Program Profile: Queensland (Australia) Community Engagement Trial (QCET)

The program tested whether police use of a specialized script (based on principles of procedural justice) during random breath-test traffic stops could improve perceptions of police and change people’s views about drinking and driving. The program is rated Promising. The program was shown to have a statistically significant effect on changing views on police and on drinking and driving, on increasing satisfaction and compliance with police, and on strengthening perceptions of procedural justice.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Program Goals

The Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET) was a randomized field trial conducted in Australia to test whether police officers can improve the perceived legitimacy of police during encounters with citizens, using approaches that are based on the principles of procedural justice. The experiment evaluated the impact of police engaging with citizens by using a specialized script (that included key elements of procedural justice) during random breath test traffic stops. The goal of QCET was to examine whether the use of the script during short, routine traffic stops could increase the public’s trust and confidence in police and change views on drinking and driving.

Program Theory

With regard to policing, procedural justice refers to the perceived quality of treatment people receive during encounters with police and the perceived quality of decision making used by police during these interactions. As applied to this project, the key principles of procedural justice are the: (a) perceived neutrality in the officer’s decision making, (b) perceived trustworthiness of police motives, (c) perceived citizen voice during the traffic stop, and (d) perceived respect from the officer. Together, these components form the basis for procedural justice, which is thought to improve community perceptions of police legitimacy. The process-based model of policing suggests that procedural justice has powerful effects on police legitimacy (Hinds and Murphy 2007; Murphy et al. 2008; Reisig et al. 2007).

With regard to citizens’ perceptions of police, police legitimacy goes beyond a citizen’s respect for authority. It includes a social value, shared by members of the community, in which police are viewed as representatives of the community’s morals and values (Jackson and Sunshine 2007; Tyler 1990). Previous studies of procedural justice during police-citizen encounters have been shown to have a positive effect on citizen’s perceptions of the interaction and its outcome (Mastrofski, Snipes, and Supina 1996; McCluskey 2003; Wells 2007). Procedural justice is thought to enhance perceived legitimacy, which in turn is thought to generate a variety of prosocial outcomes, including cooperation with police, compliance with the law, and satisfaction with police service (Bradford and Jackson 2010; Mastrofski et al. 1996; McCluskey et al. 1999).

Program Components

For the QCET, 60 roadblock operations were randomized into the experimental condition or the control condition. The 30 control sites received the standard, random breath-test operations. Standard, random breath-test operations were conducted by assigning 6 to 10 traffic officers at roadblocks near bars, restaurants, or similar locations, and at highway entrances or exits, for a maximum of 4 hours. These roadblocks were conducted at predetermined times and locations, to create a funnel effect (meaning drivers were unable to avoid them). Officers motioned drivers over to the side of the road for the breath test, which took less than 20 seconds. Using a mandated script, officers introduced themselves, briefly explained the reason for the roadblock, and gave directions for taking the breath test. If the results were under the legal limit, drivers were free to leave. If the results were over the legal limit, drivers were escorted to a Breath Analysis Station for a more advanced breath test and possible criminal charges.

The 30 experimental sites received the standard, random breath-test operations as well. However, the notable difference between the experimental condition and control condition was the script delivered by the officers. At QCET roadblocks, officers were provided with a printed notecard with a full-text script and bullet points for incorporating the four key components of procedural justice into the traffic stop. The officers delivering the extended script were given a 10-minute briefing about the dialogue before each shift. Officers were encouraged to deliver the script in ways that felt comfortable, but were required to cover the four key components of procedural justice. A supervisor monitored the officers to make sure they delivered the script as planned.

The following are examples of ways officers used the components during the traffic stops. To convey neutrality, officers informed drivers that they were being pulled over at random. To convey trustworthy motives, officers explained their concern about drinking and driving and the possibility of drivers’ harming themselves or others while driving drunk. To foster participation from the drivers, officers asked them about their own methods of preventing crime and asked for feedback and suggestions on current approaches by law enforcement. At the conclusion of the stop, officers conveyed their respect to drivers by thanking them for their time and recognizing their positive attempts to obey traffic laws.

Study

Mazerolle and colleagues (2012) used a randomized experimental design to evaluate the impact of the procedural justice approach used in the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET) on community perceptions of police, police legitimacy, and attitudes toward drinking and driving. The randomized trial took place between December 2009 and June 2010 in three police districts (Oxley, South Brisbane, and Wynnum) in the Metropolitan South Region of the Queensland Police Service in Australia.

Sixty roadblock operations were randomized into the treatment group (n = 30) or the control group (n = 30). All treatment group drivers were instructed to take the breath test, using the QCET approach, and were given surveys to complete. Attached to the surveys were police community information bulletins developed monthly by Queensland Police Services personnel. The treatment group consisted of the first 300 drivers through 30 roadblocks designated as experimental operations (9,000 total surveys distributed). All control group drivers underwent the random breath tests with the officers following standard operations and were given surveys to complete. The control group consisted of the first 400 drivers through 30 roadblocks designated as comparison operations (12,000 total surveys distributed).

Of the 21,000 surveys distributed to drivers, researchers received 2,762 surveys in return (response rate of 13.2 percent). For inclusion in the final sample, respondents had to have been of legal driving age (17 years in Queensland) and responded to questions used in the analysis. The treatment group and the control group were similar on all measured demographic characteristics. The final sample included 2,746 respondents (1,097 drivers from the treatment group and 1,649 drivers from the control group). Overall, the sample was 50 percent female, and the mean age of the sample was 47 years. About 63 percent were married, 31 percent were college educated, and 57 percent worked full time. The sample was primarily Australian (45.6 percent); the others were of British or European ancestry (36.7 percent), New Zealand and Pacific Island ancestry (3.4 percent), Asian ancestry (4.7 percent), other ancestry (2.5 percent), or no response (7.1 percent).

The sealed surveys were provided to all study participants regardless of breath test outcome and included a stamped addressed envelope with instructions to return the completed survey to researchers. Surveys included measures on citizens’ ratings of procedural justice, legitimacy, cooperation, and compliance. Measures of procedural justice included questions on fairness of the traffic stop, opportunity to express views, officer attentiveness and respectfulness, and officer trustworthiness. For the remaining measures, drivers were asked if the traffic stop changed their views on drinking and driving, if the traffic stop changed the way they think about the police, if they experienced satisfaction with the officer who stopped them, and if drivers did what police told them to do during the stop. However, because of how the question on changed perceptions of the police and drinking and driving was worded (respondents were asked to answer “yes” or “no” to whether the encounter changed the general way they think about police), it is unclear in which direction the views changed. Drivers were also asked if they did what the police told them to do during the stop. Researchers used chi-square tests and independent samples t-tests to determine whether assignment to the treatment condition influenced outcomes. Cohen’s d was used to measure the magnitude of all effect sizes. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

A summary table of the script included on the cue cards given to police officers can be found in the study by Mazerolle and colleagues (2012). An example of the actual cue card can be found in the study by Mazerolle and colleagues (2013).

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Antrobus, Emma, Ben Bradford, Kristina Murphy, and Elise Sargeant. 2015. “Community Norms, Procedural Justice, and the Public’s Perceptions of Police Legitimacy.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 31(2):151–70.

Antrobus, Emma, Henk Elffers, Gentry White, and Lorraine Mazerolle. 2014. “Nonresponse Bias in Randomized Controlled Experiments in Criminology: Putting the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET) Under a Microscope.” Evaluation Review 37(3-4):197–212.

Bradford, Ben, and Jonathan Jackson. 2010. “Cooperating with the Police: Social Control and the Reproduction of Police Legitimacy.”

Hinds, Lyn, and Kristina Murphy. 2007. “Public Satisfaction with Police: Using Procedural Justice to Improve Police Legitimacy.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 40(1):27–42.

Jackson, Jonathan, and Jason Sunshine. 2007. “Public Confidence in Policing: A Neo-Durkheimian Perspective.” British Journal of Criminology 47(2):214–33.

Mastrofski, Stephen D., Jeffrey B. Snipes, and Anne E. Supina. 1996. “Compliance on Demand: The Public’s Response to Specific Police Requests.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 33(3):269–305.

Mazerolle, Lorraine, Emma Antrobus, Sarah Bennett, and Tom R. Tyler. 2013. “Shaping Citizen Perceptions of Police Legitimacy: A Randomized Field Trial of Procedural Justice.” Criminology 51(1):33–63.

Mazerolle, Lorraine, Lyndel Bates, Sarah Bennett, Gentry White, Jason Ferris, and Emma Antrobus. 2014. “Optimising the Length of Random Breath Tests: Results from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 48(2):256–76.

McCluskey, John D. 2003. Police Requests for Compliance: Coercive and Procedurally Just Tactics. New York, N.Y.: LFB Scholarly Publishing.

McCluskey, John D., Stephen D. Mastrofski, and Roger B. Parks. 1999. “To Acquiesce or Rebel: Predicting Citizen Compliance with Police Requests.” Police Quarterly 2(4):389–416.

Murphy, Kristina, Lorraine Mazerolle, and Sarah Bennett. 2014. “Promoting Trust in Police: Findings from a Randomized Experimental Field Trial of Procedural Justice Policing.” Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy 24(4):405–24. (This study was reviewed but did not meet Crime Solutions criteria for inclusion in the overall program rating.)

Murphy, Kristina, Lyn Hinds, and Jenny Fleming. 2008. “Encouraging Public Cooperation and Support for Police.” Policing and Society 18(2):136–55.

Reisig, Michael D., Jason Bratton, and Marc G. Gertz. 2007. “The Construct Validity and Refinement of Process-Based Policing Measures.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 34(8):1005–28.

Reiss, Albert J. Jr. 1971. The Police and the Public. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Sargeant, Elise, Emma Antrobus, Kristina Murphy, Sarah Bennett, and Lorraine Mazerolle. 2014. “Social Identity and Procedural Justice in Police Encounters with the Public: Results from a Randomised Controlled Trial.” Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy: 1–15.

Tyler, Tom R. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Tyler, Tom R., and Jeffrey Fagan. 2008. “Legitimacy and Cooperation: Why Do People Help the Police Fight Crime in Their Communities?” Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 6:231–75.

Wells, William. 2007. “Type of Contact and Evaluations of Police Officers: The Effects of Procedural Justice across Three Types of Police–Citizen Contacts.” Journal of Criminal Justice 35(6):612–21.