operation insight: testing different approaches to enhance legitimacy and willingness to cooperate...
TRANSCRIPT
Operation Insight:
Testing different approaches to enhance legitimacy and willingness to cooperate in
Border Security : A Multi-Site Randomised Controlled Trial
Brandon LangleyDr Barak Ariel
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..’
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’
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?
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 2011Lum et al 2013Sindhav 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?
Background (5) Legitimacy?
What is it?- No concensus! Obligation to obey/Willingness to be deferred to –
TylerMoral 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?
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
Background (7) Research -Procedural Justice
Four key components
1. Voice
2. Neutrality in decision making
3. Trustworthiness
4. Respect and Dignity
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
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
Back to Birmingham
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?
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
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?
The Experimental Model
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
Research Setting
Busy international airport In Midlands regionMain Terminal – Arrivals and Departures10 million passenger movements80,000 scheduled and charter servicesThree teams of ports officers in situAuthorities = VERY COMPLEX!!
Director of Terminal Services Head of Terminal Security ACPO ACSO NCPP
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)
Treatment A: PJ Checklist ( Arrivals and Departures)
Voice / Participation
Neutrality
Dignity and respect
Trustworthy motives
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
Treatment B (EU): DeparturesPolice 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
Procedure
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 chronologyInclusion /exclusion criteria – The Computer says Yes or NoSupports equalisation of the two treatment groups
Disembarkation 598Case is Eligible, Treatment 2 – Experienced Utility 297Case is Eligible, Treatment 1 - PJ Checklist 293Case is NOT Eligible - treat as usual 8
Embarkation 183Case is Eligible, Treatment 2 - Experienced Utility 89Case is Eligible, Treatment 1 - PJ Checklist 90Case is NOT Eligible - treat as usual 4
Grand Total 781
Cambridge Randomiser Log
Descriptive Stats. DisembarkationEmbarkatio
n
General Survey Questions PJ EU t-tests PJ EU t-tests
N = 393 165 156 41 31
% Female suspects 7% 3% t=-1.64 5% 3% t=-0.34
% not married 37%39%
t=0.3959%
37%t=-
1.84*
% education above high school
73%66%
t=-1.3081%
72% t=-0.83
% own home 34%35%
t=0.2424%
43% t=1.69
% English as first language
80%78%
t=-0.5083%
84% t=0.11
% Muslim 88%88%
t=-0.0183%
79% t=-0.38
* p<0.1; ** p<.05; *** p<.01-
Response Rate – Attrition
Survey Response Rate – Frequency of Calls
Results
Willingness to Cooperate
‘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
Police Legitimacy
ConclusionsFinding 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
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
Next Steps
LocalAdopted into normal working practices Telephone Surveys – continuedCommunity Engagement
National Home OfficeNCPP – more research - opportunity for replication at
different types of border security settingsPorts Modernisation Programme
Opportunities – other police initiated public encounters
