1. Operation Insight: Testing different approaches to enhance legitimacy and willingness to cooperate in Border Security : A Multi-Site Randomised Controlled Trial Brandon Langley Dr Barak Ariel

2. Background: Schedule 7 TACT 2000 ? ‘The principal legal power’ = Border Security Power No suspicion power It enables an examining officer ; Stop, question and detain persons at ports, hover ports, airports and international rail ports to determine: ‘whether a person appears to be someone who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism..’

3. Background (2) Why? Importance? National Consultation and responses “ Significantly undermined faith in CT” ( Stop Watch) “ The power is silently eroding Muslim communities trust and confidence in policing” ( ECHR) “ It is the single most important factor affecting police legitimacy” (Choudhury and Fenwick) Independent Reviewer Counter Terrorism 2012 - ‘anecdotal’ /’lacking quantifiable evidence’

4. Background (3) Why? Importance? Guardian 20/2/2014 – Helena Kennedy ‘This is a dark underbelly of our terrorism legislation at work...Schedule 7 may be lawful, but it is a really rotten law.’ What can be done to increase legitimacy and cooperation with police in CT?

5. Background (4) Research Absence of research and evidence in Schedule 7- Only 1 other study! (Lyttle 2011) Airport screening / security stops = very little evidence Hasisi 2011 Lum et al 2013 Sindhav et al 2006 There is a research void! What can be done to improve the breadth and scope of empirical studies in relation to Sch 7/Airport Security and CT?

6. Background (5) Legitimacy? What is it?- No concensus! Obligation to obey/Willingness to be deferred to – Tyler Moral Rightness to govern/police (Tankebe 2012) Why is it so important? Public Co-operation + Increase compliance = Social Order.....’ A law abiding society’ (Tyler 2006) It is the “ultimate value” by which policing is judged (Abel 1980) What are its antecedents?

7. Background (6) Research -Procedural Justice Procedural Justice = ‘the core antecedent of legitimacy’ Growing body of evidence around PJ and police around police-initiated encounters (Tyler and others)- but low level! Only one (somewhat) rigorous evaluation of PJ (Mazerolle 2012) Two core elements: Quality of Treatment /Quality of Decision Making

8. Background (7) Research -Procedural Justice Four key components 1. Voice 2. Neutrality in decision making 3. Trustworthiness 4. Respect and Dignity

9. Background (8) Alternative Approach to PJ? Kahneman ‘s Experienced Utility Theory Experience of pleasure and pain within episodes Medical studies and aversive experiences Studies in limited contexts – needs to be extended No known studies linking concept to legitimacy, airports security stops/CT

10. Kahneman‘s Experienced Utility Theory = key elements 1. “Peak End Rule” = extreme effects/conclusion = a representative moment which translates how an entire episode or experience is assessed 2. Remembered Utility- retrospective global evaluations of an experience = memories

11. Back to Birmingham

12. Research Questions 1. What is the level of support/satisfaction of those that experience Schedule 7? 2. What secures more legitimacy and willingness to cooperate with the police in Border Security, PJ or EU?

13. Telephone Survey The foundation = Mazerolle/ Hasisi / Tankebe 84 items -PJ/EU/Legitimacy/Co-operation Likert Scale Socio-demographics Validated by three academics Community Consultation and EQIA

14. The challenge: Based on baseline data, the opinions of those going through Schedule 7 are encouragingly high Still, can it be enhanced? What increases legitimacy? What increases willingness to cooperate?

15. The Experimental Model

16. Hypothesis A checklist of procedural-justice dimensions and enhancing experienced utility in Schedule 7 TA 2000 procedures at Birmingham airport will result in different levels of perceived legitimacy

17. Research Setting Busy international airport In Midlands region Main Terminal – Arrivals and Departures 10 million passenger movements 80,000 scheduled and charter services Three teams of ports officers in situ Authorities = VERY COMPLEX!! Director of Terminal Services Head of Terminal Security ACPO ACSO NCPP

18. Participants Sampling Frame -All passengers embarking and disembarking who are subject of Schedule 7 Trickle Flow – each case is considered Eligibility criteria (agreed with partners) Exclusion Criteria (agreed with partners)

19. Treatments

20. Treatment A: PJ Checklist ( Arrivals and Departures) Voice / Participation Neutrality Dignity and respect Trustworthy motives

21. Treatment B (EU) : Arrivals Voucher and Trolley Token Voucher providing complimentary use of a security fast check lane area when embarking from Birmingham Airport during next period of travel Complimentary provision of a luggage trolley token

22. Treatment B (EU): Departures Police Escort to Gate Making the offer to escort the member of the public to the embarkation gate Making the offer to contact the embarkation gate to inform airport staff that the member of the public is on route

23. Procedure

24. The Cambridge Randomiser+ http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/research/insight Prompt assignment of cases Captures essential data + Unique case reference no. Time and date – provides chronology Inclusion /exclusion criteria – The Computer says Yes or No Supports equalisation of the two treatment groups

25. Disembarkation598 Case is Eligible, Treatment 2 – Experienced Utility297 Case is Eligible, Treatment 1 - PJ Checklist293 Case is NOT Eligible - treat as usual8 Embarkation183 Case is Eligible, Treatment 2 - Experienced Utility89 Case is Eligible, Treatment 1 - PJ Checklist90 Case is NOT Eligible - treat as usual4 Grand Total781 Cambridge Randomiser Log

26. Descriptive Stats.DisembarkationEmbarkation General Survey QuestionsPJEUt-testsPJEU t-tests N = 3931651564131 % Female suspects7%3%t=-1.645%3%t=-0.34 % not married37%39%t=0.3959%37%t=-1.84* % education above high school73%66%t=-1.3081%72%t=-0.83 % own home34%35%t=0.2424%43%t=1.69 % English as first language80%78%t=-0.5083%84%t=0.11 % Muslim88% t=-0.0183%79%t=-0.38 * p<0.1; ** p<.05; *** p<.01-

27. Survey Response Rate

28. Response Rate – Attrition

29. Survey Response Rate – Frequency of Calls

30. Results

31. Willingness to Cooperate

32. ‘The Bottom Line’ Within the specific context of airport security PJ is a more effective mechanism than experienced utility in promoting co-operation against terrorism

33. Police Legitimacy

34. Conclusions Finding reinforce the generalizability of the PJ checklist as an operational tool Preliminary experimental results support the existing body of observational evidence on police use of procedurally-just ways of engaging with citizens In the context of airport security, PJ continues to perform as a key generator of willingness to cooperate and support police in CT

35. Contributions to both theory and practice Added rigorous evidence on PJ and legitimacy literature Started to remove ‘ the shroud of secrecy’ ( Lum 2006) ‘Sticky facts’- NCPP/national consultation Removes the ‘anecdotal’ and provides ‘quantifiable evidence’ Starts to close the research proximity and accessibility gap

36. Next Steps Local Adopted into normal working practices Telephone Surveys – continued Community Engagement National Home Office NCPP – more research - opportunity for replication at different types of border security settings Ports Modernisation Programme Opportunities – other police initiated public encounters

37. Thank you b.langley@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk