Procedural justice, routine encounters and citizen perceptions of police: main findings from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET)
- 2.9k Downloads
To test, under randomized field trial conditions, the impact of police using the principles of procedural justice during routine encounters with citizens on attitudes towards drink-driving, perceptions of compliance, and their satisfaction with the police.
We conducted the first randomized field trial—the ‘Queensland Community Engagement Trial’ (QCET)—to test the impact of police engaging with citizens by operationalizing the key ingredients of procedural justice (neutrality, citizen participation, respect, and trustworthy motives) in a short, high-volume police–citizen encounter. We randomly allocated 60 roadside Random Breath Testing (RBT) operations to control (business-as-usual) and experimental (procedural justice) conditions. Driver surveys were used to measure the key outcomes: attitudes towards drinking and driving, satisfaction with police and perceptions of compliance.
Citizen perceptions of the encounter revealed that the experimental treatment was delivered as planned. We also found significant differences between the experimental and control groups on all key outcome measures: drivers who received the experimental RBT encounter were 1.24 times more likely to report that their views on drinking and driving had changed than the control group; experimental respondents reported small but higher levels of compliance (d = .07) and satisfaction (d = .18) with police during the encounter than did their control group counterparts.
Our results show that the way citizens perceive the police can be influenced by the way in which police interact with citizens during routine encounters, and demonstrate the positive benefits of police using the principles of procedural justice. Our study was limited by the use of paper-only surveys and low response rate. We also recognize that the experiment setting (RBT road blocks) is limiting and non-reflective of the wider set of routine police–citizen encounters. Future research should be undertaken, using experimental methods, to replicate our field operationalization of procedural justice in different types of police–citizen encounters.
KeywordsPolice legitimacy Procedural justice Randomized field trial Random breath tests
The QCET was funded, in its entirety, by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security (CEPS). The authors acknowledge the assistance provided by the Queensland Police Service. The views expressed in this material are those of the authors and are not those of the Queensland Police Service. Responsibility for any errors of omission or commission remains with the authors. The Queensland Police Service expressly disclaims any liability for any damage resulting from the use of the material contained in this publication and will not be responsible for any loss, howsoever arising, from use or reliance on this material. The authors thank the Queensland Police Service for their leadership throughout the trial, in particular Assistant Commissioners Peter Martin, Brett Pointing, Ann Lewis, and Kim Adams, Superintendents Tonya Carew, Ron Cooper and Tony Rand, Inspector Pete Hosking, A/Inspector Shaun Dinon and Senior Sergeants Stephen Peck and Neale Stonely, who all demonstrated remarkable innovation during the development and implementation of QCET. We also appreciate the efforts of the Metropolitan South Region traffic officers, who readily engaged with the trial. The authors thank Patricia Ferguson, Dr Silke Meyer, Elise Sargeant and Renee Zahnow for their assistance in observing QCET operations; Linzie Jones for data entry; and Jacqueline Davis and Dr Gentry White for statistical advice. The authors also acknowledge A/Professor Kristina Murphy for her valued assistance in developing the QCET survey and appreciate the fantastic feedback and guidance provided by the JOEX Editor, Professor David Weisburd, and the anonymous reviewers during the peer review process.
- Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2005). Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
- Bennett, S., Denning, R., Mazerolle, L., & Stocks, B. (2009). Procedural justice: A systematic literature search and technical report to the National Policing Improvement Agency. Brisbane: ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security.Google Scholar
- Bradford, B., & Jackson, J. (2010). Cooperating with the police: Social control and the reproduction of police legitimacy. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1640958.
- Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics. (2010). Road Deaths Australia – January 2010. Canberra, Australia: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Retrieved 28 October, 2011 from http://www.bitre.gov.au/info.aspx?ResourceId=751&NodeId=128
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Crime and Misconduct Commission. (2009). Public perceptions of the Queensland Police Service: Findings from the 2008 Public Attitudes Survey. Brisbane: Crime and Misconduct Commission.Google Scholar
- Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Hosking, P. (2010). Personal communication. January 6, 2010, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
- Ironside, R. (2010). Police told to monitor their language and refrain from calling offenders ‘idiots’ and ‘stupid’. The Courier-Mail, December 2. Retrieved December 13, 2010 from http://thecouriermail.com.au.
- Kochel, T. R., Parks, R. B., & Mastrofski, S. D. (2011). Examining police effectiveness as a precursor to legitimacy and cooperation with police. Justice Quarterly. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/07418825.2011.633544.Google Scholar
- Mazerolle, L., & Terrill, W. (1997). Problem-oriented policing in public housing: Identifying the distribution of problem places. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 20(2), 215–255.Google Scholar
- Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Eggins, E., & Antrobus, E. (2011). The Queensland Community Engagement Trial: Final Report. Brisbane: ARC Centre for Excellence in Policing and Security, The University of Queensland.Google Scholar
- Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., & Manning, M. (2012). Legitimacy in policing. The Campbell Collaboration Library of Systematic Reviews. http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/library.php (in press)
- McCluskey, J. D. (2003). Police requests for compliance: Coercive and procedurally just tactics. New York: LFB.Google Scholar
- Murphy, K. (2008). Public satisfaction with police: The importance of procedural justice and police performance in police-citizen encounters. Canberra: ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security.Google Scholar
- Murphy, K., & Mearns, M. (2008). The public safety and security in Australia survey: Survey methodology and preliminary findings. (Working Paper, October 2008). ARC Centre for Excellence in Policing and Security. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
- Papachristos, A.V., Meares, T. L., & Fagan, J. (2009). Why do criminals obey the law? The influence of legitimacy and social networks on active gun offenders. New Haven, CT: Yale Law and Economics Research Paper No. 373; Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 09-199. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1326631 .
- Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads. (2009). Queensland Road Safety Action Plan, 2010–2011. Brisbane: Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.Google Scholar
- Queensland Police Service. (2008). Internal Memorandum, February 2008.Google Scholar
- Reisig, M. (2007). Procedural justice and community policing – what shapes residents’ willingness to participate in crime prevention programs? Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 1(3), 356–368.Google Scholar
- Reiss, A. J. (1971). The police and the public. New Haven: Yale.Google Scholar
- Roman, J., Yahne, J., Zweig, J., & Chakravarti, R. (2010). How do drug courts work? Paper presented at the National Institute of Justice, June 15, 2010. Retrieved 28 October, 2011 from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412153-how-do-courts.pdf
- Rosenbaum, D. P. (Ed.). (1994). The challenge of community policing: Testing the promises. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Schuck, A., & Rosenbaum, D. (2011). The Chicago Quality Interaction Training Program: A randomized control trial of police innovation. Washington, DC: National Police Research Platform, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved 28 October, 2011 from http://www.nationalpoliceresearch.org/storage/updated-papers/The%20Chicago%20Quality%20Interaction%20Training%20Program%20a%20Randomized%20%20Control%20Trial%20of%20Police%20Innovation%20FINAL.pdf
- Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Dignan, J., Edwards, L., Hibbert, J., et al. (2008). Does restorative justice affect reconviction? The fourth report from the evaluation of three schemes. Ministry of Justice Research Series 10/08. London: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
- Sherman, L., Strang, H., Barnes, G., Braithwaite, J., Inkpen, N., & Teh, M. (1998). Experiments in restorative policing: A progress report to the National Police Research Unit on the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE). Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
- Singer, L. (2004). Reassurance policing: An evaluation of the local management of community safety. Home Office Research Studies (vol. 228). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
- Skogan, W. G., Steiner, L., Benitez, C., Bennis, J., Borchers, S., BuBois, J., et al. (2004). Community policing in Chicago, year 10. Research and program evaluation in Illinois: Studies on drug abuse and violent crime (pp. 1–155). Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.Google Scholar
- Skolnick, J. H., & Fyfe, J. J. (1993). Above the law: Police and the excessive use of force. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Strang, H., & Sherman, L. (2003). Repairing the harm: victims and restorative justice. Utah Law Review, 15, 17–23.Google Scholar
- Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale: Erlnaum.Google Scholar
- Travelsafe Committee. (1997). Report No. 19: Queensland’s Road Toll: Drink Driving (Part 1). Brisbane: Legislative Assembly of Queensland.Google Scholar
- Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Tyler, T. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research, vol. 30 (pp. 431–505). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Tyler, T. R., & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: why do people help the police fight crime in their communities? Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 231–275.Google Scholar
- Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
- Tyler, T. R., Sherman, L., Strang, H., Barnes, G. C., & Woods, D. (2007). Reintegrative shaming, procedural justice, and recidivism: the engagement of offenders' psychological mechanisms in the Canberra RISE drinking-and-driving experiment. Law & Society Review, 41(3), 553–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar