to build cooperation and mutual respect and support with local police. Night patrols are a tried and proven program type (Memmott et al 2000, p.68).
As Memmott et al suggest, the idea for night patrols originated in the Northern Territory – at Julalikari.
The first widely accessible discussion of the role of night patrols took place in the Northern Territory as part of the deliberations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (1991). The Julalikari patrol in Tennant Creek, instigated by the Julalikari Council in the late 1980s, was featured as a positive form of ‘voluntary community policing’ (Report of the Aboriginal Issues Unit of the Northern Territory, 1991 p.439). The context in which discussion of patrols took place in the Royal Commission was varied - but inadequate policing services featured prominently as a reason for their emergence. The background to the Royal Commission report Too much sorry business, by the Aboriginal Issues Unit of the Northern Territory, said of Julalikari:
The involvement of Aboriginal Councillors in voluntary policing...and their preparedness to use their own vehicles and money to patrol the streets and camps every night, points to their dissatisfaction with policing in their communities (Report of the Aboriginal Issues Unit of the Northern Territory, 1991, p.439).
Curtis (1992), in his assessment of Julalikari, puts matters more bluntly. He said that the Julalikari Patrol began, because there was nothing else.
While it was not obvious to government agencies, it was tragically clear to the Julalikari community that something had to be done if the escalating violence, trauma and deaths in the town-camps were to be halted (p.2).
The strength of the patrol, according to the Aboriginal Issues Unit, lay in its capacity to resolve conflicts between Aboriginal people in an ‘Aboriginal way’. Their use of Aboriginal language made an enormous difference to their success (Report of the Aboriginal Issues Unit of the Northern Territory, 1991, p.439). The Aboriginal Issues Unit saw Aboriginal offending linked to alcohol, disrespect for Aboriginal law (by both Indigenous youth and non-Indigenous people), the inadequacy of existing services attempting to deal with the multiple problems of the community, and poverty. The patrol did not simply police the community, but became actively involved in trying to resolve underlying disputes. The reports also pointed to an emerging concern with Aboriginal family violence – presenting police figures showing that fifty per cent of disturbances attended by police in Tennant Creek involved domestic violence, and ninety-five per cent of these involved alcohol (Report of the Aboriginal Issues Unit of the Northern Territory, 1991, p.440).
The success of the Julalikari Patrol was highlighted by the Royal Commission and was included in Recommendation 220. This suggested that the patrols similar to the Julalikari Patrol, working in parallel with community justice panels, should be:
examined with a view to introducing similar schemes into Aboriginal communities that are willing to operate them because they have the potential to improve policing and to improve relations between police and Aboriginal people rapidly and to substantially lower crime rates (Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, 1991, p.118).
The literature from the Northern Territory reveals some examples of fruitful partnership between the night patrol at Julalikari and the police. On the other hand there were also signs of tension as competing definitions of the role and purposes of patrols began to surface.
Curtis (1992), for example, rejects the police description of the purpose of night patrols, as assisting in removing intoxicated persons from the streets. He suggests this is a misrepresentation of patrol work:
…the object of the patrol is not to assist in removing intoxicated persons from the streets. This is a frequent case of misunderstanding for the police and the general public. The object is to resolve problems in the town camps and special purpose leases; to settle disputes when they begin and not after the have exploded, drawing in extended families or entire tribal groups (p.75).
Curtis also maintains that the patrol was able to function successfully because it was strongly embedded in the Aboriginal Council.
Mosey (1994) alerts us two interrelated issues. First, she argues that, initially at least, little is required to set up a night patrol, second, she suggests that vehicles, radios and other infrastructure supports are not always essential – they may even undermine an initiative when they are appropriated for wrong purposes (Mosey 1994, p.9). Mosey identifies a number of pre-requisites for successful implementation of a night patrol initiative including, community consultation, establishing protocols with local police, clear task descriptions for patrollers, and a sound administrative base. She argues that patrollers should not be drinkers, there needs to be a willing pool of volunteers, and traditional owners and elders need to endorse the patrol.
Curtis (1992) draws attention to the need to have patrols that are embedded in community structures – in the Julalikari case, the council. Ownership by the community and its key institutions is vital. Many communities need outside support for night patrols to flourish and, left to themselves, they will struggle to survive.
Higgins (1997) reviewed seven projects in Alice Springs, Darwin, Daguragu/Kalkaringi, Ngukurr, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Yirrkala and Yuendumu. Higgins found that while about fifty three night patrols and warden schemes had been established, only half were operating at the time of the audit.
The Higgins report addressed five evaluation criteria: community input and control structures; administrative and management structures; resource structures; linkages and network structures, and monitoring and evaluation structures.
Higgins concluded that:
The general conclusion was that governments need to nurture and support night patrols while maintaining a watching brief which
…ensures schemes are not ignored or abandoned by government, but are not subject to undue controls either. …this should involve addressing the funding of schemes on their merit, rather than applying a proscriptive funding formula (Higgins 1997, p.45).
The Higgins report sets out some best practice guidelines for patrols. Essentially they establish what he calls authenticating structures for establishing and developing night patrols involving processes, procedures and methodology for development, implementation and funding (p.45).
Recent work by Ryan (2001) has further highlighted the problems associated with implementing and sustaining a night patrol service in remote communities. Reviewing problems of establishing and maintaining a patrol in Lajamanu, Ryan notes:
The Lajamanu community has made a number of attempts to set up a functioning service over the past few years that have all eventually fallen over. A cycle of failure with Aboriginal community night patrols is extremely common. The reasons for this situation are complex and include a range of social and cultural issues. Some of these are the failure of traditional social management and control structures under the impact of social change, alcohol related issues, generational conflict between older and more traditionally orientated people, community youth, and conflict between families and residents in the community. Although the community through the law and justice committee has undertaken some planning work in this regard, the scope of the work is beyond the capacity of the local community to resolve (p.2).
Ryan, drawing on his involvement in night patrols and the work of Mosey and Higgins, attributes the failure of night patrol services in Aboriginal communities to poor establishment practices (Ryan, 2001, p.2). His review of establishment procedures in Ali-Curung, Numbulwar and Port Keats12 in 1996 identified factors common to failed initiatives in these communities. These included:
A number of strategies have emerged as a means of overcoming the problems Ryan, Mosey and Higgins have identified with regard to deficient establishment practices. Ryan (2001) suggests a two phase process involving a ‘pre-establishment phase’ and an ‘establishment support program’ (p.5). The first includes assessing the preparedness of communities to undertake a patrol and, if prepared to work to embed the idea in the community. The second phase includes providing resources for establishing operational and administrative support mechanisms.
A factor often neglected in the literature on night patrols is the crucial role played by Indigenous women in establishing and sustaining initiatives. In recent years, Indigenous women have taken a stand against the unacceptable levels of violence and other problems in communities (Bolger, 1998). Some of the most effective patrols have been established by women in remote areas – Lajamanu, Ali-Curung, Yuendumu, for example - to prevent infringements of ‘no grog’ law, prevent ‘sly grogging’ and ‘drinking, fighting and humbugging’ (Yuendumu Women’s Night Patrol; Remote Area Night Patrols, News Letter 2001).
Women’s night patrols are mentioned as an important community resource for combating family violence in the Territory’s Aboriginal Family Violence Strategy. Langton (1992) also refers to night patrols as a means by which Aboriginal women have been able to take a role in policing their own communities and reducing levels of family violence.
Family violence is one of the most pressing issues facing Indigenous people. It is clear that night patrols have a role to play in combating the problem.
Few patrols in Western Australia have been subjected to rigorous evaluation. Blagg and Ferrante (1997) made some rudimentary assessments of the function and impact of patrols as part of a review of the impact of the juvenile justice system on Indigenous youth. This was followed by a brief update as part of a review of Aboriginal/police relationships in 1998-9 by Blagg and Ferrante. The reports provided some statistical information showing the contribution made by patrols in terms of reductions in admissions to police lock-ups. This was an important issue in Western Australia, given the high rate of deaths in police custody, highlighted by the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (1991).
It is possible that some forms of patrolling, linked to community justice arrangements, had been undertaken on a limited basis in Western Australia before they became formally recognised as a distinct practice in the early 1990s. The ‘Ten-Man Committee’ at the Strelley Community in the East Pilbara regularly picked up offenders and drinkers from various points around Port Hedland and took them back to the community to face a community meeting (Law Reform Commission - Australia, 1986).
The first formally constituted street patrol in Western Australia was the Kullarri Patrol, established in Broome (West Kimberly) in 1992, following a field study of the Tangentyere Night Patrol. A group of Indigenous patrollers was formed and provided with resources such as a van, uniforms, radios and a base. Financial support was given by the shire, Aboriginal Affairs Department and the Bidyadanga Aboriginal community. After Kullarri, the Yamatji Patrol was established in Geraldton and Numbud in Derby. By 1996 there were thirteen patrols in operation, and there are now twenty-one.
Successive Aboriginal Justice Council reports monitoring the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (1991) recommendations were unequivocal in their support for the night patrols (Aboriginal Justice Council, 1995, 1996, 2000). The 2000 report describes patrols as examples of successful community-based initiatives (Aboriginal Justice Council, 2000, p.67). The Council argued:
Community patrols are mandated with the task of diverting Aboriginal people from police custody by picking them up and taking them to a ‘safe place’. Each patrol has its own management and focuses on the main issues and social problems encountered by their community i.e. solvent abuse (sniffing), alcohol use, truancy and hanging out late at night (Aboriginal Justice Council, 2000, p.67).
The Council, using Crime Research Centre statistics, identified Derby and Fitzroy Crossing in the Kimberley Region and Wiluna in the Gascoyne/Murchison Region as examples where effective patrols had made an impact on lock-up statistics - with a thirty-three per cent, thirty per cent and thirty-six per cent reduction respectively, between 1994-96. The Council called on the Northern Territory government to support the initiatives and increase their resources, and required the police to acknowledge that these were genuine community initiatives, designed and managed by Indigenous organisations.
The Police Service needs to heed this fact and work in partnerships with the local Aboriginal community rather than in dictatorship of the Program. Community management equals community success (Aboriginal Justice Council, 2000,p.68).
The National Drug Research Institute looked at patrols within the context of alcohol related issues in Halls Creek and Kununurra (National Drug Research Institute, 1999, 2000). In Halls Creek, the issue of alcohol abuse was at the forefront when the patrol was set up. The National Drug Research Institute research found that the main aims of the patrol were to assist intoxicated persons to the sobering up shelter, provide support to women and children at risk, identify incidences of domestic violence, and aid police in finding solutions (National Drug Research Institute, 2000, p.4). The research concluded that the patrol had been successful in:
identifying people in need of immediate assistance and to responding to those needs. In addition, the patrol appears to have made some contribution to reducing domestic disturbances and violent offences against persons (p.19).
Locally, the strengths of the patrol were seen in terms of its good working relations with police, its impact on violence, its sound management and its attempts to tackle issues such as youth anti-social behaviour. The National Drug Research Institute recommended that the patrol extend its hours of work on Fridays (starting at 3.00 pm rather than 5.00 pm), advertise its contact details more widely, be more proactive at local events and cement relationships with the police by having police on the patrol four times a year. Blagg and Ferrante (1995), in their assessment of Halls Creek Patrol, following a widely publicised ‘riot’ attributed to Balgo Hills people also suggested better coordination between the patrol, police, and other agencies, including wardens from Balgo, when they come to town.
An evaluation of alcohol projects in Kununurra and Wyndham (Sputore et al, 1998) discussed the Mirriwong patrol (later changed to Waringarri to reflect the profile of the whole community, as the research had recommended). Mirriwong Patrol was set up to stem the flow of people being detained by police for alcohol related issues. It also became involved in offering a school bus service in the mornings and afternoons in an attempt to reduce anti-social behaviour, under age drinking and the numbers of intoxicated persons on licensed premises. The patrol worked in partnership with the local sobering up shelter. The evaluation of the impact of the work of the patrol on detention rates (based on Crime Research Centre statistics) revealed that between 1994 and 1996, there was ‘a dramatic decrease in the number of Aboriginal people detained in police custody’ (Sputore, et al, 1998, p.51). There was a reduction from 1,336 arrests in 1995 to 188 in 1996, attributable to the work of the patrol, sobering up shelter, and the police - the latter were also moving people to the sobering up shelter rather than detaining them.
There was a strong perception locally that the patrol had an impact on anti-social behaviour, although there was no quantitative evidence to this effect because of the lack of records. Nevertheless, the evaluation identified another significant factor relating to Indigenous arrest rates. In some time periods, the arrest rate of Indigenous people actually increased. The authors speculate that the very presence of the patrol may have allowed a redistribution of police activities, which might have increased the clear-up rate and increased the number of arrests (Sputore, et al, 1998, p.53). It is by no means a clear cut picture. The researchers also they also found arrest rates increased in some periods when the patrol was not operating.
The evaluation also uncovered some hostility between the patrol and young people. The kinship links between some patrollers and young people sometimes increased tensions due to a strict ‘guardianship’ relationship, which frequently over-rode the patrol’s principle of only working through consensus.
The sometimes heavy-handed approach led to some young people becoming progressively more hostile to the patrollers, and there were reports of young people hiding from the patrol or verbally and physically abusing the patrollers (Sputore, et al, 1998, p.57).
The research found some problems associated with the linkage between the patrol and the sobering up shelter, largely due to administrative difficulties. The recommendations stemming from the evaluation stressed the need to secure additional funding, improve local coordination with the police and licensees, increase patrol hours, offer better financial incentives to patrollers, improve the rapport with young people, and ensure that only those stipulated drive the patrol bus.
Wyndham Patrol was established against a similar background of concern about the safety of intoxicated people. This patrol was also found to have made a difference to the rate of detention in the police lock-up – falling from two hundred and thirty six in February 1997 to eighty seven in May 1997. The researchers found anecdotal evidence suggesting that the patrol was successful in getting people off the streets who might otherwise be detained by the police and in preventing alcohol related injuries. The police, as in Kununurra, were spending more time on other policing activities (the arrest rate did not decrease). Generally, there was a perception that the patrollers were skilled in dealing with clients, but that work was hampered by a shortage and speedy turn-over of staff as well as a shortage of safe places to take intoxicated persons (Sputore et al, 1998, pp 131-3). There have been no similar independent evaluations of the work of urban patrols in Western Australia.
There is a useful discussion of the Noongar Patrol in a recent survey of alcohol and crime prevention (Parliament of Victoria Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee, 2001, p.236-238). This review focuses on the views of key players. It presents a number of the background factors and captures some of the tensions between the various interest groups. These include those of business people who want members of the Noongar patrol to be publicly funded security officers, and Noongar themselves, who see the role of the patrol as providing a support service.
Other works targeting night patrols in Western Australia include Blagg’s study on the role, actual and potential, of night patrols in the area of crisis intervention in Indigenous family violence (Blagg, 2000,a and b). Blagg concluded that patrols have a valuable contribution to make as crisis intervention tools in family violence. The research found many instances where patrols were playing this role, either in partnership with, or instead of, the police. The study outlines a number of crisis intervention strategies for different regions of Western Australia, from metropolitan Perth through to remote communities. These strategies enable Indigenous people to intervene in family violence without always using the criminal justice system and encourage the development of community-based alternatives. The strategies are similar to those operating in remote communities in the Northern Territory, and in Geraldton, Western Australia.
Patrols in Far North Queensland, known locally as Bare Foot patrols have tended to grow out of the work of Community Justice Programs. There has been no specific evaluation of this aspect of their work. Memmott describes the role of community justice initiatives as mediating between people in conflict, designing culturally appropriate punishment and preventing recidivism (Memmott et al, 2000, p.70). Memmot et al’s study identifies only three night patrol services in Queensland, at Kowanyama, Palm Island and the Management of Public Intoxication Program at Mornington Island.
The operation of Kowinyama justice group has been well researched (Chantrill, 1998), although a specific patrol function is not mentioned. An assessment by the Department of Torres Strait Islander Policy and Development (1999) does not feature patrols as a key part of this discussion of the justice group’s work.13 Reference is made to the patrols in the section relating to strategies outside the criminal justice system, such as crime prevention, designed to ‘stop people offending’ – particularly juveniles (Department of Torres Strait Islander Policy and Development 1999, p.47). The review notes two night patrols, in Townsville and Kowinyama. The Kowinyama Bare Foot patrol operates on pension nights ‘to monitor the behaviour of young people on the streets’ (Department of Torres Strait Islander Policy and Development 1999, p.51), while the Townsville Wyulburri Binbi Justice Group uses a bus to patrol the streets, supervising and assisting young Indigenous people (Department of Torres Strait Islander Policy and Development, 1999, p.51).
The emergence of patrol type services in New South Wales is inextricably bound up with perceived problems of youth crime and anti-social behaviour.
A number of the initiatives linked to the Children (Parental Responsibility) Act 1997, gained the approval of the Parliament of New South Wales Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice in its inquiry into crime prevention in NSW (Standing Committee on Law and Justice, 1999). The Act gave wide discretionary powers to police to remove children from public places where they are perceived to be ‘at risk’, as defined in s19(3) of the legislation. The Act, however, stipulates that a local council wishing to use the powers in its area must seek approval from the Attorney General (Part 3 s14(2)). Included in the criteria are a number of requirements including one to provide crime prevention or youth support initiatives and a range of linked requirements.
The Standing Committee commented that this had been ‘skilfully’ drafted to increase crime prevention rather than simply expand police powers. Any local authority wishing to have the powers must also ‘consider the needs of the community, including young people and the Aboriginal community’ (Standing Committee on Law and Justice, 1999, p.48). The demand for youth services to be involved stimulated the emergence of a number of patrol style initiatives, such as Street Beat. The Committee praised the Ballina Street Beat, in particular for the way it dealt with young people at risk. The report argued:
Street Beat workers liaise with police but use their own discretion as to which children they consider ‘at risk’ for the purposes of the Act. Increasingly the police contact Street Beat if they receive a report of disturbances involving young people rather than providing the initial intervention. The level of direct law enforcement directed against young people has declined while the crime problem, both perceived and actual, is reported by both police and citizens to have declined significantly (Standing Committee on Law and Justice, 1999, p.51).
The Committee also discussed the Moree Street Beat. This program was established by Mirray Birray Aboriginal Community. The Committee found that the powers under the Act had been used more frequently than in Ballina. Supporters of the Act pointed to a drop in crime in Moree (a phenomenon, the Committee itself viewed cautiously). The committee was anxious to stress the extent to which the Act had, in fact, reduced the ‘need for frontline law enforcement in Ballina and Moree (Standing Committee on Law and Justice, 1999, p.55). This endorsement of the work of the Ballina Street Beat, and the support of an Aboriginal worker was followed up in the committee’s second report (Standing Committee on Law and Justice, 2000). The Committee stated that the scheme had reduced youth/police contact and confrontation and concluded that:
the lesson about reducing unnecessary police/youth contact is an important factor to consider when implementing any crime prevention strategy aimed at young people (Standing Committee on Law and Justice, 2000, p.100).
The Committee noted that Kempsey had joined Ballina and Moree in developing a night service (although not within the framework of the Act), and was achieving results similar to the others in terms of reduced crime.
A report by the Aboriginal Justice Council of New South Wales was less enthusiastic about the legislation. The Aboriginal Justice Council reported that, while the Act had only been used rarely in Ballina in 2000, it was being used extensively on an informal basis – with Ballina Street Beat taking youths off the street and youths avoiding the Central Ballina area. The Aboriginal Justice Council acknowledged that Street Beat had wide community support, in its attempts to provide positive services to young people. The Council expressed concern about the way the Act was targeting youth. The Aboriginal Justice Council was ‘alarmed by the extent of the alliance between the youth service and the police’ (p.7) and detected hidden coercion behind the work of the patrol. Young people who refused to go with Street Beat would only be dealt with by the police (p.7).
The Aboriginal Justice Council concluded that Street Beat was an excellent youth service and that its presence provided a buffer between police and youth. It was less complimentary about the scheme as it operated in Moree, where the Act had been introduced against a history of racial conflict and public demands for tough action against ‘out of control young people’ (Aboriginal Justice Council 2001b, p.2). The Aboriginal Justice Council found an Aboriginal community deeply divided, struggling with issues of violence, abuse and neglect of children and alcohol dependence and where relationships between young people and adults was damaged and fractured (Aboriginal Justice Council 2001a, pp 11-12). The Aboriginal Justice Council concluded that the Act was aimed almost exclusively at Indigenous youth and that resources needed to be directed at providing advocacy and support for young people. It claimed that the Street Beat program run from Miyay Birray Youth Services only looked after ‘their own mob’. Unlike Ballina, it offered no genuine and accessible youth services.
Redfern Street Beat was evaluated by Russell (1999). The program provides a safe transport and outreach program to young people mainly from the South Sydney area. It operates late at night when no other services are working. The scheme also provides information and referral and is designed to enable young people to access services that can address their needs (Russell, 1999, p.1).
The patrols’ data base provides up-to-date information on the working of the patrol. Russell’s evaluation shows that the aims of the project have been refined over time. Its core functions, however, have remained that of ensuring the safety of its predominantly Indigenous client base and reducing their rate of entry into the criminal justice system. Russell found that the project needed to build better relationships with the police – a crucial element if the project was to develop its diversionary role - and expand its outreach focus. The evaluation was generally positive. It found that Street Beat was providing safe transportation for many young people at risk, referred many to support services, and provided systems to encourage and enable police to divert Indigenous youth from the system. The report provides data on numbers contacted during the research but could not establish how successful the patrol had been at diverting people from the criminal justice system or affecting the rate of offending.
The Aboriginal Sobriety Group has led the development of patrol services in South Australia. Called the Mobilise Assistance Patrols, these have yet to be evaluated. A recent review undertaken by the Parliament of Victoria Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee, (2001), mentions their role in relation to intervention with people under the influence of alcohol in Adelaide (pp.255-267). The patrols maintain a presence in parks, streets and other public places and link in with the Salvation Army’s sobering up shelter.
While Victoria has a number of patrols in operation, very little has been written about them. A recent inquiry into issues surrounding public drunkenness undertaken by the Parliament of Victoria Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee (2001) is highly supportive of patrols and recommends that:
Where appropriate, Indigenous Community or Night-Patrols, run in conjunction with sobering-up centres, be established (Recommendation 14).
Based on its review of the Northern Territory experience the Committee also recommends a separate Indigenous patrol staffed by women’ (Recommendation 15). The committee also recommended that funding be allocated on a separate basis from that provided to any sobering-up facility.
This section provides an overview of night patrols and related services based on responses to the survey and direct consultations with night patrols. While some data could be quantified, in many cases the numbers were too small to extrapolate conclusions to wider representation.
Of the one hundred and ten patrols contacted, sixty-three responded. The highest return rate was from Western Australia (just over thirty per cent and the Northern Territory (just over thirty three per cent). These were followed by Queensland (fourteen per cent New South Wales (nine and a half per cent) South Australia (just under eight per cent) and Victoria (just over six per cent). The Western Australian response rate was close to complete, with only one scheme (Yamatji Patrol), not responding.14
Items in the survey asked patrols to identify the particular focus of their work. Examples of responses included an emphasis on drugs, alcohol, solvent abuse, truancy, graffiti, anti-social behaviour, family violence, and enforcing community by-laws. Alcohol emerged as the single biggest issue (eighty-nine per cent), followed by anti-social behaviour (eighty-two per cent), family violence (fifty-six per cent)15 and drugs (fifty-five per cent). When broken down by state and territory the data reveal some variation. Alcohol is the main issue in most states and the Northern Territory; the exceptions being New South Wales, where anti-social behaviour is the main focus of patrols, and Victoria where alcohol and anti-social behaviour have equal weight. New South Wales gave alcohol the same importance as drugs, while solvent abuse was a significant focus in Queensland, South Australia and Victoria. Family violence was a major issue for patrols in the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia.
Most patrols deal mainly with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, although a sizable proportion deal also with non-Indigenous people: particularly in New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia. Men and women are similarly targeted by the patrols. For example, fifty-eight per cent of schemes focus on men and fifty-five per cent focus on women.16 There was a significant spread of age groups contacted. youths (13-18) and young adults (18-25) feature prominently in patrol work. New South Wales tends to deal almost exclusively with the youth population – probably reflecting the Street Beat programs’ very direct relationship with the ‘at risk’ youth issues,17 which are also a main issue in Victoria and Queensland. Children under twelve years of age were a focus of just over thirty-three per cent of patrols, although the figure is higher in New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia.18 Northern Territory has the highest number of patrols targeting the over twenty-six age group because alcohol in communities is the main issue for patrols.
On a busy night, patrols may deal with fifty or more people, although the average is under forty. The Northern Territory deals with the smallest numbers, reflecting the size of the remote communities with which night patrols deal. The South Australian and Western Australian schemes tend to deal with the highest numbers on a busy night.
The survey contained two questions dealing with police contact. One asked how often police responded to a call by the patrol and the other asked how often patrols responded to calls by police.
The data reveal that the police are generally good at responding to calls for assistance and support from night patrols. In most places, the police often respond when contacted, although a number of schemes in Western Australia and South Australia reported that they only sometimes respond.
The distribution of data from this item reveals that patrols in samples from the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Victoria respond least frequently to call-outs from police. This does not necessarily mean that relations between patrols and police are poor. It is likely to be a result of the remoteness of many communities, communication difficulties, differences in the roles of police and patrols as well as the community’s capacity to resolve issues without having to involve police.
The picture presented is generally one of partnership and a degree of mutual support between police and patrols. Where there have been problems associated with slow responses to requests for support on the part of patrols or police, this may be in large part due to communication issues and a lack of capacity to respond. Shortages of police personnel in some rural and remote areas and the fact that patrols cannot usually run a full time service, mean that there will inevitably be situations where neither party is able to provide a speedy response.
Unlike private security firms, night patrols rarely market their services to businesses.19 This is reflected in the data on patrol responses to call-outs from businesses (the majority of whom, it appears, are small business premises such as shops, restaurants and licensed premises, or perhaps a community store. Sometimes patrols respond to call-outs from these businesses when Indigenous people are directly involved, but generally, responsibility for these premises rests with police or private security firms. Patrols in South Australia appear to be most receptive to calls from the community, while those in New South Wales appear to be less so. Differences in response are attributed to the way in which the patrols are constituted, the relationship established between the patrols and the local community and the expectations for support created by that relationship, and the relationship established between the patrols and the police.
There are twenty Street Patrols in Western Australia which are active in regional towns and in metropolitan Perth. A number were established as the result of concerns about crime and anti-social behaviour by Indigenous youth in the south east of the state. Other patrols especially in the north and east emerged to address concerns associated with intoxication.
The basic services offered by most patrols in regional and remote areas of Western Australia include:
Some patrols also conduct truancy patrols, transporting children to school
The patrol participates in a diversity of local crime reduction and community safety strategies. In addition to its work on the street - providing safe transport home and checking on at risk youth, it provides case work support, referral on and follow-up work with individuals and preventive work in schools. The project has its own centre where young people are offered activities, including those planned for school holidays. Moreover, the project is linked to a local crime prevention initiative aimed at breaking the cycle of juvenile crime.21
Community patrols in Western Australia deal with a diversity of agencies, although the core agency for most patrols tends to be the police. The Warburton Patrol deals exclusively with the police, while, with the exception of Noongar in Perth, the rest place the police ahead of all the agencies with whom they they deal.
Patrols also liaise with:
Noongar Patrol, for example, deals with Family and Children’s Services, various drug and alcohol services, the police, the City of Perth, the Town of Vincent, Safer WA22 Royal Perth Hospital, the Department of Indigenous Affairs and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.
For most patrols, the police are the first point of contact. While the relationship between patrols and the police is usually strong, the quality of the relationship varies from place to place. In some places there have been disputes between patrols and police over a range of issues. In some cases the disputes arise from a lack of definition of roles and responsibilities. The management and operation of vehicles are often issues of concern. These can sometime result in a temporary halt to patrolling.
Differences of opinion about the purpose of the patrol has also created tensions in some localities. One patrol has been in dispute with the police and the Western Australia Drug Abuse Strategy Office over its role of the patrol in relation to intoxicated persons and the sobering up shelter. The patrol does not believe it is its responsibility to take drunken people to the shelter, while the police and the Western Australian Drug Abuse Strategy Office believe this to be a core function of a patrol.
In some instances police officers have taken an active interest in helping to develop and nurture a patrol. Yamatji and Kullarri are examples of places where this has happened.
However, Yamatji, Noongar (Perth), Wunngagutu (Kalgoorlie) and the Leonora Patrol, which once had close relationships with the police, have begun to assert their independence as distinctly community initiatives. For example, the Kalgoorlie patrol bus had was housed and driven by police officers but now, the patrol, controlled by Kalgoorlie Indigenous Housing Development, oversees the bus while continuing to work in partnership with police (Blagg and Ferrante, 1997).
The tendency of patrols to distance themselves from the police reflects evolutionary changes in the way patrols perform their roles. The patrols have become more of a community service, rather than a security measure. This evolution can be noticed in the training of personnel. Previously, members of the Noongar patrol were trained by a private security firm, now they are trained in youth work, mediation and first aid by community support groups.
A diversity of local issues prompted the establishment of patrols in Western Australia. Respondents included the following:
While Indigenous people may have their own views about the aims of patrols, their views do not always reflect those of other agencies, who may occasionally seek to ‘capture’, or ‘colonise’, these resource to fulfil a different role. There are sometimes pressures on patrols to move beyond the original aims and gaols and take on additional, or different, tasks referred to them by outside bodies.
Noongar in Perth has been under constant pressure to fulfil a policing/security service role on behalf of Northbridge business people and some elements of Safer WA. The patrol started out as a type of welfare outreach service because of concerns within the Indigenous community about young people in Northbridge becoming vulnerable to drugs, violence and involvement in the sex industry and about adults sleeping out, becoming dangerously intoxicated and being arrested by the police. Steadily the patrol has been drawn into debates about policing issues in Northbridge and is being judged by its capacity to remove Indigenous youth from the district. There are now claims being made by some sections of the Northbridge business community, the City of Perth and Safer WA, that the patrol has failed (at a task it never set itself).
Such pressures can create difficulties for patrols. They may need to balance the interests of different constituencies and agencies, all of which may seek to define the agenda for a particular patrol according to their own requirements and views concerning the nature of the problem. This tendency is exacerbated when particular groups enjoy greater access to the media and government.
Marrala, Numbud, Halls Creek and Noongar are examples of patrols which have ceased functioning. They are examples of how vulnerable patrols are to lack of funding which is often due to administrative problems and difficulties acquitting previous years’ grants. This is a perennial problem for many patrols, which operate with strictly limited administrative support. Problems for Marrala arose when the project was redefined as a justice project by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and lost funding as a result. The example of Marrala illustrates the extent to which patrols often fall between a number of potential funding areas.
Marrala itself was firmly of the view that it dealt with a diversity of community problems. The service started as the result of concerns about people being knocked down by vehicles close to the Crossing Inn, in the absence of street lighting. The patrol ceased working for a time in late 2000, early 2001, for cultural reasons linked to an accident involving the patrol vehicle.
Other reasons for patrols ceasing to function for a time included problems associated with high turn over of workers and changes in management structures. The patrol at Halls Creek ceased to operate as a result of worker turn over.
The overwhelming majority of patrols try to work in a preventive way. A number stressed that they also try to, respond to calls for assistance and look out for situations likely to become problematic. Mirriwong pointed out that, although much of their patrol work tends to be reactive, work involving the community requires the development of preventive support systems which lower the risk associated with drinking.
Since the early 1990s, patrols in Western Australia have been funded consistently by the Department of Indigenous Affairs. Many have benefited considerably from support from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and increased funding made available by the Western Australian government.
The majority of patrollers in Western Australia receive support from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. There are some significant local variations however, depending on the operational characteristics of the patrol and how it defines its core work. One patrol in Perth, with its background in Indigenous health services, pays workers from a mix of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission funding and Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health funding. Noongar in Perth pays its workers from money it receives from local councils. Outside the metropolitan area the picture is varied. Other patrols find resources from other sources and a number of patrollers are volunteers.
Geraldton Street Workers are paid from a grant by the Department of Justice, while Halls Creek funds workers through resources it receives from Department of Health. Mingga Patrol – which operates directly from the sobering up shelter – funds its workers from sobering up shelter resources.
The majority of coordinators are employed full-time. Although they do not always work full-time as patrol coordinators, a significant number have other functions, with the patrol representing only one of the coordinators’ responsibilities. The coordinator of Geraldton Street Workers, for example, runs a youth resource centre as well as the patrol. A number of coordinators are paid from a mix of Department of Indigenous Affairs and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission resources. As with the payment of workers, the source of funding for coordinators depends on a number of operational characteristics. For example, the coordinator of Marrala is paid by Ngindiling Arri Cultural Health Service, while the patrollers are paid through Community Development Employment Projects’ funding with a top up from Department of Indigenous Affairs sources. Warburton Patrol and Pakala Patrol (Hedland) were alone in being staffed by unpaid volunteers without a full- time coordinator.
There are significant variations in the age, gender and cultural characteristics of patrols.
The composition of patrols varies enormously: from two people working out of Roebourne sobering up shelter, to eighteen person working in metropolitan areas.
Women are well represented as patrol workers and, in most cases, their numbers are on a par with men, or outnumber them.
Women have often been at the forefront of initiatives to establish patrols in their communities, seeing benefit in the consensual and persuasive nature of the patrols in dealing with issues that may otherwise be dealt with through coercion and force. There may also be sensitivities regarding men’s and women’s domains at play in some regions – since women as well as men are handled and transported by patrols, a gender balance may help to avoid problems of inappropriate gender contact.
Larger, more urbanised patrols (for example Swan in Midland and Noongar in Perth) tend to have more men than women. These patrols operate principally as foot patrols and patrol areas at a distance from where the Aboriginal community lives.
The age range of patrollers’ is from eighteen to sixty. Once again, this reflects the diverse nature of the work of community patrols. The mean age would seem to be in the thirty to forty age group.
A number of patrols attempt to reflect enduring elements of Indigenous culture in their work and try to incorporate different language, ‘skin’, and/or clan groups in their patrol work. Some patrols operating in rural and remote areas, consider cultural factors to be of central importance in their work. Patrols may only enjoy wide legitimacy when they reflect the cultural diversity of a community. There may be avoidance rules at work precluding contact between certain people. The patrol may work through the cultural authority carried by certain key individuals in particular clans, language groups or family groups to deal with their own ‘mob’. At the very least people from within a particular group – whatever their status – will find it is easier to communicate with and be accepted by members of their own group.
Membership of a majority of patrols in Western Australia includes wide representation of Indigenous clans and family groups. Noongar, Yamatji and Wongi people work for the Noongar Patrol. The Marrala Patrol has representatives from the five language groups in the Fitzroy Valley (Gooniyandi, Walmajjari, Bunaba, Wangkajunga and Ngingua), on the patrol bus. Numbud has attempted to involve all eight language groups in its catchment area, and Halls Creek has Jaru, Kija and Gunian people represented. Such diversity is not as evident in other areas. Fo r example, in the case of the Tartilla, Pakala and Mingga Patrols, most people in the Pilbara are of Martu descent. A number of patrols also have non-Aboriginal people working on them. Yamatji Patrol, which has become more of a ‘community patrol’ in recent years, although it deals predominantly with Aboriginal people, is one example.
Community elders become involved in patrols in a number of different ways. In some instances (Pakala, Marrala, Tartilla, and Mirriwong, for example), they actively participate in patrols. More commonly, however, they endorse the patrol’s work through participation on management committees, councils and other bodies. Their support may be crucial in authorising patrol work, and they may become involved when disputes arise or in instances where patrols report people from their particular clan for fighting, drinking, or family violence. Elders have been called in to settle aggressive men when patrols become involved in family violence situations (Blagg, 2000 a & b).
The structure of management committees of patrols varies across the state. Committees comprise representatives from key agencies such as police, the Department of Indigenous Affairs, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, drug and alcohol services, and local Aboriginal councils. Specific arrangements, however, differ significantly and reflect the diversity of issues prompting the creation of the patrol, the diversity of agencies auspicing or housing the patrol, and the particular mix of agencies and community groups involved in planning and developing the patrol. Mingga, for example, was developed as an arm of the Roebourne sobering up shelter. Its management committee is led by the shelter’s committee in partnership with the police and other local agencies.
In other instances, management of patrols forms part of an overall responsibility for other community activities of which a patrol may be one part. In Halls Creek, for example, the Jugarni-Jutiya Alcohol Action Council Aboriginal Corporation, which came together several years ago to coordinate a range of alcohol reduction policies in the area, also manages the patrol. Similar arrangements are in evidence in other areas of the state. Kullarri in Broome is managed by the Mamabulanjin Health Service, of which it forms a part. The Geraldton Street Workers patrol is overseen by a management committee responsible for a number of youth focused facilities and programs. Noongar Patrol has two committee structures: an executive committee elected from an annual general meeting and a committee of stakeholders. The work of the Warburton patrol is overseen by the community council.
The major stakeholders identified by patrols are the communities they serve. Other agencies to which patrols owe some allegiance, some of which provide funding, are the police, education, drug and alcohol services, justice and welfare services, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.
A number of patrols identify the ‘whole community’ as their stake-holders – meaning that they serve non-Indigenous people as well as Indigenous people. Kullarri, for example, stresses that its focus is on the problem of intoxication rather than on a specific race of people.
Noongar has an elaborate range of stakeholders. Its stakeholders’ committee meets regularly, and because of the sensitivities about Indigenous youth in Northbridge, Noongar spends a significant amount of time explaining its work and its effectiveness to a range of interest groups. The composition of the stakeholder committee includes the City of Perth, the Town of Vincent, Australia Post, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, the Department of Indigenous Affairs, police, family and children’s services, and Safer WA.
The generic term night patrol is misleading, given the extent to which many patrols work during the day. Patrols in Western Australia work a diversity of hours, depending on resources, availability of personnel, their key focus, and community demand. A number of patrols work a day shift, others attempt to cover days, evenings and nights. Patrols attempt to cover Thursday and Friday evenings, although many find it difficult to attract workers to do shifts on or near the weekend.23
All patrols in Western Australia have their own vehicle and several patrols have two vehicles. The vehicles are seen as essential for patrol work. Vehicles are often funded through grants from the Lotteries Commission of Western Australia specifically for patrol purposes, or form part of the resources of a community council or sobering up shelter. A number of patrols identified buying, maintaining and buying fuel for vehicles as major management issues. Vehicles are often the source of jealousy within communities. Some agencies are concerned about the use made of vehicles as taxi services and use for other non-patrol purposes, although this is not widespread in Western Australia.
The majority of the patrols in Western Australia have some means of radio communication with the police. Tartilla is in the process of installing a radio phone. Two others – Mingga and Geraldton - use mobile phones.
Focusing services on specific ‘hot spots’ and ‘hot times’ has become an aspect of contemporary crime prevention practice. The proactive policing of public space requires knowledge of venues and times when trouble is most likely to occur. Night patrols, because of their intimate knowledge of their localities and their access to community information, may be well situated to undertake proactive work. This frequently allows them to manage the scene of an incident before the police arrive.
The survey has revealed that patrols are aware of sensitive areas in their localities and focus their energies in these areas. Such areas include pubs and other licensed premises, particular parks, street corners, camps, alley-ways, bus and train stations and ovals. ‘Hot times’ may include pay and pension days, weekends, sporting events, rodeos and carnivals, or before and after school. Geraldton Street Workers patrol places where young people gather, including ‘terror corner’ a spot near a pizza house that became notorious after an incident involving fights between youths several years ago.
The question of whether a particular patrol is effective depends largely on the criteria being adopted to measure effectiveness. In many cases, the criteria used are quite subjective. When asked about effectiveness, patrols provided answers which were detailed and generally free from excessive claims, showing an openness and willingness to be reflective about practice. The answers reflected the patrols’ own priorities, as defined by their management bodies. While few patrols have been subject to rigorous independent evaluation, their own local measurements of success confirms the value placed on the efforts of patrols to make a difference in their communities. Some patrols employ police arrest and detention statistics to measure effectiveness, while others rely on the extent to which they have assisted people in a variety of difficulties.
Crime prevention is notoriously difficult to measure, given the unreliability of police statistics to provide a clear index of all ‘crime’ in an area. The problems associated with such measurements increase exponentially in the Indigenous context.
Moreover, crime prevention (in the narrow sense) is not what many community patrols are about. They have functions, in terms of reducing the fear of crime, assisting those in need, and reassuring the community, that are valid aims in themselves but impossible to encapsulate within the parameters of crime statistics.
The following extracts illustrate the extent to which some patrols describe their effectiveness.
The barriers to effective working are generally to be found in issues such as lack of funding, lack of training, and problems with community support.
Only Warburton Patrol identified no hindrances. The majority identified funding as the main problem. Other concerns include:
Two patrols – Numbud (Derby) and Geraldton Street Workers - saw poor relationships with police as an obstacle. Noongar identified the expectations of some groups, seeing the Noongar Patrol as a panacea for all problems, as the most serious obstacle it faced.
Few patrols have been rigorously evaluated. In Western Australia, patrols record basic data as part of their funding requirements. Evaluations are done in-house through self-analysis and via feedback from management committees and the like. Only Mirriwong, Halls Creek and Geraldton have been, or are being, evaluated by an outside agency.
In Western Australia, only Ganah Ganah and Warburton have no contact with other patrols. Most have contact with others in their vicinity, either directly or through writing. Western Australia has had number of local forums – one in Derby in 2000 brought several patrols together.
At the forum in Derby a variety of issues emerged for discussion. Although they varied from region to region, a number of key points were reinforced. In particular the need for better funding and for better referral options were raised. For example, Kullarri state they had nowhere to take young people they picked up.
While there is consensus among patrols about issues such as referral on services, there is not agreement on every matter:
The Yamatji Patrol in Geraldton originally formed around concerns about juvenile anti-social behaviour. It was, in some senses, a ‘top down’ initiative, having formed with government agency backing. Over time, however, it has re-defined itself and has considerable grass roots support. From a focus on anti-social behaviour in the early 1990s, it has become involved in a range of issues. It routinely intervenes in family and domestic violence incidents. Moreover, it identifies a gap in advocacy services for Indigenous women in these situations. The patrol has developed its own advocacy service, funded by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, to support a family violence initiative employing Indigenous women volunteers. In family violence situations, the service assists women to take out restraining orders and advocates on their behalf with the legal system and other agencies.
There are warden schemes in operation in some communities in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. These are at Balgo, Bidyadanga, Oombulgarri, Kulumbaru, One Arm Point, Beagle Bay and Warmun, and at Jigalong in the Pilbara.24
Under the Aboriginal Communities Act 1979 attempts in the mid 1990s to make remote wardens special constables in Western Australia25 were ill conceived and did not prove successful. Advocates of increasing powers for wardens, and increasing the powers of communities to penalise offenders invoke the Communities Act, in a bid to make the schemes more successful. The possibility of success of these schemes rests with communities’ involvement in decisions made about them. Simply imposing non-Aboriginal forms of law and policing is not the solution to problems on remote communities.26
Attempts to make wardens’ schemes work led to their control being transferred from the Aboriginal Affairs Department to the police in the late 1990s. Police strategies lean towards incorporating wardens into the police service delegated as Aboriginal Police Liaison Officers. The Aboriginal Justice Council has opposed this strategy on the grounds that it could serve to disempower communities by imposing non-Indigenous practices on Indigenous communities.27
Night patrols were first developed in the Northern Territory and patrols such as Julalikari in Tennant Creek have operated for a decade or so. Recently, there have been debates in the Northern Territory about the role patrols could potentially play as Local Crime Prevention Committees, coordinated by NTsafe. There have also been debates concerning the potential role of night patrols in local diversion projects coordinated by the police. Indigenous people consulted for this review were firm in their belief that patrols need to be seen as essentially Indigenous community initiatives.28
A number of issues emerged during consultations in the Northern Territory. Indigenous people involved in patrols stressed:
The question of cultural ownership emerged in relation to changes in the management of a night patrol running in the Darwin and Palmerston areas. The project had been run by the Aboriginal and Islander Medical Support Service in conjunction with the sobering up shelter and funded through Territory Health from the Wine Cask Levy.29 The Aboriginal and Islander Medical Support Service lost the funding for the night patrol and the sobering up shelter in 2000, and responsibility was transferred to a new management committee. This occurred while a tendering process was established by the Northern Territory’s Department of Health. Senior members of the Aboriginal community expressed strong objections to the process, which ensured that control of the project would be removed from Aboriginal people and their organisations.
On a number of remote communities in the Northern Territory (Lajamanu and Ali-Curung, for example), patrols are linked to a community Law and Order Committee. The committees are involved in negotiating reciprocal agreements and protocols directly with agencies (family services, housing), and in a sense, do some of their own local coordination. Much of their effort has involved managing tensions between agencies as a means of reconciling different roles and expectations.30 There have also been occasions when night patrols have undertaken some of their own informal ‘diversionary’ work in communities to counter the impact of the Northern Territory mandatory sentencing laws and the concomitant reluctance to involve police when property offences occurred. Several patrols try to resolve problems in the community by getting offenders and victims together, ‘growling’ offenders and resolving matters ‘Yapa way’.
Funding issues are significant for night patrols. Patrols find it difficult to identify which funding body has funding responsibility and what the source of funding is. In many cases funding, through bodies such as NTsafe, is single issue funding. While it is useful for one off purchases, it does not meet the needs of Indigenous people, whose main concerns are about vehicles, salaries and infrastructure.
Bodies involved in supporting and training patrols argue that many patrols fail because of lack of support from within their communities and/or government. While Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission funding is essential in keeping many patrols operating, there are concerns that, organisationally, officials are often too remote from the actual work, and are restricted by a rigid bureaucratic system. There are complaints that an apparent reduction in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission field staff has removed an important link with communities. Further concerns are that the Community Development Employment Projects’ management structures are not sufficiently aware of the specific needs of night patrols and the issues with which they deal. There were suggestions that night patrols need to have better representation in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission at various levels.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission funding is invaluable in terms of providing a consistent funding base. Aside from support through Community Development Employment Projects, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission spent $1,746,833 on night patrol related issues in 2001 in the Northern Territory.
Territory Health Services have also been an important source of funding. The Public Behaviour Program, for example, provides the principal funding for establishing patrols and related services, with the expectation that other sources of funding will be accessed once the service is established. The program is intended to reduce the incidence of anti-social behaviour related to alcohol and other drug abuse in public places and has been developed in partnership with NTsafe. Territory Health Services support patrols through the Wine Cask Levy, which also provides funding for alcohol related issues. Many night patrols such as Tangentyere, Ali Curung, Kalano and Lajamanu, have received support through this program. The program has also funded related services such as the Mount Theo Petrol Sniffing program, an alcohol diversionary program undertaken by Tennant Council, the Remote Area Night Patrol Coordinator and the Tangentyere Detour Program.32
In many remote areas of the Northern Territory, in Yuendumu and Ali Curung for example, women have been the instigators and main-stays of night patrols. Women become involved ‘to help people’, ‘keep out grog’, ‘stop young people dying’, ‘stop them going to gaol’, ‘stop family fighting’, ‘stop petrol sniffing’ and ‘humbugging’.33 Women have often developed the night patrol working in concert with a women’s safe house.
Some women’s patrols have tended to operate in the absence of resources. At Ali Curung, for example, women walk around the community rather than drive. This is not considered a disadvantage because it enables patrollers to ‘sneak up’ on ‘sniffers’ and drinkers. There are stories of men losing interest in becoming patrollers when it became clear that resources, such as vehicles, were not available or where the patrol was not a specific power base or a source of prestige. Some men, when they did become involved, used the vehicle to supply alcohol or go hunting. On occasions, the vehicle became a factor in local reciprocal obligations. The women seem to be clearer about their stance on alcohol while men will sometimes vacillate and join the drinkers.
Police in the Northern Territory consider functioning night patrols an indispensable part of the Territory’s law and order strategy where Indigenous communities are concerned. Senior police in Alice Springs and Darwin speak highly of their effectiveness, saying that patrols are the ‘eyes and ears’ of the police in remote communities and provide an order maintenance service that they are unable to fulfil. A submission by the Northern Territory Police Service maintains that:
The benefits to the community are significant. Night patrols are able to deal with issues affecting Aboriginal people, as they understand the language and have a working knowledge of the cultural and family issues. They are therefore better placed to predict the outcome of incidents brewing in their communities and respond by dealing with the issue in an appropriate manner. This may mean the relocation of the various parties in a dispute, or it may ultimately mean the early intervention of police to stop a situation escalating.
The submission suggests that patrols are cost effective when compared to mainstream services dealing with social disorder. The patrols present a positive public image of Aboriginal people dealing with problems associated with social disorder while releasing police to focus more on the duties they are trained to perform in society.
Police have concerns about the management and coordination of patrols, arguing that, to be effective, they need proper management and coordination, and the support of the community in which they operate. In urban areas, patrols need a dedicated coordinator to ensure their effectiveness. In remote areas they need to operate with the authority of the respective clan groups in the community they represent. The police suggest that:
Their operations tend to rise and fall dependent on the problems perceived within their community at the time. They generally require training to interface with police operations and require a suitable vehicle (Northern Territory Police Submission, 2001).
While the police perspective would be endorsed by many key players in the Northern Territory, there remain differences of opinion concerning coordinating bodies and the nature of the relationship between patrols and police.34
Many Indigenous communities are extremely fragile and beset with constant problems of family violence, alcohol abuse, petrol sniffing and poverty. Initiatives such as night patrols sometimes mirror the crises in the community and become dysfunctional and fall apart. The failure of night patrols can be attributed to differing factors in urban, rural and remote areas. A common thread, however, may be the lack of preparatory work required in setting up the night patrol. Patrols established in remote areas on the energy of one or two individuals often dissolve when the key person moves on, burns out or becomes disillusioned. Lack of agreement about the purpose of vehicles and resources leads to them being appropriated for reasons other than patrolling work. Lack of a broad consensus and ownership of the patrol across skin, clan and family groups may mean that the patrol becomes the property of one group to the detriment of others.
The Utopia Night Patrol failed ‘because the vehicle was abused and written off’ and ‘patrollers were drinking on the job’, according to a source in the community. A patrol at Mutitjulu failed because, as one community worker observed:
No one has the strength to do it. The council meets and is strong on talk. There are too many other distractions and because there is employment a lot of energetic people who might other wise set up a patrol are occupied.35 There is room for a patrol, lots of grog, some violence and half a dozen hard-core (petrol) sniffers. There was an excellent Aboriginal Community Police officer who did great work for a couple of years, then one day he just took off his uniform and joined the drinkers. He’s now in jail.
This patrol has been re-kindled and has plans to operate again, due to an initiative by a local woman elder.36
Northern Territory night patrols have been innovative in a number of areas. In the Alice Springs area, intoxication and petrol sniffing are major concerns. Communities are being assisted to take control of these issues through improved training and better coordination. Some interesting initiatives have been instigated with input from the Remote Area Coordination Unit run from Tangentyere Council, including:
The Ali Curung and Lajamanu Women’s Night Patrols have to be considered in the context of the community’s broader law and justice initiatives and, particularly, their increasing use of traditional justice methods to handle problems on their respective communities.
The refuge is a refurbished house on the community funded through Territory Housing and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. The women and the community ‘own’ the safe house, and there are strong links between it, the elders, the council and the patrol. The women from the safe house and patrol work with children in classrooms talking about risk, sexual assault, bullying, drinking and family violence. They claim that the safe house is a model for other Aboriginal communities.
Women working in the safe house and on the night patrol reported that together they were preventing violence from occurring. When the house opened in 1999 there were more than thirty women seeking refuge, now there are fewer women and children using the facility – and these are often on a preventive basis rather than following a crisis.
The contrast between the Ali Curung and Lajamanu situations and initiatives in many urban areas (such as the Noongar Patrol in Western Australia and those in Brisbane and Sydney), is striking. These remote area schemes are working directly from within relatively unbroken Indigenous structures of law and culture. The support they need may be different from that operating in urban areas – rather than having a ‘one fits all’ approach to support and training needs. Indigenous elders and workers on patrols in these two communities stress they already have skills and a body of theory from their own law which still informs daily life. They are skilled in the use of Aboriginal dispute resolution techniques and do not require training in mediation and dispute resolution. In other visited sites, however, there were calls for mediation and dispute resolution training, but this was in a relatively urban area, where Indigenous law has become more diluted.
It would be too restrictive to simply collapse initiatives such as Lajamanu and Ali Curung into crime prevention initiatives in a reductionist fashion. Understanding night patrols in remote areas may require an analysis situating them within debates about customary law and justice, and community safety and ‘healing’, as specifically Indigenous mechanisms of self-policing.37 Night patrols such as those in Lajamanu and Ali Curung are – they claim- not there to be the ‘eyes and ears of the police’ or simply fill a gap in the justice system or be a subordinate arm of the Territory’s crime prevention strategy.
The Lajamanu and Ali Curung examples confirm lessons learned in the development of Aboriginal community-based prevention programs elsewhere. Another patrol initiative in Australia is a youth focused violence prevention program in the West Kimberley region of Western Australia.
The West Kimberley program:
Initiatives like the law and justice strategies in Ali Curung and Lajamanu have been achieved through painstaking, slow, incremental work, facilitated by workers from the Aboriginal Development Unit in Darwin over an eighteen month period. A similar approach has been undertaken by the Remote Area Night Patrol Training Unit near Alice Springs.
These examples illustrate the need to achieve consensus about the role and nature of the patrol in remote communities and its local management before funding the scheme. Without a clear community commitment resourcing a patrol can be destructive. This is particularly so in relation to vehicles, which can be appropriated for the wrong purposes if there is not a clear agreement in the community about their use.
The Tangentyere Remote Area Night Patrol reports that patrols operate differently depending on available resources (human and otherwise) but that the main focus tends to be on alcohol and substance abuse, illegal sale of alcohol, associated youth violence, youth, community safety issues.
Patrols define their core work as:
Night patrols deal most often with The Northern Territory Police. They also liaise with:
A range of local issues has prompted the emergence of patrols in the Northern Territory. They are generally related to issues such as intoxication and its social consequences, community unrest, family violence, and crimes such as stealing and property offences as well as general law and order issues.
One of the urban-based programs, Central Australian Aboriginal Child Care Agency in Alice Springs, is the only Northern Territory scheme dealing solely with children. The patrol deals with youth loitering in public places, anti-social behaviour, violence, child neglect and abuse in the town camps, and concerns about sexual abuse and neglect.40
The continuity of service in the Northern Territory
Discontinuity and the cycle of failure in the Northern Territory is a critical problem. Of those patrols operating in the Northern Territory, a number have had periods where they were unable to maintain a service:
The remainder, however, report that they have run more or less continuously for some time.
As in the Western Australian experience, patrols tend to work in a proactive manner:
Only Anmatjere claims to respond reactively to events.
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Commission provides the basic, recurrent funding for most remote night patrols to function in the Northern Territory. This funding provides support through Community Development Employment Projects, community infrastructure, salaries and vehicles. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission resources have been the life-blood allowing many patrols to maintain a service. After the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, Territory Health Services is the most significant funding resource agency. These agencies contribute resources to night patrols in urban areas linked to sobering up shelters, and reflecting the importance given to reducing alcohol abuse in Territory Health’s strategy.
The survey revealed considerable variations between patrols in regard to payment for patrol workers and coordinators. Larger night patrols in urbanised areas – such as Darwin and Palmerston, and Tangentyere (Alice Springs) and some patrols servicing larger communities (Kalano for example) have paid workers and coordinators. These are the exception. Most workers on patrols in the Northern Territory volunteer their time and receive no wages. Two thirds of patrols surveyed had full-time coordinators. The majority are paid by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, although a number are unpaid volunteers. The Yuendumu Women’s Night Patrol coordinator has her salary paid by the Women’s Centre. Utju Patrol does not have a coordinator because of past misuse of vehicles. The council clerk now controls the patrol.
The number of people working on a patrol varies significantly, reflecting the diversity of demographic and social contexts in which night patrols operate. The availability of a pool of willing volunteers varies from place to place. Some communities – such as Ali Curung and Lajamanu – have high numbers of workers, twelve and eighteen respectively, demonstrating the extent of community ownership of the patrol. Kalano also has a high number of twenty nine patrollers. Darwin and Tangentyere have eleven and twelve patrollers respectively on their patrols. The remainder average out at roughly six workers per patrol.
There is considerable diversity in terms of the gender composition of patrols. Ali-Curung, Lajamanu and Yuendumu are women’s patrols. There are also a number of all male patrols at Ntaria, Urapuntja, Yuelamu and Utju. The remainder have a mix of men and women on the patrol. It is not unusual, however, for men and women to be on different shifts, even when on the same patrol. Some patrols are not unified bodies and are split on gender grounds.
The age range of workers on patrols is marked, ranging from seventeen to sixty years of age. The majority of workers appear to be in their mid thirties, however some schemes prefer to have older people and have been set up by them. The women’s patrol at Yuendumu, for example, is run by the senior women in the community.41
There is also significant variation in the involvement of different language, clan and family groups. Walangeri includes six language groups, Tangentyere three, Kalano two, and Ali Curung four. Others, such as Utju, Walgar and Gunungu, incorporate different clan/family groupings. A number of communities only have one language group to involve – usually Walpiri.
The involvement of elders is also variable. Most patrols involve elders in their work. Ampilatwatja describes elders as the mainstay of the patrol. Elders have a role behind the scenes, authorising patrol work, as well as actively participating. Ali Curung describes their role as advisory. Moreover, elders’ councils play a role in resolving the disputes and issues that patrols come across in their work.
There is some diversity in relation to management structures. In some communities, councils double as management committees. In others, this structure, supplemented by night patrol members, acts as a management body. Kalano also includes police, Territory Health and the Chamber of Commerce as members on the committee.
Those communities with a Law and Order Committee, such as Ali Curung and Lajamanu, use this to manage the patrol as an integral element of the overall community plan. In the case of Yuendumu, the Women’s Centre’s management committee manages the patrol. A number of patrols have no management structure.
Night patrols have a diversity of stakeholders, including the particular communities and client groups they service. Tangentyere, for example, notes the town camp communities, while Daguragu lists all community members, but especially older women and young children. The Central Australian Aboriginal Child Care Agency identifies Indigenous youth as its stakeholders.
Others note a number of key agencies. These include the police, council, health services, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, the Office of Aboriginal Development, local government, drug and alcohol services, sobering up shelters and clinics. Yuendumu also notes its links with the Mount Theo petrol sniffing diversionary program and the Remote Area Night Patrol Unit.
Patrol operating times are constrained by available resources, both human and physical. Most patrols attempt to work at optimum periods when possible, to use their limited resources more efficiently. Night patrols in the Northern Territory work a range of shifts, extending from a few nights per week through to seven days. Tangentyere works Tuesday through Saturday – the same as the Alice Springs sobering up shelter. Ali Curung, Lajamanu and Laramba work very day.
A number will extend their work schedule when there are problems in the community. Most patrols work an evening shift, usually until around 11pm, though some work later – until 3am.
While vehicles are a much desired item, they can become a source of community conflict and disharmony. They remain a vital resource, however, and indispensable to many patrols. Only two patrols, Ali Curung and Utju, have no designated vehicle, others have at least one vehicle and several have two. The vehicles tend to be twin cabs, capable of transporting a number of community people.
Most patrols are not in regular contact with the police via a radio. Only five patrols – Ali Curung, Darwin and Palmerston, Kalano and Tangentyere have this facility. Several mention using the telephone when needing to make contact with the police.
Most patrols work around a number of specific hot spots, while some patrol the community as a whole (in the case of many small communities). Due to the dry community by-laws in the Northern Territory, many police the entrances and boundaries of communities. Areas patrolled include:
Northern Territory patrols differ in the extent to which they think they are effective and how this is measured. Tangentyere Remote Area Night Patrol Unit suggests that where the conditions are right patrols can be very effective. However these conditions tend to be ephemeral and fall down if a key person leaves or is unavailable. Three patrols (Anmatjere, Ntaria and Urapuntja) candidly confess that they are ineffective. Others are more positive about the value of their service. The night patrol:
Two major factors have reduced the effectiveness of night patrols in the Northern Territory. These are inadequate funding and lack of community support. Lack of training opportunities and problems associated with communication and liaison with police services have also been identified by several patrols. In addition:
Few Northern Territory night patrols have been formally evaluated. The evaluations that have been conducted have been superficially monitored rather than being subjected to rigorous inquiry. The Ali Curung patrol and safe house have been monitored43 and Daguragu claims to be evaluated by the Australian and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Kalano is currently being evaluated, while Lajamanu suggests that it was evaluated as part of a training process. Remote Area Night Patrol’s coordinator position has been evaluated by its funding body.
There is interaction and direct networking between patrols. Successful patrols such as Ali Curung, Lajamanu and Yuendumu, are in demand in other communities to help start patrols or assist them in over-coming problems. The process of problem solving has been further assisted by Remote Area Night Patrols through its newsletter which is circulated to twenty patrols around Alice Springs and by the Office of Aboriginal Development. The Aboriginal Community Police Officers also play an advisory role. The result has been a useful cross-fertilisation of ideas. Examples of networks include:
Good coordination between community night patrols makes the policing of sporting events easier. Patrols sometimes follow the teams to other communities to ensure that there is no excessive drinkingor fighting.
Yuendumu women regularly communicate with, and visit, other patrols and feature prominently in Remote Area Night Patrol Newsletters. The women also made a significant contribution to the Rekindling Family Relationships conference in Adelaide in early 2000, where their work was seen as a model for other projects.
Night patrols in the Northern Territory have raised a number of additional issues as follow:
The survey gathered information on a variety of patrols operating in Queensland. Patrols set up by Community Justice Groups are known as Bare Foot Patrols in remote areas and tend to be established as part of a broader community justice strategy. They share characteristics with many patrols in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. A principal goal is to extend and consolidate Indigenous self-management. The majority of these patrols are mainly, although not exclusively, in the Far North Queensland area. The low response rate from the Community Justice Groups contacted in Far North Queensland reflected the insecure funding base of these initiatives and the consequent weakness of administrative support.
The research also identified schemes, mainly in the southern part of Queensland, dealing with issues surrounding intoxication and drug usage, particularly with young people. These schemes are funded under the Management of Public Intoxication Program, an initiative of the Department of Family and Youth Services. They have a strong youth services ethic, illustrating the degree of boundary blurring that will inevitably occur between Indigenous self-policing and traditional forms of youth outreach work.
Staff responsible for funding and managing Community Justice Groups, interviewed in Brisbane, acknowledged that initiatives are under-funded and required more investment. Patrols, where they emerge, tend to do so as the result of local initiatives by Indigenous people and receive no special support from government agencies. Meetings with professionals involved with Community Justice Groups in Cairns and visits to schemes in the Cairns area, such as Gumba Gumba Elders and Yarraba, confirmed this.
The core functions of patrols in Queensland revolve around safe transportation, counselling and referral services, and maintaining community peace.
services offered by the Management of Public Intoxication Program included safe transportation, advocacy, referral on, counselling and first aid. Chill Out Zone (Gold Coast) for example, offers first aid, transport, and care for intoxicated youth, as its core services
Community Justice Groups offer safe transportation, move people to safe houses and ensure community peace and safety. Gumba Gumba Elders (Cairns) offer transport home and divert people away from the system through the provision of pathways to treatment and safety
the Community Access Support Services (Brisbane) work closely with Murri Watch Cell Visitors Scheme (a diversionary program concerned with preventing deaths in custody), to provide an outreach service, monitor the safety of vulnerable people in public places, offer assistance and transport, maintain a client data-base and undertake individual and systemic advocacy
Organisations providing a patrol service in Queensland liaise with a diversity of agencies. As in other States and the Northern Territory, patrols are in closest contact with police. Other contacts include:
Patrols in Queensland have been developed for diverse reasons depending on the particular nature of the services auspicing the patrol and a range of specifically local factors.
Respondents identified a variety of factors:
Of the nine schemes that responded to the survey, all had managed to maintain a continuous service, despite severe funding problems in the case of Gumba Gumba and Yarraba.
Patrols attempt to work in a proactive manner as far as possible:
Other agencies would like to do more preventive work but crisis intervention work tends to take priority:
Of those patrols surveyed in Queensland, the majority are funded through Families, Youth and Community Care programs and the Management of Public Intoxication Programs with additional support from local councils. Community Access Support Services receive Supported Accommodation Program funding for working with homeless people. Those patrols working primarily with Indigenous people (Gumba Gumba, Yarraba and Murri Watch) do not receive funding specifically for the patrol element of their work, but receive a grant for a range of services. The funding bodies are the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, in the case of Murri Watch, and the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy, in the case of Gumba Gumba and Yarraba.
The survey revealed considerable differences in the payment of patrol workers. The majority of services provide some payment to key workers while retaining volunteer staff. However, the form of payment varies considerably. Funding from the Community Development Employment Projects is provided for the Management of Public Intoxication Program and Murri Watch workers, while others are paid from Family, Youth and Community Services resources. Yarraba, Street Beat and Community Access Support Services do not provide any payment to their volunteer workers. Only two projects have no full-time coordinator (Murri Watch and Sunshine Coast Street Angels).
As in other States and Territories, there is significant variation in the profiles of patrols in Queensland. The number of workers varies greatly. Two projects (Management of Public Intoxication Program and Street Beat) have only two workers. Drug Arm has ten workers, many of whom are volunteers. As in other sites, there is a gender balance in personnel although overall, women appear to slightly outnumber men. Once again, this tends to confirm the view that the underpinning philosophy of patrol work may differ in significant ways from other forms of policing work. It seems to attract women workers interested in promoting an ethic of care in their communities, rather than simple order maintenance and moral street sweeping (Reiner, 1994).
There is some variation in age profiles. The distinctly Aboriginal projects linked to Community Justice Groups (Gumba Gumba) tend to attract older workers and elders, while the projects focused on youth (such as Chill Out) attract a younger set of volunteers. There is no hard and fast rule here, however, and patrols in Queensland attract a variety of age groups.
Only two patrols in Queensland (Gumba Gumba and Street Beat), have different ethnic and/or cultural groupings working on the patrol. Gumba Gumba reports recruiting representatives of different clan and family groups including those from Aboriginal, Torres Strait, Papuan and Cook Island backgrounds, while Street Beat reports having Chinese, Japanese and Samoan workers. Four patrols have elders involved in the patrol, whereas the Management of Public Intoxication Program consults elders, rather than involving them directly in the patrol process.
The structure of management committees varies considerably in Queensland. In the case of Yarraba and Gumba Gumba, the patrols are managed by the committees responsible for the Community Justice Groups. Other patrols appear to have a broad range of interest groups involved in their management structures. Chill Out Zone, for example, has a management group for financial auspicing and a separate reference group comprising police, council and liquor licensing representatives, community welfare organisations and venue owners. Drug Arm has regular meetings involving education, police, Ipswich Council, Indigenous groups, young people’s organisations, health, juvenile justice and liquor licensing authorities. Only Street Beat reports having no specific management structure.
Key stakeholders in Queensland patrols, generally reflect the constituencies and the communities they serve, and the various agencies and partners with whom they work and from whom they receive funding. Police, councils, service users, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and the community generally, feature prominently.
Patrols in Queensland operate at different times, depending on resources and the nature of client groups. The variations are significant. Community Access Support Services, for example, operates seven days and six nights a week, with longer shifts Wednesday to Saturday. Chill Out with its focus on youth related intoxication in public places operates on Friday and Saturday nights from midnight to 5am. and on special occasions. Gumba Gumba works Friday and Saturday nights and every night during school holidays and on occasions such as sporting events, carnivals and family funerals. Yarraba patrollers work within the confines of a small Indigenous community and, like many patrols in the Northern Territory, are called out at all hours when there are problems in the community.
All patrols in Queensland have some kind of transport, although there is considerable variation in the kinds used, from vans through to a sixteen seater bus in the case of Gumba Gumba. Two services offering a mobile facility as well as a patrol service (Sunshine Coast Street Angels and Chill Out Zone) have caravans. The Sunshine Street Angel’s caravan case donated by a local car dealer. In terms of communication with the police, only Sunshine Coast Street Angels and Gumba Gumba have radio contact, while Street Beat, Drug Arm and Community Access Support Services use a mobile phone.
Effective crime prevention requires detailed knowledge of those localities most vulnerable to criminal incidents. Patrols can be well placed to work proactively around such hot spots. The Community Access Support Services report undertaking proactive patrols around sites identified in discussions with the city council, while Gumba Gumba patrols the central business district, esplanade, night clubs and various suburbs when they are told about potential trouble by taxis and security services in Cairns. The Management of Public Intoxication Program patrols various Aboriginal camps and Murri Aid visits known parks and shopping centres where youth are known to congregate. Sunshine Street Angels patrol the Mooloolaba beach strip frequented by young people on Friday and Saturday nights. The Street Angels set up a canopy in the park area and patrol from the canopy base. Yarraba patrol listens for music playing and signs of people ‘raging’ in the community.
Patrols in Queensland measure effectiveness in different ways. The majority assess their work in positive terms, stressing the extent to which their service has a real impact on issues, with only Chill Out stressing that its work is a band aid on perennial and difficult problems. Other patrols might agree with the general prognosis, that many of the issues they confront are extremely difficult o ameliorate, however, they also stress the degree to which their work performs a valuable role in reducing problems. The Community Access Support Services, for example, deals with about four hundred and sixty clients a month, prevents crime and diverts homeless people from the street, while noting a reduction in the numbers arrested by the police for drunkenness. Gumba Gumba believes that the patrol has contributed to a reduction in juvenile crime. Murri Aid reports that it decreases contact between Aboriginal youth and the police, and assists with stopping crime in the community. Some services also measure effectiveness by other criteria, such as providing a linking service for vulnerable youth (Drug Arm) and providing a safety net for their client group.
Inadequate funding constitutes the main barrier to effectiveness for most patrols. Other limitations included lack of support from other agencies, shortage of specialist follow-up and referral services and a general lack of youth programs and recreational services. The Management of Public Intoxication Program notes that some stakeholders fail to understand the complexities of the issues they work with and prefer a ‘punitive approach’, while the Community Access Support Agency notes problems associated with ‘a blame culture against (the) homeless and public drinkers’.
Few patrols have been subject to independent evaluation by an outside source. Sunshine Coast Street Angels report being reviewed by an independent authority as part of an evaluation of the Mooloolaba Street Safe strategy. Other patrols carry out their own evaluations by keeping data on their activities. Gumba Gumba reports being evaluated through feedback from stakeholders and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community.
The programs funded under the Management of Public Intoxication Program maintain close contact with one another. Chill Out Zone, Drug Arm and the Management of Public Intoxication Program have close contact with other services. Street Angels appear to have only a limited awareness of other patrols.
The Community Justice initiative in Queensland provides a framework for patrols linked to Community Justice Groups to keep in touch with one another. Yarraba reports having links with Mossman and other Local Justice Groups in North Queensland, while Gumba Gumba has knowledge of other patrols across Queensland.
Four Queensland patrols completed this section of the survey. The Community Access Support Services used the opportunity to stress the extent to which it is able to sustain a service because it has consistency and high visibility. Drug Arm believes that safe city camera monitors tend to exaggerate the problems of youth issues. Gumba Gumba identifies the challenge to the service created by the need to respond to issues in the Papua New Guinea and Cook Island communities as a major concern.
Yarraba identifies funding as its major issue:
No resources for phones and other essentials. Also need resources for training – (in) dispute resolution, legal training. (The) link with the Local Justice Group is essential. Like to have some powers around enforcing school attendance, and curfews for the Local Justice Group
The literature review describes the context in which different types of patrols have emerged in New South Wales. This context has been shaped by concerns over anti-social behaviour by young people and the consequent introduction of the Children (Parental Responsibility) Act 1997, designed to enhance police powers to remove children deemed at risk from public places. The review alluded to the considerable overlaps between what could be called traditional youth outreach work and night patrols. Many patrols in New South Wales would fit into the category of youth crime prevention, and many have emerged around concerns about youth anti-social behaviour.
The New South Wales government has been aware of the crime prevention potential of patrols in Indigenous communities. The Crime Prevention Unit in the New South Wales Attorney General’s Department will allocate funding over as part of an expanding Aboriginal Justice Strategy to support the work of patrols.
The urban programs fit more neatly into standard notions of crime prevention. All require good working relations with police and many have sophisticated referral-on options in place. The majority, however, consider their role as extending beyond crime prevention. They have concerns about youth safety issues and young people as potential victims, and wish to reduce levels of youth contact with the criminal justice system. This is clearly a diversionary focus for the work of patrols. The main target group is young people at risk in particular hot spots of urban areas.
A number of issues related to the link between youth patrols and controversial legislation in New South Wales aimed at removing young people deemed at risk from public places have been addressed in the literature review. While there has been a degree of controversy over the purpose of the legislation and, by implication, over the purpose of patrols, few, however, would dispute that patrols such as Redfern Street Beat deal with groups of young people at significant risk of being victims, as well as perpetrators, of crime. The Street Beat program is run from South Sydney Aboriginal Corporation in partnership with South Sydney Youth Service and the Drugs Coordination Unit of the New South Wales Police Service. It is funded by the Department of Community Services. The patrol offers a safe transportation service, either to home or to a safe place, and is contactable by young people on a toll free number. The patrol covers hot spots around King’s Cross, Darlinghurst, Redfern and other inner city parts of Sydney where youths congregate.
The patrol has significant support from the Redfern community and from key agencies such as the police and business.45 The service is run by a mix of paid youth workers and volunteers. There is an increased interest in extending the use of professional youth workers on the patrol bus, to provide immediate referral on services when needed.
The majority of patrols in New South Wales offer safe transportation as their primary service. Ballina Street Beat also offers referral-on services when needed. Kempsey takes at risk people home, as well as Friday night patrons of the Returned Services League club. Namatjiri provides transport for a diversity of occasions, including youth sporting events and women’s and men’s groups, adding that the demand is endless. Summerland Street Beat in Lismore provides an after hours transportation service and contacts parents/guardians of youths found to be at risk. It also offers after hours programs and activities and advocacy.
Patrols in New South Wales deal with a diversity of agencies, but most routinely they deal with the police. The fact that several work within the ambit of the Children (Parental Responsibility) Act 1997 means that there are specific statutory requirements that they liaise with the police and the Department of Community Services when dealing with children and young people. In addition:
Youth related anti-social behaviour has tended to provide the main catalyst for establishing patrols in New South Wales. As well as concerns about the safety of vulnerable groups in public places, particularly where intoxication and drugs are involved, there is also the issue of the impact of anti-social behaviour on the community.
For instance, Ballina reports that crime prevention issues compounded by media comments about youth crime issues were central to the establishment of Street Beat. Concern about anti-social behaviour in Kempsey was particularly focused on the Returned Services League club car park. Issues associated with drug and alcohol use also motivated the establishment of Summerland and Redfern Street Beats.
Patrols in New South Wales report few significant interruptions to their operation. Kempsey has had some breaks due to problems associated with unskilled people and relying on volunteers. The need for drivers to have a light commercial vehicle licence has been a further complication. Similarly, Namatjira has identified disruptions created by volunteer drivers and the constant use of the bus by youth coordinators for sporting events.
Summerland closed down for three weeks during Christmas 2001 due to staff turnover. This provided an opportunity for the service to review and establish protocols, undergo staff training/awareness and forward planning. Similarly, Redfern Street Beat evaluated its performance after three months of operation.
All patrols in New South Wales perceive their role in terms of preventing rather than responding to problems. They report working proactively and attempting to remove the causes of crime and meet community needs. Summerland Street Beat attempts to:
develop a deep awareness of the issues involving drugs and alcohol, domestic violence, mental health, safe sex and homophobia and educate people on their rights/responsibilities.
Redfern Street Beat reports that its service has successfully prevented crime by transporting young people away from trouble spots.
Only three patrols in New South Wales (Armidale, Namatjira and Redfern Street Beat) have secure funding. Most grants are non-recurrent. Ballina, Kempsey and Namatjira receive annual funding through the New South Wales Attorney General’s Department’s Crime Prevention fund. Armidale, in contrast, receives funding from the local council. Summerland Street Beat receives funding from the New South Wales Casino fund, while Redfern Street Beat is funded through the Department of Community Services and Castlereagh through the Police Drug Programs Coordination Unit. Liquor licensing services and the police are other contributors to patrol funding in New South Wales.
The funding basis for patrols remained consistent in most cases. Redfern Street Beat experienced a major change in funding responsibility when the Department of Community Services took over from the police in 1999-2000. Only Armidale and Kempsey draw on Community Development Employment Projects’ support for their volunteers.
Only Summerland and Redfern Street Beats provide payment to patrollers; the remainder use volunteers. There are no full-time coordinators. Summerland has a part-time coordinator while Kempsey is coordinated by a inter-agency group of stakeholders.
The characteristics of patrols reflect considerable variation in the number, age, gender and cultural background of patrollers. Armidale has a pool of thirty volunteers, seventeen men and thirteen women, to call on. Redfern has one male and one female worker on the bus per night. Ballina has between two and seven volunteers per night, usually with a gender balance, and Namatjira has a patrol of two females and four males. The age range varies also. Armidale and Ballina’s age profiles, for example, range from twenty to over sixty years, while Summerland has workers in their early to late twenties.
Armidale, Castlereagh and Summerland have had Aboriginal groups working directly on the patrol. Of these, only Armidale and Kempsey include elders – although Summerland includes them in other program activities.
Castlereagh and Armidale do not have any management committees, although the latter is in the process of forming one. Ballina’s committee is also the local Crime Prevention Committee, a multi-disciplinary committee with community representation. Kempsey’s committee has representatives from key agencies such as the police, local council, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and the Kempsey community. Summerland has a similar structure, while Redfern’s committee includes representatives from its auspicing body, South Sydney Aboriginal Resource Centre and South Sydney Youth Centre.
Patrols identify a diversity of key stakeholders:
Patrols in New South Wales operate mainly from Thursday through to Sunday. Armidale operates the most infrequent service; on Friday nights from 8.30pm to 6am, while Namatjira operates five nights a week for about six hours. Other services operate on Thursday and the weekend from around 7.30pm to 1am. Redfern is the exception to this, working from 10pm until around 4am.
All patrols have some form of vehicle, ranging from eight to sixteen seater buses. Castlereagh and Kempsey use police vehicles and Ballina’s van is kept at the police station. Four patrols, Armidale, Castlereagh, Kempsey and Namatjira, are in direct radio contact with the police. Ballina and Summerland use a mobile phone when police assistance is required.
All patrols visit known hot spots in their localities as a key part of their work. The hot spots vary but tend to include the central business district’s main streets and clubs and pubs.
In the absence of a formal evaluation process, patrols tend to measure effectiveness in a variety of ways, employing client and other forms of feedback and anecdotal material. All patrols, with the exception of Castlereagh, claim to be effective. The patrol leader in Castlereagh has reported that the program is not truly effective and has suggested that the resources would be better served addressing youth issues. The patrol leader has suggested that control of the bus be passed from the police to the local government/community.
Other patrols present a more positive assessment of their work. The majority stress the extent to which their proactive work, particularly through safe transportation home, reduces the risks of crime, anti-social behaviour, and other forms of harmful behaviour. They claim their work reduces the risk of young people becoming victims of crime.
Patrols in New South Wales report two consistent barriers to effectiveness. These are, funding and lack of community support and involvement.
Ballina reports that funding insecurity means that it is unable to retain volunteers. The Ballina Patrol also criticises the ineffectiveness of the Department of Community Services around issues in relation to adolescent issues. Kempsey is concerned about the abuse patrollers have to deal with from some of the people the patrol assists, as well as problems associated with funding. The Summerland Patrol cites lack of understanding and support from the local council for the Indigenous community and funding insecurities as issues of major concern.
Ballina, Kempsey, Namatjira and Redfern patrols have been reviewed as part of a process undertaken in a review of the Children (Parental Responsibility) Act, and the review by the New South Wales Attorney General’s Department. Summerland Street Beat and Castlereagh have undergone an internal monitoring process while Armidale has yet to be evaluated.
Castlereagh and Armidale have no contact with other patrols. The Ballina Patrol is in contact with a youth patrol in Lismore (Summerland), while Kempsey is linked to an extensive network, including Dareton, Forester and Narrandera patrols. Summerland reports extensive contacts with services in Dubbo, Katherine (Northern Territory), Ballina and Lismore. Redfern reports some knowledge of the work of other patrols.
Mobile Assistance Patrols, initiated by the Aboriginal Sobriety Group, have been in operation for a number of years in South Australia.
Five patrols in South Australia responded to the survey. Besides four Mobile Assistance Patrols, which constitute the main type of patrol operating in the State, the researchers also contacted Kumungka Aboriginal Youth Street Work Team, based in Hindmarsh. The four Mobile Assistance Patrols are located in Adelaide, Coober Pedy, Port Augusta and Ceduna.
Safe transportation is the basic service provided by patrols in South Australia. Kumangka provides transport and support counselling and referral-on services for its young clients. The other Mobile Assistance Patrols offer a similar mix of services to Aboriginal people found to be intoxicated. They transport them home or to other places of safety, including sobering up units, and women’s shelters. The Adelaide Mobile Assistance Patrol also refers clients to Aboriginal Sobriety Group caseworkers and/or residential hostels.
Patrols in South Australia liaise with a broad diversity of agencies. The police and health services (State and Commonwealth) are the most frequently cited, although the list of other agencies contacted is extremely broad. These extend from housing, drug and alcohol, and youth justice agencies, in the case of Kumangka, through to various hospitals, including St John’s Ambulance and Adelaide City Council, in the case of Adelaide Mobile Assistance Patrol.
South Australian patrols are established for a variety of reasons. Kumungka has identified youth-related concerns, as those linked to a high number of Aboriginal youth frequenting the inner-city and engaging in street crime, illegal use of alcohol and drugs and street crime. The Mobile Assistance Patrols have cited reasons associated with the safety of intoxicated persons and, in the case of Adelaide, with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. The Coober Pedy Mobile Assistance Patrol identifies a demand for the service from within the community as a key reason for its establishment.
Patrols in South Australia have enjoyed considerable continuity of service. The majority are expanding their services and have only experienced temporary breaks. Port Augusta experienced a temporary interruption of service when it was reliant on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission funding. The Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health has taken over responsibility for funding. Ceduna ceased operating for a period of time in 1999 due to funding difficulties. It resumed operations in December 1999.
Patrols in South Australia generally tend to do both. Kumungka, for example, tries to prevent problems from arising and responds when requested. The Mobile Assistance Patrols are regularly contacted by police, hotels, parliamentarians, businesses and residents to intervene in specific situations. They also attempt to prevent problems from occurring by taking people off the streets and patrolling trouble spots.
Funding from the Department of Human Services and the Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health constitutes the main source of support for Mobile Assistance Patrols. Kumungka also receives support from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. The Adelaide Patrol receives additional support from the Adelaide City Council.
Funding has been relatively consistent. Port Augusta Mobile Assistance Patrols’ funding source changed from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission to the Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. The Patrol has only received this funding since late 1999. Only Port Augusta receives Community Development Employment Projects support, while Kumangka has Community Development Employment Projects workers in its office administration.
Patrols in South Australia have few full-time paid workers. The Kumungka patrols have positions operating on permanent part- time basis. Coober Pedy and Ceduna do not have full-time coordinators.
The Coober Pedy Patrol has two workers. Kumungka has seven and Port Augusta Mobile Assistance Patrol has nineteen, although this figure includes workers in its sobering-up unit.
There appears to be a gender balance in most patrols. The age of patrollers ranges somewhat from patrol to patrol. The age range on Kumungka, for example, is from thirty to forty-six. Adelaide Mobile Assistance Patrol workers range from twenty to forty-four years of age. While patrols generally do not include different language groups, Adelaide and Port Augusta involve representatives from the Ngarrindjerri, Kaunrna and Narrunga groups. Port Augusta also includes elders on its youth patrol. While Kumungka consults elders, other patrols do not involve elders.
Patrols in South Australia identify a range of stakeholders, extending from client groups to their funding or auspicing agencies, and the broader community.
Management structures vary according to the kind of services offered and the nature of the auspicing agency.
Three of the Mobile Assistance Patrols work seven days a week from early evening to around 2am. Adelaide is the exception, operating two patrols on a night and day shift. Kumungka only operates at peak times (Friday and Saturday night, from 6pm to 2am).
All patrols in South Australia have transport available. Adelaide has two eight seater vans and Port Augusta has three vehicles operating. The others have one vehicle each. Coober Pedy and Ceduna have radio contact with the police, while others rely on phone contact.
As in other States and the Northern Territory, patrols in South Australia patrol a diversity of hot spots.
Patrols in South Australia identify various ways in which they consider their practices to be effective.
Inadequate and uncertain funding is the major barrier to effectiveness for patrols in South Australia. The Adelaide Mobile Assistance Patrol also identifies a need for training in basic counselling skills, while Coober Pedy reports some difficulty with recruiting female workers.
All patrols in South Australia have undergone some form of in-house evaluation.
Kumungka liaises with many State-wide services and some interstate organisations, Adelaide reports contact with the Murray Bridge Mobile Assistance Patrol and Port Augusta. Port Augusta also has contacts with Coober Pedy, Adelaide and Ceduna.
The Port Augusta Patrol is managed by the Corporation of Port Augusta and has received a best practice award. It is a combined service, working with a sobering-up unit and a clean needle program.
The research identified three projects providing patrol services in Victoria. The three services, Bacchus Foot Patrol in Mildura, Hoorie Night Patrol in Mooroopira and Tanderra Koori Community Alcohol and Drug Resource Service in Bairnsdale, are all based within Aboriginal corporations in rural Victoria. Tanderra has been in operation longest, having been established in 1991, while the other two have been in existence for a year, in the case of Bacchus, and two years in the case of Hoorie. The research was unable to identify any schemes currently operating in Melbourne.
Safe transportation, either home or to a recovery unit of some form, constitutes the primary service offered by patrols in Victoria. Patrols also provide other linked services. In the case of Bacchus, this includes acting as an independent adult for young people detained by the police. Tanderra provides overnight accommodation and referrals to health, alcohol and drug services.
Patrols liaise mostly with the police in the first instance. Health, mental health, and drug and alcohol services are also contacted by the patrols.
Patrols in rural Victoria have been established for a number of reasons.
Only Tanderra, funded by the Department of Human Services, has been able offer a continuous service. This is an achievement given it has been operative for a decade. The patrol services are considerably stretched because the service has three-and-a-half positions but funding for only one.
Bacchus is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission funded program, receiving $13,000 a year to fund a position. Fuel costs are also included. Bacchus ceased operating for a time in early 2001 due to funding problems, when funding from Mildura Aboriginal Corporation expired. Hoorie receives no outside funding to support its patrol. It is funded by the corporations, and has encountered difficulties in sustaining the service.
Patrols in Victoria attempt to work proactively. Tanderra identifies prevention as its priority, while Hoorie reports that local police believe the service to be effective in preventing problems.
Bacchus and Tanderra pay workers from Community Development Employment Projects funding, while Hoorie has no paid staff. All three have a coordinator running the service. The Tanderra Patrol is coordinated from within the Department of Human Services. Hoorie’s coordinator also runs the Family and Youth Services division of Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperative. Bacchus is coordinated by the Chairman of Mildura Aboriginal Corporation.
Bacchus has six workers on its patrol, three of whom are women. Hoorie has three workers; two men and one woman. Tanderra has three-and-a-half positions. The age range of these workers is broad. Bacchus has workers between eighteen to fifty-five years of age. Hoorie’s age range is between seventeen and nineteen, while Tandara’s workers range from mid twenties to thirty-nine years of age.
Bacchus has a management committee consisting of the Aboriginal corporation’s staff plus a police spokesperson and other invited guests. Hoorie and Tanderra have no separate management structure and are managed through their auspicing bodies. Only Tanderra identifies the community as its key stakeholder.
Bacchus and Hoorie work mainly at weekends, with Bacchus reporting that this involves seven-hour shifts on Friday and Saturday nights. Tanderra reports working from Monday to Sunday morning, without specifying particular shifts.
Bacchus and Tanderra have vehicles, while Hoorie does not. Bacchus has a twelve seater Toyota bus and Tanderra has two all wheel drive vehicles plus a sedan available. Only Bacchus has any contact with the police, via mobile phone.
Victorian patrols maintain a presence in a diversity of hot spots.
Hoorie and Tanderra claims their patrols are effective in preventing problems escalating. Hoorie notes that Hoorie kids are the youths most likely to be held responsible when there is trouble. The patrol is effective in reducing contact between these young people and the criminal justice system. Tanderra claims effectiveness on the grounds that it prevents unnecessary police intervention, medical assistance and legal representation.
All patrols identify funding as their major barrier. Bacchus has noted that its funding is both inadequate and uncertain, reporting that it has no commitment from funding bodies and that it is surviving on ad hoc funding. In addition to funding problems, Hoorie identifies lack of community involvement as a major barrier. Tanderra claims that its service is expected to operate twenty-four hours a day while existing funding prevents adequate staffing and reduces effectiveness.
The Department of Human Services has appointed Turning Point to evaluate the service provided by Tanderra Patrol.
While Tanderra has contact with a patrol in Morwell, the other two patrols have reported that they are not aware of any similar services.
Bacchus has raised difficulties relating to Mildura’s position on the Murray River on the Victoria/New South Wales border. The community of Dareton is just over the border and many Aboriginal youths congregate in Mildura over the weekends. This places an added burden on the resources of Mildura’s services and, perhaps, reinforces the need for good cross-border communication where youth-related issues are concerned.
The research process began with a tentative understanding that night patrols provide non-coercive community intervention, or order maintenance, and services designed to prevent or stop harm, and maintain community peace, security and safety. The outcomes of the research have confirmed this view. In managing the research, there was a delineation of roles which distinguished between the work of patrols, the police and official public and private security.
It is clear from the research that night patrols represent an entirely different approach to resolving problems associated with order and safety in the community. Patrols are more likely to attempt to work through mediation and on the basis of a moral consensus than from the stand point of a legal imperative.
Night patrollers are not police and the majority of patrollers do not want policing powers. Their powers are the same as those of any citizen. Patrollers work from a basis of consensus and adopt techniques of persuasion and mediation.
It is important to note that night patrols differ from private police or private security organisations. Private security services are defined by Sarre as acting as ‘legal agents of those who control and own private property’ (Sarre, 1994). If patrollers are agents of anything, they are agents of the communities they service. Patrollers generally provide a service to a community rather than to a business (in the case of private security) or the State (in the case of the public police). A more accurate description of night patrols, therefore, might be ‘agents of the community’.
In general, the orientation of patrollers to their target group reflects a client or contract of care relationship, not one of social control. Night patrols support strategies that are socially inclusive (supporting, integrating, mediating and servicing), rather than those which are socially exclusive (marginalizing, coercing, disaffiliating and dislocating).
It is important to acknowledge the extent to which many Aboriginal night patrols operate from within what are referred to by Indigenous people as Aboriginal Terms of Reference when doing their work.
Indigenous night patrollers have a strong relationship with the people with whom they deal. The patrollers tend to know the people they patrol and they may have family, tribal or clan affiliations with them. Some commentators stress the extent to which patrols could not operate without such affiliations, as they form the basis for what may be described as cultural authority.
The concept of cultural authority creates tensions within Indigenous communities when a patrol has affiliations with one section of the community and not another, and when its modes of operation are determined by those specific affiliations and reciprocal duties.
The consensus amongst groups consulted for this project was that patrols work best when they have an affinity with, or moral responsibility for, the groups with whom they deal. Few patrols would survive without some kind of formal or informal mandate from the groups and individuals they patrol. Private security services can successfully operate without this mandate.
In some remote communities, the authority of patrols to act is underpinned by existing forms of customary law. There are a number of initiatives in which traditional authority is being melded with elements of non-Indigenous justice processes to create interesting hybrids. The Ali Curung and Lajamanu Law and Justice programs in the Northern Territory have fostered successful law and order committees, safe houses and night patrols. The Community Justice Groups in some parts of Queensland have become focal points for a diversity of innovative diversionary practices.
There have been occasional examples where some youth focused patrols working within the ambit of legislation in New South Wales have removed at risk youth from public place.46 Some have argued that patrols were doing a ‘street sweeping’ job, rather than offering a service to young people or the Aboriginal community as a whole. Claims have also been made in Western Australia that patrols have sometimes been heavy-handed in dealings with young people, and were sometimes perceived to be fulfilling a policing role. Patrols need to avoid the possibility of being used to remove young people from public places when they have not committed an offence.
The funding of patrols is a complex issue of Commonwealth, State and Territory involvement. The majority of patrols are inadequately resourced given the scale of their activities, the risks associated with their work, the skills required and the anti-social hours. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission funding has provided the basis on which many schemes have managed to offer a service, but it is clear that some patrols are better resourced than others. Most night patrols in the Northern Territory survive on an extremely narrow resource base and have no administrative support. Many urban and rural patrols have paid coordinators (if not always paid workers), and administrative and infrastructure support.
Each State and Territory has its own unique mix of funding sources and lead agencies. While a broad range of government agencies has been involved in supporting night patrols, it has been Indigenous people and their representative organisations (including those within State, Territory, and Commonwealth governments) and Aboriginal community organisations that have sustained the vast majority of them. In the Northern Territory, aside from the involvement of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, patrols have been supported by the Office of Aboriginal Development and Territory Health. In Western Australia in addition to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has been a key and consistent supporter of street patrols.
In Queensland, resources for Indigenous patrols have been indirectly funded through the Community Justice Groups’ initiative of the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy. Many of these operate on very small grants indeed.
Some programs funded though the Department of Family and Youth Service strategy with a patrol/outreach component have engaged Indigenous people. In New South Wales, Indigenous patrols and street beat outreach services, mainly servicing Indigenous youth, are funded through the Department of Community Services and, more recently, the Crime Prevention Unit of New South Wales Attorney General’s Department.
Crime prevention bodies in other States and Territories also contribute funds to night patrol services. Western Australia’s peak crime prevention body, Safer WA, has funded Noongar Patrol, while NTsafe in the Northern Territory provides limited financial assistance for patrols.
This study found that Aboriginal night patrols working in rural and remote localities are able to access fewer resources than similar services, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, in urban areas. This is partly because of the weaker resource base for these communities across a range of areas, including policing, security and health. The Julalikari experience is an example of Aboriginal communities located outside urban areas, which are under-policed and under-resourced by comparison with comparable non-Aboriginal communities. The former have poorer health profiles, more accidents, and must deal with serious alcohol related issues, poverty and family violence. They are subject to multiple and compound crises and also multiple and repeat forms of victimisation (Blagg, 2000).
Patrols are inadequately resourced in the face of such need. Comparable services in non-Indigenous communities (especially urban ones) include medical and para-medical services, disability services, drug treatment services, culturally appropriate education and information services, police, sexual assault services, trauma counselling, psychological services (short and long-term and community based) crisis accommodation, family support services, and respite services. This review suggests that patrols are unable in many instances and for a range of reasons, including lack of financial support and infrastructure to offer a full service on a scale comparable to non-Indigenous communities.
The literature review and consultations suggest that night patrols provide an invaluable service to the communities they serve. As such, many Indigenous organisations believe that the wider justice system (particularly the police), health and welfare bodies, and local government should make a greater contribution more to the funding of patrols.
Further, ongoing financial support for salaries, administrative support, vehicles and training would allow patrols to focus on developing and providing services to their communities.
Patrols should be encouraged and supported to broker arrangements with local government and businesses to provide patrol services (providing the patrols remain community safety rather than security focused). In some instances these groups have high expectations of patrols without being willing to provide them with any funds. It is important to many Indigenous organisations that government agencies acknowledge they have been major beneficiaries of patrols and that those agencies have a responsibility to fund such patrols. This responsibility should not be off-loaded onto Indigenous organisations.
Many patrols - particularly in more urbanised areas - consider crime prevention to be part of their work. The evidence thus far, although patchy and anecdotal, is encouraging and suggests that patrols do fulfil a crime prevention role in their localities.
However, it would be an over-simplification to subsume night patrols under the banner of crime prevention initiatives. Homel et al advocate caution when employing the term crime prevention to initiatives in Indigenous communities. Homel suggests that the term crime tends to place Indigenous communities on the defensive due to its social and historical association with police racism and violence, deaths in custody, dispossession, and colonisation (Homel et al, 1999, p.192). It may be ill advised to attempt to absorb, or assimilate, night patrols into existing crime prevention structures in an unmediated fashion.
Crime prevention constitutes only one dimension of the work of patrols. Patrols are active across a diversity of inter-connected community problems. A more expansive concept, such as community safety, might be more appropriate. Such a concept integrates crime prevention into an holistic framework of measures designed to work on multiple risk factors encompassing health and safety, harm minimisation and diversion from the criminal justice system,
Crime prevention remains an essentially contested concept. Different definitions of crime prevention are in play in community, government and agency circles. Some night patrols, for example, fear being used as a means of intensifying the surveillance and policing of Indigenous youth in public spaces in situations where Aboriginal youth are perceived as the essential crime problem. They would prefer to tackle anti-social behaviour through mediation.
A narrow definition of crime prevention may favour approaches emphasising the security dimension of night patrol work while a more holistic or social definition may focus on social inclusion, conflict resolution and re-integration.
Longitudinal local evaluations need to be established to determine the impact of night patrols on crime and safety issues. The key index of crime and safety should not be primarily dependent on fluctuations in crimes reported to the police. A range of local indices established through victimisation surveys, rates of alcohol consumption, lock up statistics, road accidents, rates of family violence, and school attendance may provide better indicators of the outcomes of the work of night patrols.
Evidence from overseas, including the warden schemes in the UK and Holland, and others, such as the Zwelethemba peace-building program in South Africa, suggests that night patrols and similar services mirror global trends towards nodal governance (Shearing, 2001). Some instances focused on enhancing the liveability of cities by providing a reassuring presence. Others focused on enhancing the capacity of marginal communities by nurturing their own law and justice strategies. Both of these trends are evident in Australian night patrols.
The degree of police leadership in crime prevention policies may add to some Indigenous people’s reluctance to situate night patrols within government crime prevention structures. An Aboriginal elder in Western Australia, who led the establishment of Western Australia’s first Street Patrol (Kullarri in Broome), has stressed that patrols are community initiatives, begun and supported by Aboriginal people. ‘Responsibility, she argues, ‘should remain with Indigenous people and their organisations.’
There is widespread concern in Western Australia about any strategies that would link patrols too closely to the police. As a number of Indigenous people working in the area have pointed out, many patrols have emerged to shield Aboriginal people precisely from unnecessary contact with the police.
Good working relationships between patrols and police, based on partnership and mutual respect, are a prerequisite for effective intervention. night patrols need and desire good working relationships with, and support from, police.
The research suggests that many night patrols have benefited from partnerships, as well as from close logistical and administrative support from police in their area. Aboriginal police officers in the Northern Territory and Aboriginal Police Liaison Officers in Western Australia, have been invaluable in developing and sustaining initiatives.
Most Indigenous night patrols want to have close working relationships with the police. The police service is the agency patrols deal with most often. They have become mutually inter-dependent and can, under the right circumstances, provide a complementary service. For example, there is significant evidence of valuable contributions made by Aboriginal Community Police Officers in the Northern Territory in communities such as Santa Teresa.
Policing, in its public and private/security roles, is widely perceived as a male occupation. This reflects an historical emphasis on the necessity to employ force in certain instances, but this perception is gradually changing. Night patrols employ a comparatively high number of women as patrollers, drivers and coordinators. Care should be taken to ensure that women continue to have opportunities to work on night patrols and that they are not pushed aside when the work becomes more attractive to men through regular payment or access to vehicles and other resources. Resources of this kind are valuable. However, they should not be offered in advance of broad community agreement and ownership of a patrol, particularly in remote communities.
Given the considerable diversity of contexts and settings in which patrols operate, it would be unwise to attempt to impose some standardised model for a night patrol on to a community. Shearing (2001) identifies the mobilisation of local knowledge and capacity as a crucial component for nurturing local capacity policing (p.19). In this model, government agencies assist and advise but they do not control the local agenda. This remains the prerogative of the community. Support for patrols should be based upon respect for local differences and cultural characteristics.
The work of patrols has some core characteristics. Patrols as removed from one another as those in metropolitan areas such as Perth, Brisbane, and those in remote areas of the Northern Territory, share some common features. These are underpinned by an emphasis on consensual and non-coercive forms of policing and order maintenance, and by a pan-hazard approach to problems.
The research indicates that, when appropriately established, resourced and managed, night patrols and similar services fulfill an important function in their communities. International trends also suggest that, in some form at least, community patrolling will become an accepted feature of future crime prevention and community policing strategies. In many Indigenous communities across Australia, night patrols are already an important community justice mechanism, allowing communities to monitor and control their own social environment and reduce unnecessary contact with the criminal justice and related systems.
1(a) Few patrols have been subjected to rigorous evaluation. There is a clear need for further local research on their effectiveness. A number of local evaluations to measure effectiveness should be established in urban, rural and remote locations, in full consultation with stakeholders and communities.
1(b) While reductions in reported rates of family violence, anti-social behavior, vandalism, detention for intoxication and arrest rates are important indicators, measurements of effectiveness should not be solely based on shifts in rates of reported crime or interventions by the criminal justice system. The evaluation should include a number of relevant community safety indicators, established in dialogue with communities and stakeholders. These indicators would, where appropriate, include factors such as hospital admissions rates, use of safe-houses and refuges, community perceptions of safety, reductions in drinking, and increased safe drinking.
1(c) Evaluations should be carried out in a culturally appropriate manner and respect Indigenous definitions of local problems and how these are best challenged. Respect must also be accorded to Aboriginal narrative and story forms of communication when gathering information. A reliance on hard data alone may silence or extinguish crucial forms of knowledge about community problems and the impact a patrol has had on them.
1(d) Many patrols are operating on very limited resources. It would be unfair to impose intensive, costly forms of evaluation on patrols struggling to survive. An injection of resources may be required in advance of any evaluation process.
Lack of resources remains a major problem for night patrols and similar services across Australia. Funding sources are disparate and unreliable, leaving little room for planning. Resources are urgently required to fund vehicles, salaries, infrastructure, training and administrative support. Patrols frequently fill gaps in service provision in many Indigenous communities that would be carried out by a number of government agencies in mainstream Australia. The existence of patrols must not be used as a pretext for other agencies to shirk responsibility. There should be a review of funding protocols for night patrols as a means of providing a coherent, transparent and certain source of funding to these community-based activities.
3(a) The cycle of failure of night patrols, particularly in remote locations, is a serious problem. This needs to be given serious attention by government agencies. There needs to be support for communities wishing to establish a patrol at the planning and establishment stages. The support roles played by Tangentyere Council Remote Area Night Patrol in Central Australia and the Office of Aboriginal Development in the Northern Territory provide useful models for local support when establishing rural and remote schemes, and should be carefully studied by other States.
3(b) The success of night patrols such as Ali Curung, Lajamanu and Yuendumu in the Northern Territory illustrates the benefits of close, long-term support for night patrols and related services. The successes have been the result of working at the pace of the community and ensuring the commitment and endorsement of key players (elders, women’s groups, councils and relevant agencies), and having a holistic approach in terms of the patrols place within a broader community justice framework.
3(c) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission continues to play an essential role in supporting Night Patrols, in terms of infrastructure, vehicles and salaries. Attention needs to be given to ensuring that lines of communication between community patrols and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission are improved.
There needs to be close partnership between the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and State, Territory and Commonwealth governments, as well as relevant agencies, to allow night patrols to achieve their full potential
Night patrols should remain community controlled organisations, functionally independent of other agencies such as the police.
Patrols should not be pressured into fulfilling an enforcement or street sweeping role by other agencies, community interests or government. Successful urban schemes such as Redfern Street Beat, Community Access Support Services in Brisbane, Mobile Asssistance Patrol in Adelaide and Noongar in Perth, operate through consensus and mediation and have an inclusive philosophy.
There should be a national gathering of workers, support staff and other relevant parties involved in night patrols and similar services. The gathering would increase levels of awareness about the work of patrols and provide an opportunity for networking and information sharing.
Aboriginal Justice Council (1997) Getting Stronger on Justice. Perth: Aboriginal Justice Council.
Aboriginal Justice Council (1999) Our Mob Our Justice: Keeping the Vision Alive. The 1998 Monitoring Report of the Aboriginal Justice Council on the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Perth: Aboriginal Justice Council Secretariat.
Aboriginal Women’s Task Force and the Aboriginal Justice Council (1995) A Whole Healing Approach to Family Violence. Perth: Aboriginal Justice Council.
Attorney Generals Department New South Wales (2000) Night Patrols Evaluation Final Report.
Bayley, D H (2001) ‘Security and Justice For All’ In Braithwaite, J and Strang, H (eds) Restorative Justice and Civil Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bayley, D H and Shearing, C H (2001) ‘The Future of Policing’ Law and Society Review. 30 (3).
Bayley, D H and Shearing, C H (2001) The New Structure of Policing: Description, Conceptualisation, and Research Agenda. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.
Blagg, et al (1998) ‘Inter-Agency Cooperation: Rhetoric and Reality’ In Hope, T and Shaw, M (eds) Communities and Crime Reduction. London: HMSO.
Blagg, H and Ferrante, A (1995) Aboriginal Youth and the Juvenile Justice System of Western Australia. Perth: Aboriginal Affairs Department.
Blagg H (1998) Working with Adolescents to Prevent Domestic Violence: Phase 2 the Indigenous Rural Model. Canberra: National Crime Prevention, Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department.
Blagg, H (2000a) Models of Intervention at the Point of Crisis in Aboriginal Family Violence: Summary Report. Canberra: Partnerships Against Domestic Violence/Office of the Status of Women, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Blagg, H (2000b) Models of Intervention at the Point of Crisis in Aboriginal Family Violence: Strategies and Models for Western Australia. Canberra: Partnerships Against Domestic Violence/Office of the Status of Women, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Bolger, A (1991) Aboriginal Women and Violence. Darwin: Australian National University: North Australian Research Unit.
Chantrill, P (1997) The Kowanyama Justice Group: A Study of the Achievements and Constraints on Local Justice Administration in a Remote Aboriginal Community. Paper Presented to the Australian Institute of Criminology’s Occasional Seminar series.
Crawford, A (1998) Crime Prevention and Community Safety. Essex: Longmans.
Crime Research Centre and Donovan Research (2000) A National Survey of Young People’s Attitudes to Violence. Canberra: National Crime Prevention, Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department.
Crime Prevention Queensland, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Department
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy. Yaldilda (Standing Strong).
Preventing Crime in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities (2000)
Brisbane: Crime Prevention Queensland.
Crime Prevention New South Wales. (2000) Community Patrols Project Overview.
Cunnen, C (2001) Conflict, Politics and Crime: Aboriginal Communities and the Policies. Sydney: Allan & Unwin.
Curtin University of Technology (2000) Review of the Services Provided by Jungarni-Jutiya Alcohol Action Council Aboriginal Corporation. Funded by the National Drug Strategy.
Curtis, D (1992) Julalikari Council’s Community Night Patrol. Paper Presented to the Aboriginal Justice Issues Conference. Cairns
Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy (1999) Interim Assessment of Community Justice Groups, Brisbane.
Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (2000). Conference Report: Neighbourhood Wardens’ Perspectives from Europe and America 17 November.
Hauber, A et al (1996) ‘Some New forms of Functional Social Control in the Netherlands and their Effects’. British Journal of Criminology. 36:2.
Higgens, D & Associates (1997) Best Practice for Aboriginal Community Night Patrols and Wardens Schemes. A Report to the Office of Aboriginal Development.
Homel, R. Lincoln, R and Herd B (1999) ‘Risk and Resilience: Crime and Violence Prevention in Aboriginal Communities’. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 32:2.
Indermaur, D, Atkinson, L and Blagg, H (1997) Working with Adolescents to Prevent Domestic Violence. Phase 1: the rural town model. Canberra: National Crime Prevention, Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department.
Jacobson, J and Saville, E (1999) Neighbourhood Warden Schemes: an Overview. Crime Reduction Series. Paper 2. London: HMSO.
Langton, M (1992) ‘The Wentworth Lecture: Aborigines and Policing: Aboriginal Solutions From Northern Territory Communities’. Australian Aboriginal Studies. 2(14).
Law Reform Commission of Australia (1986) The Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws. Vol 2. Canberra: AGPS.
Memmott, P (and Associates) (2000) Violence in Indigenous Communities. Canberra: National Crime Prevention, Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department.
Mosey, A (1994) Remote Area Night Patrols. DASA: Northern Territory.
National Drug Research Institute (2000) The Review of Services provided by Jungarni-Jutiya Alcohol Action Council Aboriginal Corporation. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.
NTsafe (2001) Crime Prevention in the Northern Territory. Darwin.
Ntsafe (2001) Northern Territory Government Papers submitted to the National Profile of Night Patrols Consultancy.
Office of Women’s Policy (1996) Aboriginal family Violence. Occasional Paper No. 12: A Report to the Northern Territory Government. Darwin: Office of Women’s Policy.
Sputore, B Gray, D Bourbon, D and Baird, K (1998 Evaluation of Kununurra-Waringarri Aboriginal Corporation and Ngnowar-Aerwah Aboriginal Corporation’s Alcohol project. Funded by National Drug Strategy.
Standing Committee on Law and Justice, Parliament of New South Wales (2000) First Report of the Inquiry into Crime Prevention Through Social Support. Report No 12. Sydney: Parliament of New South Wales.
Parliament of Victoria Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee (2001) Inquiry into Public Drunkenness: Final Report. Melbourne: Government Printer for the State of Victoria.
Pearson, G et al (1991) ‘The Multi-Agency Approach’. In Downes, D (ed) Unravelling Criminal Justice. London: Macmillan.
Remote Area Night Patrol, Tangentyere Council (2000) Titjikala Night Patrol Incident Reports. Alice Springs: Tangentyere Council.
Report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland (1999) A New Beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland. Belfast: Northern Ireland Office.
Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (1991) National Report. Canberra: AGPS.
Russell, K (1999) Evaluation of Redfern Street Beat Program 1998-99. Commissioned by Drugs Programs Coordination Unit, New South Wales Police.
Ryan, P (2001) Lajamanu Night Patrol Service. Darwin: Office of Aboriginal Development.
Ryan, P & Antoun, J (2001) Law and Justice Plans: An Overview. Darwin: Office of Aboriginal Development.
Sampson, A et al (1988) ‘Crime, Localities and the Multi-Agency Approach’. British Journal of Criminology. 28.
Samuelson, L Aboriginal Policing Issues: a comparison of Canada and Australia. No. 1993-26. Submitted to Ministry of Solicitor General of Canada.
Sarre, R (1994) ‘The legal powers of private police and security providers’. In Moyle, P (ed) Private Prisons and Police. Sydney: Pluto Press.
Shearing, C H & Stenning, P C (1981) ‘Modern Private Security: Its Growth and Implications’ In Tonray, M and Morris, N (eds) Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shearing, C H (1994) Reinventing Policing: Policing as Governance. Conference on Privatisation, Bielfield, Germany, March 24-26.
Shearing, C H (2001) ‘Transforming Security: A South African Experiment’ In Braithwaite, J and Strang, H (eds) Restorative Justice and Civil Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Social Exclusion Unit (1988) Bringing Britain Together: A National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal. London: HMSO.
Stockdale, J E Whitehead, C M E and Gresham, P J (2001) Neighbourhood Wardens: An Evaluation of Selected Schemes. Police Research Series Paper 145. London: HMSO.
Territory Health Services (2000) Wine Cask Levy: Addressing substance-related antisocial behaviour. Description of Projects Funded 1995-1999. Living with Alcohol, A Northern Territory Government Program.
White, R (1998) Public Spaces for Young People: A Guide to Creative Projects and Positive Strategies. Sydney: Australian Youth Foundation and National Campaign Against Violence and Crime.
Aboriginal Advancement Council of WA (2000) Noongar Patrol System. Operational Plan.
Aboriginal Advancement Council of WA. (2000) Noongar Patrol System and City of Perth. Working in Collaboration.
Geraldton Family Advocacy Service (Undated) Yamatji Family Violence Prevention Unit. Pamphlet.
Lajamanu Community Government Council (Undated) Re: A Submission for Funding to Establish and Operate a Community Outstation Diversionary Program.
Patrol Stops Trouble Before it Starts, The Western Australian Newspaper. 28 February 2001.
Territory Health Services (Undated) Remote Area Night Patrols in the Northern Territory.
Territory Health Services (Undated) NTsafe Public Behaviour Program. Alcohol and Other Drugs. Draft.
Territory Health Services. Request for Proposal. (2000) Operation of a Night Patrol Service in Darwin.
Warlpiri Arts Night Patrol (Munga Wardingki Patu). Alice Springs: Warlpiri Arts.
Remote Area Night Patrol, Tangyentere Council (2001) Night Patrol News. Three Videos, January, April, June 2001. Alice Springs: Tangyentere Council.
Remote Area Night Patrol
Santa Teresa Patrol and Community Representatives (including Aboriginal community police officers, safe house, women’s centre)
Women from the Yuendumu Women’s Night Patrol
Titjikala Night Patrol
Alice Springs Sobering Up Shelter
Tangentyere Council and Night Patrol
Mount Theo Petrol Sniffing Program (Yakajirri)
Police
Office of Aboriginal Development
Ali Curung Women’s Night Patrol
Safe House
Council
Law and Order Committee and Elders’ Forum
Inter-agency forum (police, alcohol and drug authorities, Departments of Health, Justice and Family Services)
Lajamanu Night Patrol
Council, Law and Order and Elders Committee
NTsafe
Darwin and Palmerston Night Patrol
Commissioner for Police
Inter-agency forum, convened by NTsafe, including: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission
Northern Territory Police
Office of Aboriginal Development
Office of the Chief Minister
Ombudsman’s Office
NTsafe
Territory Health
Gumba Gumba Elders Night Patrol
Yarraba Community Local Justice Group Night Patrol
Kurranda Local Justice Group
University of Queensland Department of Tropical Health
Murri Watch Cell Visitors and Patrol
Community Access Support Services
Inter-agency Forum convened by Crime Prevention
Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy Domestic Violence Prevention Unit, Crime Prevention
Ballina Street Beat
Summerland Youth Service Street Beat
Redfern Street Beat
Crime Prevention Division, Attorney General’s Department
Institute of Criminology, University of Sydney
Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales
Yamatji (Geraldton)
Police Warden Schemes
Balgo
Bidyadanga
Oombulgarri
Kulumbaru
One Arm Point
Beagle Bay
Warmun
Apatula
Santa Teresa
Julalikari
Bagot
Jabiru
Nhulunbuy
Titjikala
Nyirripi
Papunya
Kintor
Walungurru
Mornington Island
Toowoomba
Palm Island
Shoalhaven Night Patrol
Forester Local Aboriginal Land Council
Brewarrina Granny Patrol
Narrandera (Riverina Aboriginal Sports Corp)
Inner City Youth Services: Youth Patrol
This project is funded by the National Crime Prevention Program and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and is being undertaken by the Crime Research Centre, University of Western Australia.
The information you provide here is important to us and will be used to produce a national profile of Night Patrols and similar services around Australia.
There are 34 questions in the survey, which will take about 30 minutes to complete.
Thank you for taking the time to participate.
1 For the sake of consistency, the term night patrol is used extensively in this report to describe patrol type schemes across Australia. However, this term is only in usage in the Northern Territory.
2 The survey can be found in Appendix 3.
3 A list of patrols contacted is contained in Appendix 1.
4 A review of night patrols in the Northern Territory by Higgins (1998), for example, identified fifty three nominal patrols, only half of which were actually found to be functioning. These are discussed further in the literature review.
5 A full list of organisations and people consulted can be found in Appendix 2.
6 The term describes shifts in governance whereby citizens are encouraged to take on responsibilities that were once the domain of government, security is one area of this process.
7 Working within Aboriginal Terms of Reference, means thinking and acting from within an Indigenous world-view according to culturally prescribed rules and values.
8 The term ‘policing’ is used in the sense employed by Bayley & Shearing, where it describes strategies of anticipatory regulation and amelioration (Bayley & Shearing, 1996, p.592).
9 The terms ‘privately owned public space’, and the linked expression ‘mass private property’ were devised by Shearing & Stenning (1983), to describe the blurring of private and public space in the modern urban setting. Policing these spaces has increasingly become the responsibility of a plurality of private and public authorities (Bayley & Shearing, 1996) and raises particular problems of legitimate access for some groups (White, 1998).
10 Projects flagged here are discussed in more detail in later sections of the report.
11 It is likely that some form of community patrolling had been going on since the early days of colonisation, when tribal elders would walk around Aboriginal camps to ensure peace, security and safety (Jennifer Walker, Remote Area Night Patrol News Letter, 2001).
12 Neither Numbulwar nor Port Keats had functioning patrols at the time of this research.
13 Discussions with Department of Torres Strait Islander Policy and Development and other relevant professionals in Brisbane found considerable interest in raising the profile of this aspect of the Criminal Justice Group’s work.
14 The Western Australian cohort includes only street patrols. community warden schemes (discussed later) function in some communities but have been excluded from the survey.
15 Family violence is the term used by Indigenous people to describe a range of abusive, aggressive, destructive and violent behaviours in and around family. It is preferred to the term domestic violence to describe relationship violence, and can also include the destructive consequences of gambling and drinking (see Blagg 2000(a); Aboriginal Women’s Task Force on Violence, 2000).
16 This is another detail separating night patrol work from the official policing. The overwhelming majority of contacts with police are by men. In Western Australia, for example, annually around eighty per cent of police apprehensions are of males (Ferrante, Fernandez and Loh, 2000, p.44).
17 The schemes are linked to the Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act, New South Wales, 1998.
18 A few reasons can be advanced for this. Aboriginal children at risk and out on the street at night have been a concern in many country towns in Western Australia and New South Wales. Aboriginal peer-groups tend to be family based (rather than age-specific), small children may be in company with older siblings and cousins (for a discussion see Crime Research Centre & Donovan Research, 2001).
19 There are exceptions. For example, Noongar in Perth has an arrangement with Australia Post to patrol outside its premises: However, such arrangements rarely constitute the major source of funds or main focus of activity.
20 This may involve intervening in a domestic situation or in public. Violence may take place on the street, on drinking grounds, in parks and involve a range of factors – the line between victim and offender may seem blurred (Blagg, 2000a). Patrols are particularly well placed to intervene in these situations due to their knowledge of players involved.
21 The Geraldton Cyclical Offending Project brings together all the agencies with a role in preventing juvenile crime in partnership with an Aboriginal community reference group. The director of Geraldton Street Workers suggested that this local initiative had successfully improved the level of coordination between agencies and the Aboriginal community. It had also increased understanding of the role of the Street Work project and the Yamatji Street Patrol, as genuine grass roots initiatives aimed at supporting the community rather than just being there to fulfil a policing role.
22 Noongar was the only patrol to identify a crime prevention body as an agency they worked with routinely. This reflected the particular range of local concerns about juvenile crime and disorder in Northbridge, Perth.
23 Given the level of remuneration: a comment made by the coordinator of Kullari Patrol in a previous study (see Blagg & Ferrante, 1996,) remains pertinent: who wants to get their heads smashed in for dole money?
24 The Jigalong Wardens have not been operative for some time. There are plans to re-start the program.
25 The legislative basis for warden schemes in Western Australai is the Aboriginal Communities Act 1979. This grants limited powers to communities (mainly in the Kimberley Region) to enforce dry community by laws. Wardens’ schemes were established under these by laws.
26 Mosey’s work in the Northern Territory and Western Australia leads to the conclusion that the problem with Western Australia’s Aboriginal Communities Act is not that it grants too few legal powers, but that it grants any at all. Non–Aboriginal notions of law and policing are often divisive when imposed on communities and increase, rather than diffuse, conflict.
27 Glynis Sibosado. Chair of the AJC 1995-2001.
28 A list of agencies and individuals consulted can be found in Appendix 1.
29 A levy of 0.35 cents was placed on every litre of cask wine sold in the Northern Territory and distributed to communities through the Wine Cask Levy Grants Scheme, established to combat anti-social behaviour arising from alcohol. Although the practice was discontinued as a result of a High Court challenge in 1997, the scheme itself still operates from government allocations.
30 Police-led diversionary programs were developed
in the Northern Territory as part of reforms to the Mandatory Sentencing laws
in late 2000. Police are empowered to develop these options under the Police
Administration Act 2000. The Mandatory sentencing laws were repealed in October
2001. The Juvenile Justice Amendment Act (No.2) 2001 repealed mandatory
sentencing for juvenile offenders, while the Sentencing Amendment Act (No.
3) 2001 repealed mandatory sentencing for property offences for adults.
Western Australia remains the only Australian jurisdiction with mandatory sentencing
for property related offences.
31 Not all of the patrols noted here were surveyed, others
surveyed did not respond. See Appendix 2.
32 Detour began in 1996 and provides opportunities and recreation for young people involved in petrol sniffing.
33 These comments were made by women from a number of remote community patrols at a women’s meeting against violence held in Alice Springs in 2000, recorded in the Remote Area Night Patrol Newsletter.
34 An interesting interchange captured on the Remote Area Patrol Newsletter (April 2001) reveals some of the differences. On the one hand, night patrols are praised for their work (although there is a suggestion that they only have a secondary role to play in local diversion programs, with police playing the major role). On the other hand, the coordinator clearly maintained that the community patrol linked to community justice structures would do its own diversionary work.
35 Muititjulu (Ayres Rock) has quite high levels of employment, which does not, on its own, ensure that the community is peaceful and secure.
36 Sabotage by non-Aboriginal people may also contribute to the death of initiatives. An initiative in one community in the North West of the Northern Territory was said to have been deliberately undermined by one local official who was opposed to the idea of Aboriginal self-policing.
37 The Law Reform Commission’s (Australia) 1986 report on customary law does discuss self-policing in this context.
38 A relatively simple, but important, narrative shift was signalled by redefining the violence problem as being about family as opposed to domestic violence. This engaged Indigenous discourses which were marginalised by the domestic violence paradigm (see Blagg, 1998; 2000a; 2001)
39 For a review of similar approaches and discussion of violence prevention in non-Indigenous settings see: Indermaur, Atkinson and Blagg, 1998; Crime Research Centre and Donovan Research, 2001).
40 Central Australian Aboriginal Child Care Agency deals with some intractable problems associated with child abuse and neglect in the camps around Alice Springs.
41 There have been problems in some patrols where the older women find it difficult to let go of the patrol to pass the responsibility onto the younger women.
42 While this did not appear as a dominant concern in the survey, consultations identified problems of accountability, record keeping, and administration as a major headache for patrols.
43 Like Lajamanu, the Ali Curung scheme is loosely monitored through the work of the Office of Aboriginal Development.
44 Yuendumu has a successful women’s patrol but there have been concerns that the men are not pulling their weight. A visit by senior Lajamanu men was made to the Yuendumu men to get them more involved in supporting the patrol.
45 The coordinator reported that police statistics revealed a reduction in vehicle theft since the service began, suggesting that young people would be less likely to steal a car for transport home.
46 Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1998 (New South Wales),discussed in detail below.