Views from the frontline: graduate police recruits on the status of evidence-based practice

This paper presents findings from in-depth interviews with 30 police recruits participating in a national two-year graduate training programme. Police Now comprises a six-week training course followed by a neighbourhood policing post where operational skills are developed, and recruits are encouraged to apply problem-solving and evidence-based approaches to police work. This research was undertaken as part of a project to inform the development and implementation of the Degree Holder Entry Programme (DHEP) into policing. We explore interviewees’ perceptions about the value placed by police colleagues on evidence-based practice and how different responses to EBP were ‘managed’ by interviewees. Findings show a largely disengaged attitude towards research, creating disconnect between ‘classroom’ emphasis and practice experience. Interviewees’ accounts of their first months in force show potential for rejection of training ideals but also willingness to challenge the perceived status quo regarding evidence-based practice. We reflect on the implications of findings for introducing the DHEP

An evaluation of the What Works Centre for Crime Reduction: final report

The ‘What Works Network’, launched in 2013, is a nationally co-ordinated initiative which aims to “improve the way government and other organisations create, share and use high quality evidence for decision-making”. The What Works philosophy is that good decision-making should be informed by the best available evidence. If relevant or adequate evidence is unavailable, decision-makers should be encouraged to use high quality methods to find out ‘what works’. The What Works Centre for Crime Reduction (WWCCR) was launched in September 2013, led by a team from the College of Policing with support from an Academic Consortium. Its work involves: Building and refining the evidence base by systematically reviewing available research on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce crime; summarising that evidence in terms of its strength and quality, cost, impact, mechanisms (why it works), context (where it works) and implementation issues; Providing police, Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) and other crime reduction stakeholders with the knowledge, tools and guidance to help them target their resources more effectively. Our three and a half year evaluation - 2014 to 2017 - conducted alongside the work of the Consortium, but independently of it, aimed to: Assess the impact of the WWCCR, including whether it had engaged key stakeholders, produced tools and guidance that they found clear and easy to use, and improved stakeholder understanding and application of research evidence; Chart outputs, modes of dissemination and user reactions during the evaluation; Identify changes in use of research evidence, especially in strategic decision-making and resource allocatio

The N8 Policing Research Partnership: examining the first four years

This report presents findings from 20 qualitative interviews with senior police officers, Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) and national policy leads, all of whom were knowledgeable about the N8 PRP and evidence-based policing (EBP) and from a survey of staff in the N8 Policing Research Partnership (PRP) police forces. The qualitative interviews aimed to evaluate the benefits and challenges of the first four years of the N8 PRP from the perspective of regional and national policing experts. The survey was designed to assess uses made of N8 products and to see how the N8 PRP was seen by police officers and other staff

Chief officer misconduct in policing: an exploratory study

Key findings This study has examined cases of alleged misconduct involving chief police officers and staff. The aim was to describe the nature of cases that have come to light, examine the perceived pathways that led to misconduct, and suggest ways of mitigating the risks of misconduct. The study is based on interviews with key stakeholders and with investigating officers in chief officer misconduct cases since April 2008. These cases involved only a small minority of chief officers over the time-period in question. What sorts of cases have come to light since 2008? Cases involving chief officer misconduct fell into two broad categories: those associated with professional decision-making, and those related to interpersonal conduct. Cases involving professional decision-making included: abuses of due process and other forms of misrepresentation; suppression of information and dishonesty; abuses of force procedures relating to recruitment and procurement; material/financial misconduct; and other forms of professional misjudgement. Cases involving interpersonal conduct included: bullying; expressions of racist or sexist prejudice; and sexual misconduct. In around a third of cases, no misconduct was found, reflecting levels of chief officer exposure to scrutiny, vexatious or unfounded allegations, and the collective responsibility they carry for their police force. What are the routes into misconduct? The ‘ethical climate’ of a police force is a key determinant of chief officer misconduct. Ethical climate is shaped by leadership styles, the organisational ethos, training and selection procedures, styles of performance management, and wider social norms. Behaviour is shaped by individual vulnerabilities, including absence of ethical or emotional support, lack of challenge, exposure to corrupting influences, and cognitive failures in decision-making. In a number of cases those involved in misconduct believed that their role as leaders excepted themselves from organisational rules and regulations; this cognitive failure explains why, in several cases, those involved refused to accept that they had done anything wrong. How can the risks of chief officer misconduct be mitigated? Ethical standards will improve with greater openness of debate on police ethics. Publication of the Code of Ethics (College of Policing 2014a) may help achieve this. There are differences between forces, and regulatory and oversight bodies about ethical standards and the thresholds between acceptable conduct, misconduct and gross misconduct, and how they are investigated. A key task is in creating a greater consensus on these issues, which requires open debate. Police organisational responses should be commensurate with proportionality and public interest; both of which have implications for the costs involved. Chief officers need to recognise the specific risks of cognitive failure that organisational leaders face, and the temptations of excepting themselves from rules and norms. It is important to encourage an organisational ethos in which leaders can be challenged, and in which leaders are given the right sort of support when faced with ethical challenges. There needs to be more recognition of the impact of selection and training processes, and of performance management systems, on the ethical climate of police organisations. It was clear that across chief officer ranks as a whole the appetite is very much for change. Indeed, it was clear that the very change interviewees spoke of had already started to embed itself among many chief officer teams around the country