Can police deter drug use and supply at

Can police deter drug use and supply at music festivals and licensed entertainment precincts? Caitlin Hughes, Vivienne Moxham-Hall, Alison Ritter, Rob Mac. Coun, 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 20 • 42. 4% employed 15 • 40% NSW, 26% Vic, 14% Qld 10 5 • 53. 2% attended a festival 0 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% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 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 80 77. 4 72. 8 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ANY Police No Police 14

Engagement in any drug offending at MFs: by policing strategy 79 77 75 73 71 69 67 High Visibility Police Drug Detection Dogs Riot Police Collaborative Police No Police 15

Type of drug offending at MFs, by policing strategy 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 * 75 70 68. 1 65 60 59. 3 55 ANY Police No police 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 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: 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 DP 150100910 For more information: Dr Caitlin Hughes Senior Research Fellow NDARC, UNSW Australia caitlin. hughes@unsw. edu. au www. ndarc. med. unsw. edu. au 26