Beyond failure: the generative effects of unsuccessful proposals for Supervised Drug Consumption Sites (SCS) in Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT

Focusing on the 20-year history of unsuccessful proposals for Supervised Drug Consumption Sites in Melbourne, Australia, this paper highlights the generative effects of apparent “failure” in policy-making and policy mobilization. Rather than framing thwarted proposals as categorical failures, we show how they altered parameters of policy acceptability, invigorated policy and practitioner networks, facilitated the development of allied programs, and, recently, inspired a successful SCS proposal. The paper argues that apparent policy failure and the potential for policy change must be evaluated and conceptualised in terms of variously long historical timeframes. In doing so, the paper contributes to ongoing debate over the conceptual and empirical status of failure in policy mobilities literature.

KEYWORDS:

• Failure
• harm reduction
• drug consumption
• policy-making
• policy mobilities
• Melbourne

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all those who agreed to be interviewed. Thanks also to Simone Cooper for research assistance and to Cristina Temenos and John Lauermann for comments on an earlier draft. Helpful comments from the anonymous reviewers and editorial advice from Susan Moore are also greatly appreciated. This research was funded by grants from the Social Sciences & Humanities Research Council of Canada (435–2013–2197) and the School of Environment at the University of Auckland. We dedicate this article to the memory of Jenny Kelsall, the late Executive Officer of Harm Reduction Victoria.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. We use the “Supervised Consumption Site (SCS)” in this paper as a generic term that refers to a range of facilities “where illicit drugs can be used under the supervision of trained staff” (EMCDDA (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction), 2017, 1). The specific character of these sites depends on the contexts in which they operate. In Australia, among other places, the focus is on injection. Therefore, terms like “Medically Supervised Injecting Centre” or “Supervised Injection Facility” are used. The argument we make in the paper would apply to a range of consumption facilities, however, so we use this generic term. Other generic terms exist: “Drug Consumption Room” (DCR) is common because it encompasses locations where inhalation and intranasal consumption are permitted (Global Platform for Drug Consumption Rooms, n.d.). Yet, it does not emphasise the importance of supervision. “Supervised Consumption Facility” is a common substitute as a result. But “facility” tends to suggest a particularly formalised institutional setting, which is not the case everywhere. The alternative, more geographical, “site,” which has recently become common in Canada (Health Canada, 2017), overcomes the narrow connotation of “facility” and emphasises how the specific character and location of a SCS in a particular neighbourhood has a great deal to do with its effectiveness.

2. Our use of scare quotes around “failure” and “success” thus far in our discussion indicates the indeterminacy of the terms and the need to critically unpack them. Having made the point, we will largely dispense with the quotation marks.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Faculty of Science, University of Auckland [N/A];Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [435–2013–2197];