Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Professor Lorraine Mazerolle University of Queensland

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Professor Lorraine Mazerolle University of Queensland"— Presentation transcript:

1 Professor Lorraine Mazerolle University of Queensland
The 7th SIPR Annual Lecture The Power of Policing Partnerships Professor Lorraine Mazerolle University of Queensland

2 Outline for tonight’s talk
Introduce the work of my Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship Talk briefly about experiments in policing Focus on the power of policing partnerships in Third Party Policing context Describe the ABILITY Truancy Trial

3 Australian Research Council (ARC)
Laureate Fellowship

4 “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 Antrobus Laureate RHD students: Laura Bedford, Amanda Acutt, Kate Leslie Research Assistants: Emina Prguda, Liz Eggins, Tanya White, Amelia Grey Systematic Review Team: Dr Angela Higginson and Liz Eggins

5 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

6 2. Experiments in Policing

7 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

8 40 years of policing experiments
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

9 Sustaining the crime control benefits?
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?

10 Follow-ups in policing experiments
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)

11 Can police sustain the gains?
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

12 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.

13 3. Third Party Policing Is this a Powerful Partnership?
Does it reduce crime problems? Do the effects last, over time?

14 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,” Cambridge University Press and other publications. My ARC Laureate Team (RFs, RHD, RAs)

15 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

16 The Emergence of TPP Historical roots in the rise of Nodal Governance during the s 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

17 Two Choices for Police Succumb to external pressure to adopt a partnership approach (e.g. Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 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

18 Third Party Policing Processes
Partnership Legal Lever(s) POLICE First Party PARTNER(S) Third Party PROBLEM PEOPLE, PLACES OR SITUATIONS Second Party General Police Responses

19 A Typology of TPP Partnerships
Single Third Party Project ABILITY Recalcitrant Bars Engagement Continuum Coercive Collaborative Specialized Multi- Agency Response Teams (SMART) – Oakland, CA Troubled Alcohol Accords – e.g. Fortitude Valley Multiple Third Parties

20 Escalating Legal Levers

21 4. The ABILITY Truancy Trial
Putting the theory of TPP into practice, under RCT conditions

22 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

23 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-esteem Mental health Drug and alcohol Family conflict Student stress Parental stress

24 The ABILITY Trial Team UQ Research Team Police Team DETE Team
Conferencing Team Lorraine Mazerolle Sarah Bennett Emma Antrobus Laura Bedford Amanda Acutt Kate Leslie Emina Prguda Liz Eggins Tanya White Tonya Carew Andrew Gillies Gregg Chapman Corey Lane Peter Blatch John Dungan Karen Barnett Tony Smith Glyn Davies Ian Hill + 10 schools Claire Walker Wayne Seeto Veronica Moggs Kelli Byrne

25 Truancy Legislation & Policy
Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 (Qld) Chapter 9 Parts 1, 3, 4; Chapter 10 Parts 1- 5: Section 426 Education (General Provisions) Regulation 2006 (Qld) 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

26 Escalation process for non-attendance

27 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

28 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)

29 CRICOS Provider No 00025B

30 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 %)

31 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 cases (ie cases per group)

32 ABILITY Trial Case Flow
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 Recruitment (N = 359; 263 contacted) Random Assignment (N = 102) Engagement Group (experimental) (N = 51) FGC preparation Family Group Conference Exit Meeting Resource Group (control) Resource Pack provided Declined School 53.2% conversion (N = 72) Declined Police 53.4% conversion (N =89)

33 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

34 ABILITY Trial Participants (N = 102)
Resource Group Engagement Group Overall Age Range 10 – 16 years Average Age 13.14 years (SD = 2.14) 13.14 (SD = 2.13) Gender 28 male 23 female 26 male 25 female 54 male 48 female School Level 23 Primary 28 Secondary 21 Primary 30 Secondary 44 Primary 58 Secondary 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

35 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)

36 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

37 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

38 Perceived Effectiveness of Partnerships
A partnership with the other organisations present at today's conference… Police School Other Agency 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% 90.00% Will be effective in reducing this student’s truancy 67.60% 75.00% Will be effective for delivering resources to this family  76.50% 80.00%

39 Perceived Likelihood of Escalating Legal Levers…

40 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)

41 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)

42 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)

43 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

44 With special thanks to….
Dr Sarah Bennett Dr Emma Antrobus & The ARC Laureate Team

45 Professor Lorraine Mazerolle
The 7th SIPR Annual Lecture The Power of Policing Partnerships Professor Lorraine Mazerolle


Download ppt "Professor Lorraine Mazerolle University of Queensland"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google