the 7th sipr annual lecture the power of policing partnerships professor lorraine mazerolle

The 7th SIPR Annual Lecture

The Power of Policing Partnerships

Professor Lorraine MazerolleUniversity of Queensland

Outline for tonight’s talk

1. Introduce the work of my Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship

2. Talk briefly about experiments in policing

3. Focus on the power of policing partnerships in Third Party Policing context

4. Describe the ABILITY Truancy Trial

1. Australian Research Council (ARC)

Laureate Fellowship

“Multi-Site Trials of Third Party Policing: Building the Scientific Capacity for Experimental

Criminology and Evidence-Based Policy in Australia”$2.6 million (2010 – 2015)

Goal One: Further our scientific understanding of the theory of Third Party Policing

Goal Two: Build capacity for using experimental field trial methods to grow the evidence-base of crime policy in Australia

Laureate Research Fellows: Drs Sarah Bennett & Emma AntrobusLaureate RHD students: Laura Bedford, Amanda Acutt, Kate Leslie

Research Assistants: Emina Prguda, Liz Eggins, Tanya White, Amelia GreySystematic Review Team: Dr Angela Higginson and Liz Eggins

So far, we have…

• Designed, piloted, launched and executed the ABILITY Truancy Randomized Control Trial (RCT)

• Replicated (or started) the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET) in the US, Scotland, Turkey & NZ

• Registered (with approvals) a systematic review title on Third Party Policing with the Campbell Collaboration

• Created the Australia & New Zealand Society of Evidence Based Policing (SEBP), with executive participation on the Board of the International SEBP (UK)

• Established a Practitioner Master Class in Policing Experiments

2. Experiments in Policing

Experiments in Policing

66 POLICING experiments ever conducted in the world

• 17 RCTs where police focused on juvenile offending

• 15 RCTs testing the effectiveness of policing hotspots

• 15 RCTs where police focused on domestic violence

• + 19 others

Take home message: RCTs are rare in criminology, and very rare in policing

• Hotspots policing works to reduce crime & disorder;

• Problem oriented policing also helps to reduce crime & disorder, without displacement;

• Directed patrols reduce gun crimes;

• Foot patrol reduces fear and violent crime problems;

• Community wide partnerships work better than POP or hotspots policing to control street-level drug problems;

• But...be careful about the backfire effects when police arrest unemployed perpetrators of domestic violence

40 years of policing experiments

• Are street-level drug markets resilient to enforcement intervention? Do they bounce back over time?

• Do violent crime problems re-emerge when foot patrols are taken away? (e.g. Sorg et al, 2013 paper)

• When is a hotspot no longer a hotspot? When can police re-direct their hotspot patrols?

• In short....How long do police have to sustain their activities to maintain their gains?

Sustaining the crime control benefits?

Of the 66 police experiments….

• Just two RCTs now have long term (> 2 years) follow ups using administrative data– Sherman & Harris (2013*) undertook a 23 year follow up of the Milwaukee

DV Experiment using death records; and– Rose & Hamilton (1970) did a 30 month recidivism follow up of a juvenile

liaison program

• Just two policing RCTs (I think) have ever obtained a priori consent at recruitment to undertake long term (> 2 years) interview follow-ups (Canberra’s RISE and a FGC study in Indianapolis)

Follow-ups in policing experiments

• Juvenile Cautioning & Supervision (Rose & Hamilton, 1970 re Manchester) – no differences in recidivism at the 2 year follow-up point;

• Family Group Conferences (Jeong, McGarrell & Hipple) – after 12 months, the crime control effects disappear

• Re-Integrative Shaming (Tyler, Sherman, Strang, Barnes & Woods, 2007 re Canberra) – no difference at 2, 3, & 4 years on recidivism, but it did affect people’s orientation to the law

• Domestic Violence Arrests (Sherman & Harris, 2013 re Milwaukee) – after 22 years, arrested perpetrators more likely to die than warned perpetrators

Can police sustain the gains?

Where does this leave us?

• FGC and RJ fail to maintain the gains;

• Street-level drug markets bounce back over time;

• Once a hotspot, always a hotspot;

• We know nothing much about the POP.

My hypothesis?

To have a lasting effect, police need to partner with another entity that offers a long term stake in maintaining the gains.

3. Third Party Policing

Is this a Powerful Partnership?Does it reduce crime problems?Do the effects last, over time?

Acknowledgements

• Michael Buerger, my co-author of “Third Party Policing: A Theoretical Analysis of an Emerging Trend” in Justice Quarterly, Vol 15, No 2, June 1998.

• Janet Ransley, my co-author of “Third Party Policing,” 2006. Cambridge University Press and other publications.

• My ARC Laureate Team (RFs, RHD, RAs)

Third Party Policing

• Police efforts to persuade or coerce non-offending partners (or what we call “third parties”) to work with police to help control crime and disorder problems

• Third parties can be government agencies, property owners, parents, health regulators, building inspectors, or business owners

• Civil laws, administrative laws, regulatory rules and regulations underpin the legitimacy of the partnerships between police and the third parties

• Unlike POP, these legal provisions dictate the process for third party policing intervention

The Emergence of TPP

• Historical roots in the rise of Nodal Governance during the 1990s

• Policing, as a result, has and still is being reconceived and reconstructed in Australia, the US, UK and elsewhere

• Theoretically, there has been a shift from command & control approaches to cooperative networks

• Put pressure on police to forge crime control/crime prevention partnerships and draw on a much wider and more complex web of legal solutions to solve & reduce crime problems

Two Choices for Police

• Succumb to external pressure to adopt a partnership approach (e.g. Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 Chapter 4, Section 32 (b); UK Crime and Disorder Act 1998) that mandates police to forge partnerships

…..OR….

• Adapt, change and create their own opportunities for solving complex problems by forging partnerships of their own choosing, using legal options that best suit local conditions

Third Party Policing Processes

POLICE

First Party

PARTNER(S)

Third Party

PROBLEMPEOPLE, PLACES OR

SITUATIONSSecond Party

General Police Responses

Partnership Legal Lever(s)

A Typology of TPP Partnerships

SingleThirdParty

Engagement Continuum

Recalcitrant BarsProject ABILITY

Collaborative Coercive

MultipleThird

Parties

Specialized Multi-Agency Response Teams(SMART) – Oakland, CA

Troubled Alcohol Accords – e.g. Fortitude Valley

Escalating Legal Levers

4. The ABILITY Truancy Trial

Putting the theory of TPP into practice, under RCT conditions

Ticking all the boxes

Addresses an urgent problem for police - truancy

Partnership between police & schools (with Department of Communities helping)

Uses Education legislation and their policy on non-attendance

UQ team is evaluating Project ABILITY under Randomized Control Trial (RCT) conditions

Builds QPS capacity for running RCTs

One of just 66 police experiments ever undertaken in the world

First ever TPP experiment

One of (maybe?) three “experimental-longitudinal” policing studies

A focus on truancy…

Truancy is a significant problem for students, families, police and communities, often resulting in a damaging ripple effect

throughout a young person’s environment.

Truancy is linked to: Bullying

Low self-esteemMental health

Drug and alcoholFamily conflictStudent stressParental stress

The ABILITY Trial Team

UQ Research Team Police Team DETE Team Conferencing Team

Lorraine MazerolleSarah BennettEmma AntrobusLaura BedfordAmanda AcuttKate LeslieEmina PrgudaLiz EgginsTanya White

Tonya CarewAndrew GilliesGregg ChapmanCorey Lane

Peter BlatchJohn DunganKaren BarnettTony SmithGlyn DaviesIan Hill+ 10 schools

Claire WalkerWayne SeetoVeronica MoggsKate LeslieKelli Byrne

Truancy Legislation & Policy

Legislation:Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 (Qld)• http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/E/

EducGenPrA06.pdf Chapter 9 Parts 1, 3, 4; Chapter 10 Parts 1- 5: Section 426

• Education (General Provisions) Regulation 2006 (Qld) http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/E/EducGenPrR06.pdf Part 2 Section 8, Part 4

Policy:• Department of Education and Training and Employment (2013).

DETE Policy and Procedure Register. “Managing Student Absences and Enforcing Enrolment and Attendance at State Schools”. Version 3.7

Escalation process for non-attendance

The ABILITY Intervention

• Police “ABILITY” Officer and Schools work in partnership together to recruit participants

• Family Group Conference facilitator (Dept of Communities) brings together police, school rep, young person and responsible guardian to discuss truancy• Legal lever (consequence) discussed• Child-centered Action Plan developed• Police monitor compliance – one year

Data Gathering

• Baseline, 12 week, 6 month, 1 year, 2 year, 5 year interviews with young person and guardian = 6 time points x 102 cases x 2 (YP + Adult) = 1,224 interviews over 5 yrs

• Official police data

• Official school data

• Post FGC survey with all participants

• Observations + tape recording of FGC

• We are measuring both the direct effects and indirect effects (both positive and negative “backfire” side-effects)

CRICOS Provider No 00025B

ABILITY Trial Schools

• 10 target schools within one highly disadvantaged metropolitan area of Brisbane

• 9 of 10 schools fall below the average index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA)

• 5 of 10 schools are Low Socio-Economic National Partnership schools

• 48.9% of families comprise no working parent in these target communities (Australia average is 19.8%)

• 36.9% of families on Centrelink allowance (Australia average is 16.8%)

ABILITY Trial – Statistical Power

• High powered experiment (of .80 and above),• Margin of error of 10% (i.e. an alpha of .10), • 90% confidence level,• Variability level of 20%, • Sample size needed to be 106.4 cases (ie. 53.2 cases per group)

Recruitment (N = 359;

263 contacted)

Random Assignment

(N = 102)

Engagement Group

(experimental)(N = 51)

FGC preparationFamily Group

ConferenceExit Meeting

Resource Group (control)(N = 51)

Resource Pack provided

Declined School53.2% conversion

(N = 72)

Declined Police53.4% conversion

(N =89)

Eligibility = Aged 10-16, attendance <85%, no legitimate explanation for absences

Recruitment from Oct 2011 to May 2013 (20 months)

Average of 5 participants recruited per month

ABILITY Trial Case Flow

ABILITY Trial Status

Recruited all 102 families (young person and adult) and conducted all baseline surveys

• 47 FGC conferences completed• 95 (93.1%) 12 week follow up surveys completed• 82 (80.4%) Exit Interviews/6 month follow up surveys

complete• 19 (18.6%) One year follow up surveys completed

Gathering historical police and schools data including academic results, school behavioural issues & police contact as a victim, witness, or offender

ABILITY Trial Participants (N = 102)

Resource Group Engagement Group OverallAge Range 10 – 16 years

10 – 16 years 10 – 16 years

Average Age 13.14 years(SD = 2.14)

13.14(SD = 2.14)

13.14 years(SD = 2.13)

Gender 28 male23 female

26 male25 female

54 male48 female

School Level 23 Primary28 Secondary

21 Primary30 Secondary

44 Primary58 Secondary

Indigenous 6 Indigenous

6 Indigenous 12 Indigenous

Country of Birth

84.3% Australia 86.3% Australia 85.3% Australia

Language Spoken at Home

80.4% English 90.2% English 85.3% English

ABILITY Trial Participant Absences

• Range from 15% to 62% absenteeism (across 3 school

terms)

• Average = 23.72% - roughly one day in every school

week

• Engagement group average = 24.93% (SD = 12.08)

• Resource group average = 22.51% (SD = 7.50)

ABILITY Trial Police Contact• 91% of families have had some form of police contact

• 42% of families have had police contact due to child protection concerns

• 54% of the young people have had some form of police contact including shop lifting, street checks, child protection concerns, and being named as a witness to an incident

• 62% of the “responsible guardians” have had some form of police contact including child protection concerns, domestic violence, and drug related offences

ABILITY Partner Participants

Police School Other Agency

Total = 16 Total = 41 Total = 26

Senior Constables Teachers Multi-Issue Service Agencies

Senior Sergeants Guidance Officers Mentoring Agencies

Sergeants Attendance Officer Mental Health Agencies

Police Liaison Officers Principals Specific disability services

Child Protection Officer Deputy Principals Indigenous Support Services

Detective Senior Constable Year level coordinators Behaviour Support Services

DSC/Investigator Indigenous Support Interpreting Services

ABILITY Engagement Officer Learning Support Teacher Housing Services

Careers Cousellor

Head of Special Education services

Support Worker

Perceived Effectiveness of Partnerships

A partnership with the other organisations present at today's conference…

Police School Other Agency

Strongly Agree & Agree Totals

Strongly Agree & Agree Totals

Strongly Agree & Agree Totals

Is important for addressing this student’s truancy 82.40% 85.00% 100.00%

Is an effective way for my organisation to assist with this student’s truancy 79.40% 85.00% 90.00%

Will be effective in reducing this student’s truancy 67.60% 75.00% 75.00%

Will be effective for delivering resources to this family 76.50% 80.00% 85.00%

Perceived Likelihood of Escalating Legal Levers…

Perceptions of Police Legitimacy – 12 week ABILITY Students’ Responses

• At baseline – no differences between groups

• Engagement students more likely to feel an obligation to obey police than the Resource students after the family group conference, F(1,89)= 4.52, p = .037)

Baseline Follow up 13.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

4.20

4.40

ResourceEngagement

p = .917

Perceptions of Police Legitimacy – 12 week ABILITY Parents’ Responses

• At baseline – no differences between groups

• Condition x time interaction, suggesting Engagement parents perceive the police more legitimate following conference, F(1,86)= 5.64, p = .020)

Baseline Follow Up 13.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

4.20

ResourceEngagement

p = .313p = .351

Knowledge of Laws re Attendance – 12 week ABILITY Parent’s Responses

• At baseline – no differences between groups

• Condition x time interaction, suggesting Engagement parents are more knowledgeable about attendance laws following conference, F(1,81)= 4.08, p = .047)

Baseline Follow up 16.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

ResourceEngagement

p = .105p = .297

Concluding Comments

• Policing experiments need to be designed to examine long term impacts – what is the point of short term impacts that fail to last?

• The future of policing is, I think, about finding crime control partners that offer both legal levers and the mandate to maintain the gains.

• The Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, Chapter 4, Section 32 is about police working in collaboration with “others.”

• My view? These “others” should be partners who have access to legal levers, a stake in the problem AND a mandate to help offer long term solutions

With special thanks to….

Dr Sarah Bennett

Dr Emma Antrobus

&

The ARC Laureate Team

The 7th SIPR Annual Lecture

The Power of Policing Partnerships

Professor Lorraine Mazerolle