Promoting trust and police legitimacy in African Australian communities: A critical reflection on community engagement strategies and practical recommendations for police

Trust and legitimacy

Trust refers to a willingness to be vulnerable in circumstances marked by uncertainty about other individuals’ current or future behaviour (Luhmann, 1980; Mayer et al., 1995; PytlikZillig et al., 2016). In the policing context, members of the public can never be sure that the police will respond in a timely manner when called or that they will act in ways consistent with their professional standards (Jackson and Gau, 2016). This means that trust in the police is a process grounded in people's assessments of the police to carry out actions associated with their role (i.e. responding to crime and calls for assistance in appropriate and well-intentioned ways). Part of this process is the expectation that the police will behave in a consistent manner that fosters people's willingness to be vulnerable to potential future actions of police (Jackson and Gau, 2016; Mayer et al., 1995).

Trust can be formed through prior experiences with others. Goldsmith (2005) argues that both direct and indirect (i.e. vicarious) experiences people have with the police can shape their trust towards the police. For example, when police treat people well during an interaction, it is likely that those individuals will expect similar positive interactions from police in the future. This can make them more inclined to place their trust in the police and drive their willingness to call on police for assistance if needed. The opposite is also true. If treatment by police is poor, then people will anticipate the same quality of interaction from police in the future. This can lead to individuals developing mistrust and becoming reticent to rely on police even when they are victims of crime.

Legitimacy refers to the right of power of authorities and the recognition of that right by members of the public (Coicaud, 2002; Jackson et al., 2012; Tyler, 2006). Criminologists conceptualise legitimacy as comprising normative alignment and felt moral obligation to obey police (Jackson et al., 2012). The former concerns the degree to which police behave in ways normatively expected of them. For example, do police carry out actions expected of them in ways that are appropriate? The latter refers to the internal moral obligation felt by individuals to obey the police. This component suggests that people will perceive the police as legitimate when they believe the police are entitled to be obeyed and they feel morally obliged to follow their directives. Importantly, a sense of moral obligation does not suggest that cooperation or compliance with police stems from a fear of punishment or sanctions. Rather, individuals feel they ‘ought’ to obey the police because it is the right thing to do (Jackson and Gau, 2016).

Community engagement: background, perceived benefits and evidence base

Community-based policing models continue to be increasingly drawn on to promote trust and police legitimacy among CALD communities, nationally and abroad (Asquith and Bartkowiak-Théron, 2021; Bartkowiak-Théron and Asquith, 2019; Cherney and Hartley, 2017; Julian et al., 2021; Murphy, 2020; President's Task Force on Twenty-First Century Policing, 2015). At the heart of these models is the use of community engagement strategies. Despite community engagement being central to community-based policing models, a definition of ‘community engagement’ remains elusive. This is because of the challenges associated with operationalising both ‘community’ and ‘engagement’ as distinct components (Myhill, 2006). For example, ‘community’ can mean different things to different people. A community can refer to the geographical area in which a person is located, demographic characteristics common to a group of people, or a shared interest tying a group of people together (Asquith and Bartkowiak-Théron, 2021; Segrave and Ratcliffe, 2004). People can belong to multiple communities simultaneously and may migrate in and out of communities over time. ‘Engagement’ is a similarly subjective concept meaning that the act of engagement looks different depending on who is being asked (Asquith and Bartkowiak-Théron, 2021; Myhill, 2006).

Complicating the matter further is that the terminology used to refer to community engagement also differs depending on the jurisdiction. In the United States, where much of the policing literature is concentrated, the dominant term used is ‘community policing’ (or community-oriented policing) (Myhill, 2006). Community-oriented policing is typically thought of as a philosophy rather than a program or initiative (Myhill, 2006; Segrave and Ratcliffe, 2004; Putt, 2010). Like community engagement, community-oriented policing is difficult to define but is said to comprise two key elements. First, securing public participation (i.e. engagement) and second, problem-solving alongside communities.

Community engagement initiatives gained traction in the 1980s across countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom following a move away from ‘professional’ policing towards a more community-based strategy (Segrave and Ratcliffe, 2004). This shift was driven by a myriad of factors. For example, there was greater recognition of the importance of public support for police effectiveness, increasing criticism of existing paradigms and practices, and an awareness that the police can provide a wider range of functions. Several other countries, including Australia and Canada, readily implemented community policing in the decades after.

More recently, policymakers have urged police agencies to prioritise community policing to address the lack of trust in the police among CALD groups (Asquith and Bartkowiak-Théron, 2021). For example, police agencies in the United States have sought to improve their relationship with African Americans through engagement initiatives following a series of high-profile fatal shootings of unarmed Black men (President's Task Force on Twenty-First Century Policing, 2015). These shootings led to civil unrest in the United States and were the catalyst for large-scale protests on discriminatory policing worldwide.

Community engagement is recommended by policymakers because of the perceived benefits associated with positive engagement by police. The foundation of engaging community groups is the recognition that community members are best placed to provide an analysis of the problems facing their communities and the underlying systemic causes driving those problems (Asquith and Bartkowiak-Théron, 2021). Thus, they are in a unique position to provide police with a ‘view in’ of the most pressing challenges from the outsider position that police often hold (College of Policing, 2013). By gaining this perspective, police agencies can better understand the landscape community members navigate, and work with those community members to collaboratively navigate challenges by forming partnerships. These partnerships involve ‘joint activities to co-produce services and achieve desired outcomes, giving the community greater say in what the police do, or simply engaging each other to produce a greater sense of police–community compatibility’ (Mastrofski, 2006: 46). These joint activities have a notable impact on preventing crime and enhance trust and perceived legitimacy of police among the public (Mastrofski, 2006).

Yet, empirical research reveals mixed findings on the utility of community engagement programs to enhance perceptions of the police. Several studies have noted a positive effect of community engagement on people’s perceptions of police (Bond and Gow, 1995; Kerley and Benson, 2000; Peyton et al., 2019; Sabath and Carter, 2000; Skogan et al., 2004; Tuffin et al., 2006; Wycoff and Skogan, 1993). For instance, Peyton et al. (2019) tested whether a single, 10-minute unannounced home visit by police increased trust and police legitimacy. Officers in this study knocked on the door of the home, initiated a greeting with whoever answered and immediately explained that they were making a community engagement visit. Officers then requested to speak to the residents and engaged them in a brief 10-minute conversation. During the interaction, officers initiated a formal greeting, emphasised that the interaction was an equal status engagement with the goal of improving their shared community and encouraging residents to provide feedback about policing and neighbourhood issues. The interactions ended with residents receiving business cards with work-issued contact numbers for the police officer. These visits increased trust and legitimacy judgements among residents. Notably, these effects were seen 21 days later and were not restricted to those people who reported greater baseline trust in the police prior to the intervention.

A handful of other studies report the opposite. Kahn et al. (2019) examined whether community engagement patrols (CEPs) improved trust and legitimacy in the police across 60 high-crime areas in Portland, Oregon. Kahn et al. identified 90 crime hotspots from the high-crime areas. The hotspot locations were randomly allocated to one of three experimental conditions based on the number of CEPs that would be dispatched in a day: (a) two CEPs a day; (b) four CEPs a day; and (c) control, no additional police patrols. CEPs involved police officers engaging with residents through meet-and-greets, distributing safety flyers and conducting business safety checks. Officers in the CEP conditions were dispatched to the hotspot locations for 90 consecutive days. The findings showed that residents from the experimental conditions reported a greater number of positive police contacts. However, CEPs did not enhance residents’ trust or police legitimacy judgements.

Weisburd and colleagues (2021) reported similar findings. That study evaluated the Assets Coming Together program, an initiative designed to increase community collaboration and problem-solving. The program was randomised across 21 hotspots and control sites in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota over an 18-month period. The Assets Coming Together program comprised three stages. During stage one, officers identified key stakeholders (‘assets’) through conversations during patrols and stabilised local crime problems by identifying ‘liabilities’ (people or organisations contributing to crime at the hotspots). Stage two involved officers developing community partnerships through engagement strategies such as meet-and-greets, block parties and community meetings. The final stage involved officers and residents collaboratively identifying and addressing community concerns. The findings revealed that the Assets Coming Together program increased residents’ collaboration with police at hotspot locations, but had little effect on their view of police legitimacy.

A common feature in the studies described above is that they align with the tenets of procedural justice, a popular policing model that emphasises the need to treat people in a fair and respectful manner. Police are said to be treating people in a procedurally just manner when they: (a) demonstrate respect, (b) display trustworthiness, (c) provide individuals with a voice when making a decision, and (d) display neutrality when dealing with members of the public (Tyler, 2011). Despite the mixed nature of the aforementioned studies, an extensive body of research across several countries and population groups has shown that procedurally just treatment by police promotes trust and legitimacy among members of the public (Murphy et al., 2014; Sunshine and Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2011; Tyler and Huo, 2002).

Typology of community engagement strategies used by police

Here we present a typology of engagement strategies used by police. This type of approach has been proposed by others to assist police better locate ‘communities’ during their engagement efforts (Bartkowiak-Théron & Corbo Crehan, 2010). We use this typology to: (a) highlight the breadth of engagement strategies used by police, and (b) more easily critique the strengths and limitations of common engagement strategies vis-à-vis trust and police legitimacy.

Relations between police and African Australians

Wu and colleagues (2017) note that immigrants’ pre- and post-migratory experiences can shape their perceptions of police in their destination countries. African Australians pre- and post-migratory challenges are well documented and include: experiences of violence; family fragmentation and the loss of family and friends (often at the hands of police in their countries of origin); difficulties in learning English, attaining educational qualifications, securing employment and suitable housing; and racism (Abdelkerim and Grace, 2012; Baak, 2018; Copping and Shakespeare-Finch, 2013; Forson, 2019; Khawaja et al., 2008; Shepherd and Masuka, 2020; Shepherd et al., 2021). Like other immigrant groups who have experienced these events, African Australians can feel socially excluded by broader society and may view police institutions as playing a role in this othering (see Piatkowska, 2015 for similar argument).

In addition to these pre- and post-migratory experiences, the appearance of marginalised groups and their social practices can also shape how they are viewed by police (see Dwyer, 2011 for the sexual and gender diverse minority context). For instance, Black Africans Australians possess a high level of visibility due to their physical appearance (e.g. stature and skin colour) and kinship-based social practices (Colic-Peisker and Tilbury, 2008; Coventry et al., 2015; Hage, 1998). Moreover, it is not uncommon for many young Africans to congregate in large numbers in public spaces. These cultural practices and their high levels of visibility can make African Australians vulnerable to becoming singled out for police attention (Coventry et al., 2015).

The potential for these factors to affect the relationship between African Australians and the police has been seen in several high-profile incidents. For example, in 2012 a group of 16 young African Australian men initiated a civil case in the Australian Federal court against Victoria Police, alleging that some of its members were engaging in racially discriminative police practice against the group (Haile-Michael v Konstantinidis, 2012). The case was the first of its kind in Australia and was settled (in 2013) prior to the hearing with Victoria Police agreeing to review their operational procedures and providing greater cross-cultural training to their officers (Seidel and Hopkins, 2013). More recently, senior police officials labelled a string of violent offences by a small group of young African Australians as the product of ‘African street gangs’ (Ryan and Stayner, 2018). Similar comments were made by senior government officials who claimed that members of the general public were afraid to attend restaurants because of ‘African gang violence’ (Karp, 2018).

The incidents described above have had a considerable impact on African Australians’ views of the police. For example, Coventry et al., (2015) conducted focus group interviews with 88 Sudanese Australians about their experiences with authorities in the state of Queensland. The participants expressed feeling vulnerable due to their experiences of over-policing. They indicated that they were more likely to be seen as perpetrators of crime rather than victims, even though they reported feeling continually harassed by police when in public spaces. Similarly, Benier et al. (2018) conducted focus group interviews with 28 young Sudanese Australians about their views of police and negative media coverage of their community. The findings highlighted a deep sense of mistrust that participants held towards police which stemmed from experiences of racial profiling. Many of the participants recounted feeling intimidated and harassed by police (including mounted and air units) when in public spaces with other African Australians. The participants drew attention to the unequitable level of suspicion directed at their community relative to those who are White.

Obstacles in engagement efforts with African Australians

Police need to be cognisant about the way in which pre- and post-migratory experiences of African Australians can influence their buy-in and participation in engagement initiatives. Beyond community buy-in, these experiences may limit the ‘success’ of police engagement efforts by restricting who takes part, how they take part, and how they – and their community – benefit from by participating. In this section, we outline key obstacles relevant for police engagement with African Australians.

Recommendations for engagement efforts with African Australians

We conclude with several recommendations for police agencies seeking to improve their engagement efforts with African Australians. These recommendations are not presented in order of their importance and are not intended to ‘solve’ the fraught relationship that exists between police and some African Australian communities. Rather, the recommendations should be viewed as potential additions to an existing toolbox of strategies from which police agencies can bolster their community engagement practices.

Prior to implementing specific community engagement initiatives, it is worthwhile for police to recognise and locate sub-communities within the broader African Australian community. African Australian communities have voiced the need for this more nuanced understanding of the diverse groups and cultures that make up the community. For example, consultations with African Australians continue to highlight the frustration experienced by community members when police agencies miscategorise individuals and rely on general understanding of African Australians as a whole (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2010). These experiences could erode the trust of African Australians in police agencies.

To meet this need for greater ethnocultural awareness, police agencies should recognise that some geographical locations in a jurisdiction may be heavily populated by African Australian residents. This is done to facilitate social networks with others from their respective communities when they migrate to Australia (Harvey et al., 2010). Police agencies should draw on their network of established engagement partners to familiarise themselves with various sub-communities in those locations through meet-and-greets alongside well-known and respected community figures.

However, simply becoming more cognisant of sub-communities of African Australians and their needs is not enough to promote trust and police legitimacy. It is also important for police agencies to refine their engagement strategies ontinually over time to ensure they are responsive to the needs of various African Australian communities. How might police agencies ensure that their engagement strategies remain responsive to the community’s needs?

It may be worthwhile for police agencies to reconceptualise what engagement with a community means. As described in Section I, contemporary calls for police to engage better with CALD communities have been in response to instances of police discrimination and brutality against racialised groups. To repair relations in the aftermath of these incidents, police agencies may select one or more of the engagement strategies outlined in our typology. These decisions can be reactionary (Giwa, 2018) and the police are the ones that decide the type of engagement strategy that is to be used (more often than not these decisions include consultation forums).

Perhaps better engagement with African Australian communities involves empowering them to determine what type of engagement is suitable for their needs (rather than those of police organisations) and how often that engagement should occur. This shift would require police agencies to be more transparent about the strengths and limitations of distinct engagement strategies in meeting African Australians’ needs. This could mean that some engagement strategies no longer appeal to African Australians, or that they are modified to better align with their needs. For instance, consultation forums may increasingly come to be seen as tokenistic and may no longer be a preferred engagement approach among African Australian communities unless these forums are attended by senior decision-makers. Alternatively, these communities may decide that the volume of engagement initiatives (without any corresponding institutional change in police policy) does little more than over-engage them and lead to burnout. This would be a considerable shift from the reactionary approach adopted by police agencies, but empowering African Australians in this way could signal a desire to enhance their agency and influence on aspects of policing practice.

Police agencies must recognise the effect of discriminatory policing on African Australians’ trust in police. Research shows the significant damage that personal and vicarious experiences of discriminatory policing has had on African Australians’ trust in police (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2010; Benier et al., 2018; Coventry et al., 2015). These experiences should be considered in light of criminological research showing that people carry their prior experiences (‘priors’) with them when interacting with police and that these previous experiences can shape whether (and how) they engage with police in the future (Brunson and Weitzer, 2009; Skogan, 2012). Moreover, young South Sudanese Australians indicate that aggressive and discriminatory policing can further contribute to antisocial behaviours among some young people (Benier et al., 2018). The behaviours of young African Australians – rather than heavy-handed responses by police – are magnified by media outlets. This in turn exacerbates negative attitudes towards African Australians by broader Australian society including questioning their sense of belonging. Therefore, police agencies should recognise that because of these ripple effects, African Australians may be weary of any police engagement initiatives.

In light of African Australians’ mistrust, police should focus on building contingent trust in the short term given the potential weariness by African Australian communities. Building contingent trust involves the police displaying behaviours that convey trustworthiness and can serve as a precursor for establishing implicit trust in the long term. Police agencies can demonstrate trustworthiness by putting the needs of African Australians before their own during engagement initiatives (e.g. seeking intelligence). One way this could be achieved is by linking services identified by African Australians as necessary for their community (i.e. education and employment) into applicable engagement strategies outlined earlier in our typology.

Community engagement initiatives must not be left entirely to liaison units. Despite young African Australians often reporting negative experiences with frontline police officers, some research suggests that the bulk of community engagement work is typically shouldered by those attached to liaison units (Cherney and Chui, 2010). This creates a problem whereby community members develop trust and understanding with specific individuals within the police, but that trust does not extend to other frontline officers or the police institution more generally. For the benefits of engagement efforts to carry over to African Australians’ views of police more broadly, there is a need for police leaders to stress the importance of positive non-enforcement engagement, especially to frontline officers. One of the reasons cited by some frontline officers for not carrying out engagement efforts is the added workload (Harvey et al., 2010). Although community engagement efforts can be more resource intensive in the short term, they may hold benefits for police–community relations in the long run. These benefits may potentially impact crime control efforts in the long run due to greater levels of community cooperation stemming from enhanced trust in the police.

One way in which police agencies can work towards these long-term goals is by reinforcing the importance of procedural justice to frontline officers. Recent work by Murphy and colleagues (Murphy, 2020; Murphy et al., 2022) provides practical ways in which police can demonstrate procedurally just treatment with minority groups during non-enforcement interactions. For example, police can demonstrate respect by being polite and courteous during interactions, trustworthiness by communicating they have a person's interests in mind during an interaction, voice by providing people with an opportunity to speak before a decision is made by police, and neutrality by providing equitable service to people (i.e. not over- or under-policing).

Finally, we encourage police agencies to be open to criticism from African Australian communities to improve their engagement efforts and service delivery. Murphy (2020) suggest that providing opportunities for minority groups like African Australians with a voice about policing practice that impacts their community is important because it signals to them that their views and feelings are worthy of consideration by police. Research with young African Australians underscores the need for such opportunities. For example, Benier et al.'s (2018) study highlighted how experiences of discriminatory policing evoked feelings of deep hurt and humiliation among young South Sudanese Australians.

Providing a voice to young people from these communities may not only validate these individuals’ feelings, but also allows them to actively participate in developing solutions to address these pressing police–community issues. One challenge that police might face in seeking out feedback from young African Australians is that those who have had negative experiences or are highly mistrustful of the police may be less inclined to take part in initiatives designed for them to express their frustrations. This will require police agencies to go beyond the ‘usual’ community leaders and rely on individuals in the community who may not be viewed as ‘acceptable’ by police, but have credibility with young people who are unmotivated to engage with police and are distrustful of their own community leaders.