myAIPMPolicing Social Distancing: Gaining and Maintaining Compliance in the Age of Coronavirus
Sara Grace | Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice
Abstract
Drawing on motivational posturing theory (MPT) and procedural justice theory (PJT), this article makes recommendations for how best to secure compliance with social distancing regulations. Applying those theories to—mostly observational—data from a study on the use and impact of penalty notices for disorder, the influences on cooperation during police–citizen encounters are explored. Whilst focusing on the English data/regulations, as both MPT and PJT have been tested internationally, the conclusions have relevance beyond these shores. The article proposes a sixth posture—compulsion, a form of resistant compliance—to the five set out by MPT. Focusing attention not just on whether compliance is achieved but how recognizes the risk to future legitimacy posed by only achieving compliance through coercion or the threat thereof. Lessons from the research are applied to policing social distancing, with regards to: securing compliance during interactions, self-regulation and enforcement action, and how to preserve police legitimacy.
Introduction
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 give police in England the power to issue £100 on-the-spot fines (up to £3,200 for subsequent offences1) to enforce new rules on social distancing which aim to prevent the spread of the COVID-19. Officers may also use powers of arrest and remove people to their home. The College of Policing and NPCC (2020, p. 17) have called on forces to be consistent and adopt an ‘inquisitive, questioning mind-set’, only using enforcement powers as a last resort. This is underpinned by a four-step approach: engage with people, explain the risks they are posing to themselves and others, encourage them to adhere to the regulations and, if they do not, enforce the law using on-the-spot fines, arrest, and/or prosecution. Policing social distancing is a very particular and peculiar circumstance. However, there are some parallels with policing anti-social behaviour through existing dispersal powers and penalty notices for disorder (PNDs). New rules prohibited public gatherings of more than two people except in certain limited circumstances and imposed restrictions on movement ‘without reasonable excuse’ (emphasis added, see sections 7 and 6, correct as at 13 May 2020). Whilst the Regulations give a non-exhaustive list of such exceptions, the law lacks the specificities of government advice. For example, guidance, but not the law, initially limited people to just ‘one form of exercise a day’ (Cabinet Office, 2020) (see section 6(2)(b), correct as at 13 May 2020). And, just as there may be disagreement over, for example, whether any given behaviour is ‘likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress’ (in breach of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and punishable by PND), so too conflict may occur over whether a person has a ‘reasonable excuse' to circumvent restrictions on movement. Given these parallels, existing research on the use and impact of PNDs can offer some insight into how best to achieve compliance with the new rules.
This article brings together research on motivational posturing theory (MPT) and procedural justice theory (PJT) to analyse data on: policing in the night-time economy (NTE)—the first application of MPT in that context2—and the use of PNDs, before applying these findings to policing social distancing. The article is structured into three parts: first, it sets out the literature on why people comply with authorities. Secondly, it outlines the findings from a study on the use of PNDs (Grace, 2014a)—drawing, especially on observations of police–citizen interactions in the NTE and document analysis of PNDs, as well as interviews and surveys with PND recipients—to explore what influences, in particular, short-term compliance with the police during encounters, as well as payment of PNDs and future offending (i.e. mid- and long-term compliance). In doing so, the article answers calls to draw on observational research in developing our understanding of procedural fairness and its influence on compliance with the police (Radburn and Stott, 2019). Observations allow for consideration of the dynamic nature of police–citizen interactions and examination of how, when, and why people move from more to less compliant postures (and back). Based on this analysis, it is proposed that in addition to the five motivational postures set out by Braithwaite (2003a), there is a sixth: compulsion. Finally, based on the findings from this research, as well as broader literature on procedural justice and motivational posturing theories, recommendations are made for how we might best police social distancing to secure compliance and legitimacy. Whilst the focus here is on the Regulations in England and data drawn from that context, MPT and PJT are empirically driven theories which have been tested internationally—in particular, in the UK, USA, Australia, and mainland Europe—and so the conclusions have relevance beyond these shores.
Read more
Policing Social Distancing: Gaining and Maintaining Compliance in the Age of Coronavirus, Sara Grace, Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 2020