Angela Higginson’s research while affiliated with Queensland University of Technology and other places

Background Criminal justice agencies are well positioned to help prevent the radicalisation of individuals and groups, stop those radicalised from engaging in violence, and reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks. This Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) presents the existing evidence and gaps in the evaluation research. Objectives To identify the existing evidence that considers the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions in preventing radicalisation, violent extremism and terrorism. Search Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of the academic and grey literature to locate relevant studies for the EGM. Our search locations included the Global Policing Database (GPD), eight electronic platforms encompassing over 20 academic databases, five trial registries and over 30 government and non‐government websites. The systematic search was carried out between 8 June 2022 and 1 August 2022. Selection Criteria We captured criminal justice interventions published between January 2002 and December 2021 that aimed to prevent radicalisation, violent extremism, and/or terrorism. Criminal justice agencies were broadly defined to include police, courts, and corrections (both custodial and community). Eligible populations included criminal justice practitioners, places, communities or family members, victims, or individuals/groups who are radicalised or at risk of becoming radicalised. Our map includes systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials, and strong quasi‐experimental studies. We placed no limits on study outcomes, language, or geographic location. Data Collection and Analysis Our screening approach differed slightly for the different sources, but all documents were assessed in the systematic review software program DistillerSR on the same final eligibility criteria. Once included, we extracted information from studies using a standardised form that allowed us to collect key data for our EGM. Eligible systematic reviews were assessed for risk of bias using the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool. Main Results The systematic search identified 63,763 unique records. After screening, there were 70 studies eligible for the EGM (from 71 documents), of which two were systematic reviews (assessed as moderate quality), 16 were randomised controlled trials, and 52 were strong quasi‐experimental studies. The majority of studies (n = 58) reported on policing interventions. Limited evidence was found related to courts or corrections interventions. The impact of these interventions was measured by a wide variety of outcomes (n = 50). These measures were thematically grouped under nine broad categories including (1) terrorism, (2) extremism or radicalisation, (3) non‐terror related crime and recidivism, (4) citizen perceptions/intentions toward the criminal justice system and government, (5) psychosocial, (6) criminal justice practitioner behaviours/attitudes/beliefs, (7) racially targeted criminal justice practices, (8) investigation efficacy, and (9) organisational factors. The most commonly assessed outcomes included measures of terrorism, investigation efficacy, and organisational factors. Very limited research assessed intervention effectiveness against measures of extremism and/or radicalisation. Authors’ Conclusions Conducting high‐quality evaluation research on rare and hidden problems presents a challenge for criminal justice research. The map reveals a number of significant gaps in studies evaluating criminal justice responses to terrorism and radicalisation. We conclude that future research should focus attention on studies that consolidate sound measurement of terrorism‐related outcomes to better capture the potential benefits and harms of counter‐terrorism programs, policies and practices which involve criminal justice agencies.

Evidence-based policing (EBP) has become a key perspective for practitioners and researchers concerned with the future of policing. This volume provides both a review of where evidence-based policing stands today and a consideration of emerging trends and ideas likely to be important in the future. It includes comparative and international contributions, as well as researcher and practitioner perspectives. While emphasizing traditional evidence-based methods and approaches, the book also identifies barriers to the advancement of evidence-based policing and expands the vision of evidence-based policing by critically examining ethical and moral concerns and questions. The book's main focus is not on what has to happen in police agencies to advance EBP, but rather on an issue that has received far less attention - the science that is necessary to produce for EBP to be successfully integrated into policing.

Young people with mental illness are significantly more likely to encounter the police than their counterparts who do not identify as having a mental illness. Yet little is known regarding how this cohort perceives the police and whether they believe the police to be a fair, trustworthy, and legitimate service. Research suggests that young people and other vulnerable groups (such as adults with mental illness) value procedural justice policing as a technique for nurturing fair and trustworthy policing, which in turn, increases satisfaction with police interactions and willingness to cooperate with police. This study uses procedural justice as a lens for analysing the perceptions of young people with mental illnesses regarding the police. Drawing upon survey data from a sample of 3147 Australian participants aged between 14 and 25 years old – a third of which identified as having a mental health condition – results demonstrate that young people with a mental illness offered significantly lower perceptions of the police in relation to procedural justice. Young people identifying as not heterosexual or as trans* or gender diverse, and those who report that they are not seen as Australian, also offered significantly lower perceptions of police procedural justice. A theoretical explanation is offered for why these marginalised young groups perceive the police to be procedurally unjust. Tactics for how the police may nurture more trusting and supporting relationships with young people in general are also discussed.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: to identify the existing evidence that considers the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions in preventing terrorism and radicalisation and to identify existing gaps in the evidence where new primary research could be undertaken and where future synthesis could be conducted.

The Campbell Collaboration is a non-profit research network that aims to produce and disseminate high-quality systematic reviews on the effectiveness of social interventions. The Campbell Collaboration's work is underpinned by the practical aim of informing evidence-based decision-making: by increasing the accessibility of high quality systematic reviews and evidence synthesis it aims to equip policymakers, practitioners, and services users with quality evidence to inform their decision-making. Seed funding for the Campbell Collaboration was initially provided by the Smith Richardson Foundation in 1999. When the Campbell Collaboration was founded in 2000, three coordinating groups with substantive focus were created: education, social welfare, and crime and justice. The editorial process for systematic reviews is managed by the coordinating groups; however, a review may be co-registered across coordinating groups or co-registered with the Cochrane Collaboration if appropriate.

Background Multiagency responses to reduce radicalisation often involve collaborations between police, government, nongovernment, business and/or community organisations. The complexities of radicalisation suggest it is impossible for any single agency to address the problem alone. Police‐involved multiagency partnerships may disrupt pathways from radicalisation to violence by addressing multiple risk factors in a coordinated manner. Objectives 1. Synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of police‐involved multiagency interventions on radicalisation or multiagency collaboration 2. Qualitatively synthesise information about how the intervention works (mechanisms), intervention context (moderators), implementation factors and economic considerations. Search Methods Terrorism‐related terms were used to search the Global Policing Database, terrorism/counterterrorism websites and repositories, and relevant journals for published and unpublished evaluations conducted 2002–2018. The search was conducted November 2019. Expert consultation, reference harvesting and forward citation searching was conducted November 2020. Selection Criteria Eligible studies needed to report an intervention where police partnered with at least one other agency and explicitly aimed to address terrorism, violent extremism or radicalisation. Objective 1 eligible outcomes included violent extremism, radicalisation and/or terrorism, and multiagency collaboration. Only impact evaluations using experimental or robust quasi‐experimental designs were eligible. Objective 2 placed no limits on outcomes. Studies needed to report an empirical assessment of an eligible intervention and provide data on mechanisms, moderators, implementation or economic considerations. Data Collection and Analysis The search identified 7384 records. Systematic screening identified 181 studies, of which five were eligible for Objective 1 and 26 for Objective 2. Effectiveness studies could not be meta‐analysed, so were summarised and effect size data reported. Studies for Objective 2 were narratively synthesised by mechanisms, moderators, implementation, and economic considerations. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS‐I, EPHPP, EMMIE and CASP checklists. Results One study examined the impact on vulnerability to radicalisation, using a quasi‐experimental matched comparison group design and surveys of volunteers (n = 191). Effects were small to medium and, aside from one item, favoured the intervention. Four studies examined the impact on the nature and quality of multiagency collaboration, using regression models and surveys of practitioners. Interventions included: alignment with national counterterrorism guidelines (n = 272); number of counterterrorism partnerships (n = 294); influence of, or receipt of, homeland security grants (n = 350, n = 208). Study findings were mixed. Of the 181 studies that examined mechanisms, moderators, implementation, and economic considerations, only 26 studies rigorously examined mechanisms (k = 1), moderators (k = 1), implementation factors (k = 21) or economic factors (k = 4). All included studies contained high risk of bias and/or methodological issues, substantially reducing confidence in the findings. Authors' Conclusions A limited number of effectiveness studies were identified, and none evaluated the impact on at‐risk or radicalised individuals. More investment needs to be made in robust evaluation across a broader range of interventions. Qualitative synthesis suggests that collaboration may be enhanced when partners take time to build trust and shared goals, staff are not overburdened with administration, there are strong privacy provisions for intelligence sharing, and there is ongoing support and training.

The Australian Youth Safety Survey is an online survey of young Australians focusing on their experiences of identity, diversity, and safety. Participants shared information about their sense of identity and their attitudes to ethnicity, immigration, and police, their feelings about their families, peers, schools, and neighbourhoods, as well as their history of victimisation or offending. This Technical Report summarises the responses collected from a diverse group of 3,147 young people aged between 14 and 25, living in urban, regional, and remote Australia. https://research.qut.edu.au/centre-for-justice/wp-content/uploads/sites/304/2020/12/HIGGINSON-Research-Report-2020.pdf