Transcript Can police deter drug use and supply at music festivals and

Can police deter drug use and supply at music
festivals and licensed entertainment precincts?
Caitlin Hughes, Vivienne Moxham-Hall, Alison Ritter, Rob MacCoun, Don Weatherburn
Applied Research in Crime and Justice Conference, Sydney, 16 February 2017
Introduction
•
•
•
That police can deter drug use and trafficking is a core
assumption underpinning street-level drug law
enforcement (e.g. MCDS, 2011)
In efforts to deter an expanding array of police strategies
are being deployed (e.g. Mazerole, 2006)
Growing concerns that deployment of ‘deterrent’ policing
strategies may have adverse public health impacts (Duff, 2005;
Harris, Edwards, & Homel, 2014; Parker, Aldridge, & Measham, 1998; Shapiro, 1999).
•
This is particularly when deployed in high use settings like
music festivals and licensed entertainment precincts
(LEPs)
2
The challenge of policing festivals and LEPs
•
Common sites of policing as they are:
•
•
Popular sites for leisure, entertainment and socialising
People who attend music festivals and LEPs are more likely to
have used drugs (e.g. Hesse & Tutenges, 2012; Hughes et al, 2011; Lim et al, 2010;
Measham et al, 1998, Miller et al, 2015)
•
Attention to policing of such spaces has grown in Australia
in recent years
•
•
e.g. national media mentions increased 3 fold from 2011-2015:
8 fold for state of NSW
Culminated in a policy impasse:
•
•
Public health advocates: Police cannot deter & that increase
public health harms
Police: Police essential to deter & do reduce public health harms
3
The challenge in assessing DLE deterrent impacts
Traditional crime data is ill-suited for measuring deterrent
effects:
• Most drug offending is undetected by police
• Need a valid counter-factual of how much crime would
occur in the absence of policing (Jacobs, 2010; Nagin, 2013)
• Messy reality of street-level policing: rarely one mode of
policing used at once (Mazerolle, Soole, & Rombouts, 2006)
But pilot study (Hughes et al, 2014) showed another viable method
may be to assess deterrent effects using experimental
deterrence vignettes
4
Study aims
1. To measure the deterrent effects of four Australian
policing strategies on decisions to use, possess,
purchase or traffick illicit drugs at outdoor music
festivals and licensed entertainment precincts;
2. To identify which specific police strategy most (and
least) reduces offending engagement; and
3. To identify any differences in deterrent effects
across the two settings
4. To identify the relative role of policing vis-a-vis
other factors in shaping drug offending engagement.
5
Methodology
• A purpose-built online survey was constructed –
Drug Policing Survey - involving a series of 10
hypothetical experimental deterrence vignettes
• Proven method used to provide insight into
decision making processes and intended
behaviours while experimentally varying and
controlling key variables (Aviram, 2012; Nagin,
2013; Wallander, 2009).
• Depicted four different Australian police strategies
and a counter-factual (no police), across the two
different settings (festivals and LEPs)
6
The four policing approaches
High Visibility Police
Riot Police
Collaborative Police
Drug Detection Dogs
7
Example vignettes
High Visibility Policing
You are going to a music festival this weekend, and festival
organisers have said they expect 30,000 people to attend. You
hear from a friend that police are planning a HIGH VISIBILITY
operation involving over 200 plain clothes and uniform police
who may be patrolling inside as well as outside the venue.
No Police
You are going to a music festival, and festival organisers have
said they expect 30,000 people to attend. The band you want
to see is late in the afternoon and so you know from past
experience that police will have left for the day: i.e. that there
will be NO POLICE present.
8
Method – cont.
• Administered to 4143 people aged 18 and over
who regularly attend music festivals and LEPs in
Australia
• Each participant was block-randomised to receive
two hypothetical vignettes at one target setting:
outdoor music festivals or LEPs
• Asked whether they would use, possess,
purchase, give and/or supply illicit drugs, and type
of drug(s) and quantity, and a range of
demographic and other offending variables
9
Perceptions of likelihood of police detection for use/possession at festival
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
No Police
Very likely
HVP
Likely
Riot Squad
Neither likely nor unlikely
Drug Detection
Dogs
Unlikely
Community
policing
Very unlikely
10
Sample
Criminal justice history
Demographics:
50
• Mean age 22.31 (SD=4.65)
45
40
• 55% male
35
30
• 93% completed year 12
25
• 42.4% employed
20
15
• 40% NSW, 26% Vic, 14% Qld
10
5
• 53.2% attended a festival
0
Ever
Ever
Ever
1-2 times a year, 45.7% attended
stopped by charged or convicted
police
arrested
a fortnightly/monthly
Illicit drug use:
• 78.4% any recent use (last 12 months)
11
Real world police encounters & drug offending
Police encounters &
drug offending at last
festival
Police encounters & drug
offending at last
LEP
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
Saw police Drug use Drug supply
Saw police
Drug use
Drug supply
12
Impacts of experimental
policing vignettes at festivals
13
Police presence vs absence: Impacts on offending at festivals
Offending engagement:
Police vs no police
90
Type of drug offending:
Police vs no police
80
77.4
80
72.8
70
*
70
60
*
60
50
50
*
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
ANY
Police
No Police
Use
Possess
Police
Buy
Give
No Police
Sell
*=
p<0.05
14
Engagement in any drug offending at MFs: by policing strategy
78
76
74
72
70
68
66
High Visibility
Police
Drug Detection
Dogs
Riot Police
Collaborative
Police
No Police
15
Type of drug offending at MFs, by policing strategy
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Use
High Visibility Police
Possess
Riot Police
Buy
Collaborative Police
Give
Drug Detection Dogs
Sell
No Police
16
Impacts of experimental
policing vignettes at LEPs
17
Police presence vs absence: Impacts on offending at LEPs
Offending engagement:
Police vs no police
80
80
68.1
70
60
Type of drug offending:
Police vs no police
70
*
59.3
60
50
50
*
40
40
30
30
20
20
*
*
10
10
0
0
ANY
Police
No police
Use
Possess
Buy
Give
Sell
*=
Police
No police
p<0.05
18
Engagement in any drug offending at LEPs: by policing strategy
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
High Visibility
Police
Riot Police
Drug Detection
Dogs
Collaborative
Police
No Police
19
Type of drug offending at LEPs, by policing strategy
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Use
High Visibility Police
Possess
Riot Police
Buy
Drug Detection Dogs
Give
Collaborative Police
Sell
No Police
20
Ecstasy use, possession and purchasing
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
High Visibility Police
Use only
Riot Police
Use possess
Use buy
Drug Detection Dogs
Use possess buy
21
Discussion and implications
•
Limitations: Hypothetical. But consistent with real offending
experience
•
Suggests police presence can deter engagement in drug
offending by an average of:
•
•
•
But, significant differences in impacts across policing strategies:
•
•
•
•
4.6% points at festivals
8.8% points at LEPs
Collaborative Policing – least likely to deter (no impact)
High Visibility Policing – most likely to deter
Most people will offend irrespective of police
High risk of perverse impacts
•

Increasing risks that consumers buy drugs from unknown dealers
Increasing demand for sales and potential profits for traffickers
22
Implications for police
• Suggests large deterrent effects are unlikely
• But, if goal is to deter:
•
•
Best strategy: High Visibility Policing
Worse strategy: Drug Detection Dogs
• Police use of drug detection dogs carries highest
risks of perverse impacts
• More generally it suggests capacity to deter will be
inherently more constrained at festivals …. Why?
• Higher incentives?
• Higher frequency of policing???
23
What factors increase drug deterrence at Australian music
festivals?
Music festival frequency - 1-2 year
Rural residence
Having no prior police encounters
Policing: Drug Detection Dogs
Policing: Riot Policing
Policing: High Visibility Policing
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Predicted probabilities
0.6
0.7
0.8
24
Policy implications
•
Deterrent impacts of policing are more complex that
suggested by extant research and policy debates
•
Reinforces important trade-offs in public health and crime
control in policing of outdoor music festivals and licensed
entertainment precincts
•
Adds to questions about the extent to which police should
be relied upon to reduce drug offending at high drug use
settings
25
Thank You!
Funded by the Australian
Research Council - Discovery
Project DP150100910
For more information:
Dr Caitlin Hughes
Senior Research Fellow
NDARC, UNSW Australia
[email protected]
www.ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au
26