Explore the vast range of titles available.

It is often assumed that immigrants in countries such as the United Kingdom will report lower levels of trust in the police. Immigrant communities are thought 'difficult to police', and minority groups frequently experience problematic relationships with police. Yet, there has been little empirical investigation of this issue in the United Kingdom. In this paper, data from the Crime Survey of England and Wales are used to explore the relationship between immigration and trust in the police. Results suggest that trust is higher among immigrants than among the UK-born population, although there is important variation by time since arrival and experience of policing. Trust in the police is also higher in neighbourhoods that have more immigrants. The paper concludes with some reflection on the nature of trust in the police.

Objectives We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the published and unpublished empirical evidence on the impact of police-led interventions that use procedurally just dialogue focused on improving citizen perceptions of police legitimacy. Methods The systematic search included any public police intervention where there was a statement that the intervention involved police dialogue with citizens that either was aimed explicitly at improving police legitimacy, or used at least one core ingredient of procedural justice dialogue: police encouraging citizen participation, remaining neutral in their decision making, conveying trustworthy motives, or demonstrating dignity and respect throughout interactions. The studies included in our meta-analyses also had to include at least one direct outcome that measured legitimacy or procedural justice, or one outcome that is common in the legitimacy extant literature: citizen compliance, cooperation, confidence or satisfaction with police. We conducted separate meta-analyses, using random effects models, for each outcome. Results For every single one of our outcome measures, the effect of legitimacy policing was in a positive direction, and, for all but the legitimacy outcome, statistically significant. Notwithstanding the variability in the mode in which legitimacy policing is delivered (i.e., the study intervention) and the complexities around measurement of legitimacy outcomes, our review shows that the dialogue component of front-line police-led interventions is an important vehicle for promoting citizen satisfaction, confidence, compliance and cooperation with the police, and for enhancing perceptions of procedural justice. Conclusions In practical terms, our research shows the benefits of police using dialogue that adopts at least one of the principles of procedural justice as a component part of any type of police intervention, whether as part of routine police activity or as part of a defined police crime control program. Our review provides evidence that legitimacy policing is an important precursor for improving the capacity of policing to prevent and control crime.

Objectives Social disorganization states that neighborhood social ties and shared expectations for informal social control are necessary for the exercise of informal social control actions. Yet this association is largely assumed rather than empirically examined in the literature. This paper examines the relationship between neighborhood social ties, shared expectations for informal social control and actual parochial and public informal social control actions taken by residents in response to big neighborhood problems. Methods Using multi-level logistic regression models, we integrate Australian Bureau of Statistics census data with the Australian Community Capacity Study survey data of 1310 residents reporting 2614 significant neighborhood problems across 148 neighborhoods to examine specific informal social control actions taken by residents when faced with neighborhood problems. Results We do not find a relationship between shared expectations for informal social control and residents’ informal social control actions. Individual social ties, however, do lead to an increase in informal social control actions in response to ‘big’ neighborhood problems. Residents with strong ties are more likely to engage in public and parochial informal social control actions than those individuals who lack social ties. Yet individuals living in neighborhoods with high levels of social ties are only moderately more likely to engage in parochial informal social control action than those living in areas where these ties are not present. Shared expectations for informal social control are not associated with the likelihood that residents engage in informal social control actions when faced with a significant neighborhood problem. Conclusion Neighborhood social ties and shared expectations for informal social control are not unilaterally necessary for the exercise of informal social control actions. Our results challenge contemporary articulations of social disorganization theory that assume that the availability of neighborhood social ties or expectations for action are associated with residents actually doing something to exercise of informal social control.

PurposeThe COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated the introduction of extra-ordinary restrictions to mitigate its spread. Authorities rely on the public's voluntary willingness to obey these restrictions, yet the intrusive nature of these measures may lead some people to believe that authorities are overstepping the limits of their rightful power (i.e. bounded-authority). This paper applies the bounded-authority framework to the COVID-19 context to understand the factors associated with the public's duty to obey authorities during COVID-19.Design/methodology/approachThis paper utilizes survey data from 1,582 individuals to examine what factors drive COVID-19-related bounded-authority concerns, and in turn, how bounded-authority concerns may impact one's duty to obey authorities during COVID-19.FindingsResults show that worry about freedom loss, opposition to surveillance tactics, police heavy-handedness and perceptions of procedural injustice from police during the pandemic all drive bounded-authority concerns. Findings also reveal that bounded-authority concerns are associated with reduced duty to obey and mediate the relationship between procedural justice and the duty to obey authorities' enforcement of COVID-19 restrictions.Originality/valueFindings reveal new evidence about the bounded-authority framework and the public's duty to obey authorities, with implications for the COVID-19 context and beyond.

In the neighborhood effects literature, collective efficacy is viewed as the key explanatory process associated with the spatial distribution of a range of social problems. While many studies usefully focus on the consequences of collective efficacy, in this paper we examine the task specificity of collective efficacy and consider the individual and neighborhood factors that influence residents’ perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy for specific tasks. Utilizing survey and administrative data from 4,093 residents nested in 148 communities in Australia, we distinguish collective efficacy for particular threats to social order and assess the relative importance of social cohesion and neighborhood social ties to the development of collective efficacy for violence, delinquency and civic/political issues. Our results indicate that a model separating collective efficacy for specific problems from social ties and the more generalized notions of social cohesion is necessary when understanding the regulation potential of neighborhoods.

Executive Summary/ This Campbell systematic review assesses the direct and indirect benefits of public police interventions that use procedurally just dialogue. The review summarises findings from 30 studies conducted in Australia, the USA and England. The participants were individuals (citizen, victim, offender etc.), groups (e.g. community) and third parties (e.g. religious advisors). Police‐led interventions specifically aimed at increasing legitimacy have a significant impact on public satisfaction with and confidence in the police. Such interventions are also associated with significantly increased public compliance/cooperation, procedural justice (fairness, neutrality, etc.) and legitimacy (obligation to obey police/law). Interventions also had a minor effect on reoffending. BACKGROUND Police require voluntary cooperation from the general public to be effective in controlling crime and maintaining order. Research shows that citizens are more likely to comply and cooperate with police and obey the law when they view the police as legitimate. The most common pathway that the police use to increase citizen perceptions of legitimacy is through the use of procedural justice. Procedural justice, as described in the literature, comprises four essential components. These components are citizen participation in the proceedings prior to an authority reaching a decision (or voice), perceived neutrality of the authority in making the decision, whether or not the authority showed dignity and respect toward citizens throughout the interaction, and whether or not the authority conveyed trustworthy motives. Police departments throughout the world are implicitly and explicitly weaving the dialogue of these four principles of procedural justice (treating people with dignity and respect, giving citizens “voice” during encounters, being neutral in decision making, and conveying trustworthy motives) into their operational policing programs and interventions. OBJECTIVES This review synthesizes published and unpublished empirical evidence on the impact of interventions led by the public police to enhance citizen perceptions of police legitimacy. Our objective is to provide a systematic review of the direct and indirect benefits of policing approaches that foster legitimacy in policing that either report an explicit statement that the intervention sought to increase legitimacy or report that there was an application of at least one of the principles of procedural justice: participation, neutrality, dignity/respect, and trustworthy motives. SEARCH STRATEGY Studies were identified using six electronic databases (CSA, Informit, Ingenta Connect, Ovid, Proquest and Web of Knowledge) and two library catalogues (National Police Library and the Cambridge University Library and dependent libraries). We also searched the reference list of each eligible study, and reviewed the biographies and publication lists of influential authors in the field of procedural justice and police legitimacy, to determine if there were any relevant studies not retrieved in the original search. SELECTION CRITERIA Studies were included if they described any type of public police intervention (e.g. routine patrols, traffic stops, community policing, reassurance policing, problem‐oriented policing, conferencing) that either explicitly stated that the intervention was aimed at improving police legitimacy (through either a directive, training or organizational innovation) or explicitly used at least one of the principles of procedural justice. Studies had to include at least one direct outcome, such as citizen compliance, cooperation, or satisfaction with police, aimed at improving legitimacy, and could also include indirect outcomes, such as reduction in reoffending, or crime and social disorder. We included only studies that evaluated interventions if they were led by public police from any level of government (i.e., local, state and federal law enforcement officers). To be included in the systematic review, studies must have used one of the following research designs: an experimental (randomized) design involving at least two conditions, with one condition being the intervention and the other a control condition; a quasi‐experimental (non‐randomized) design involving at least two conditions, with one condition being the intervention and the other a comparison condition; a quasi‐experimental interrupted time‐series design that involved measurement of an aggregate outcome, such as crime rate, in equally spaced time intervals prior to and following the initiation of the police‐led intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The systematic search identified 963 unique studies on police legitimacy and/or procedural justice and policing, of which 933 were obtained. Of those, 163 studies reported on police‐led interventions. A final set of 30 studies, containing 41 independent evaluations, was eligible for meta‐analysis. Data analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta‐Analysis 2.0 (CMA), a statistical meta‐analysis software package. We conducted separate meta‐analyses using random effects models for each outcome of policing interventions that had been measured by at least two evaluations. The outcomes analyzed were: Direct – legitimacy, procedural justice, cooperation/compliance, and satisfaction/confidence; Indirect – revictimization or reoffending. We obtained or calculated a single effect size per study per outcome, either a standardized mean difference (g) for a continuous outcome, or an odds ratios for outcomes reported as dichotomous. We also explored possible moderators of policing legitimacy including intervention type, research design, respondent type, crime type, year of publication, and country of publication, using analogs to the ANOVA implemented via subgroup analyses in CMA. In addition, we conducted a series of sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the results to the following: inclusion of studies where data was imputed, inclusion of poor quality studies (e.g. lack of treatment integrity), and we inspected possible sources of bias in the data, including publication bias and small‐study effects. RESULTS There were 41 independent evaluations available for meta‐analysis: 7 assessed legitimacy as an outcome, 14 assessed procedural justice, 8 assessed compliance/cooperation, 29 assessed satisfaction/confidence, and 26 assessed reoffending. The direct outcome satisfaction/confidence showed the highest overall effect that was statistically significant (OR 1.75, 95% confidence limits 1.54, 1.99), followed by compliance/cooperation (OR 1.62, 95% confidence limits 1.13, 2.32), and procedural justice (OR 1.47, 95% confidence limits 1.16, 1.86). The estimated effect size for the direct outcome legitimacy (OR 1.58, 95% confidence limits 0.85, 2.95), while quite large, has a wide confidence interval, indicating a high degree of uncertainty around the estimate. Interventions showed a marginal effect on reoffending as an indirect outcome measure (g = ‐0.07, 95% confidence limits ‐0.14, 0.00). When reoffending was broken down by measurement method, studies that measured reoffending using official police data and self‐reported reoffending showed no effect (g = 0.03, 95% confidence limits ‐0.05, 0.11); however, studies that measured self‐reported victimization showed a large decrease in revictimization as a result of the interventions (g = ‐0.13, 95% confidence limits ‐0.23, ‐0.05). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The main finding of this review is that the effects of legitimacy policing interventions on each direct outcome measure are in a positive direction. For all but the legitimacy outcome, the results were statistically significant. We note that there is a clear lack of randomized experiments in the international research literature that specifically seek to isolate and test the component parts of a legitimacy policing intervention. Notwithstanding the variability in the mode in which legitimacy policing is delivered (i.e., the study intervention) and the complexities around measurement of legitimacy outcomes, our review shows that the dialogue component of front‐line police‐led interventions is important for promoting citizen satisfaction, confidence, compliance and cooperation with the police, and for enhancing perceptions of procedural justice. In practical terms, this means that police can achieve positive changes in citizen attitudes to police through adopting procedurally justice dialogue as a component part of any type of police intervention. We conclude that the type of police intervention (the vehicle for delivering a procedurally just encounter) is secondary to the procedurally just dialogue that underpins the intervention.