This opinion piece is one of several I have recently written with the help of generative AI, which I use to organise ideas that have been sitting in my head for too long. The thoughts are mine; the tools help me get the first draft on the page. You should try it. Policing has historically struggled to base practice on rigorous evidence. Decisions were often guided by tradition, instinct, or perceived good practice rather than by robust evaluation or empirical testing. That is changing. Across operational meetings, professional practice forums, multi-agency partnerships, and applied academic conferences, police officers increasingly describe their work as data-informed and evidence-led. There is genuine interest in understanding what works, what does not, and what may cause unintended harm. This shift reflects a maturing profession that values the opportunity to learn from high-quality research and to deploy resources in ways that maximise public safety. At the same time, policing is entering a period of rapid technological expansion. Artificial intelligence has moved from niche analytical applications to a field of general-purpose tools with potentially transformative impacts. Generative AI promises efficiencies, novel forms of insight, and new capabilities for summarising, interpreting and interacting with vast volumes of information. The pressure to adopt these tools is significant. Resources are stretched, demands are rising and diversifying, and governments are actively encouraging police and other public services to explore and harness AI. This makes it more important than ever to draw a clear distinction between being data-driven and being evidence-based. A system that uses data is not inherently grounded in evidence. Data provides a record of what was observed. Evidence tells us if something works, if it is safe, if it is fair, and if it is likely to achieve the outcomes we claim. Too often, technological tools are adopted on the assumption that because they process data, they must be objective and effective. That is a category error. Evidence is established through transparency, scrutiny, evaluation, and replication. Without this, tools that happen to use data run the risk of becoming vehicles for harm. This distinction becomes especially critical where AI is embedded in policing. I am optimistic about the potential of AI. These tools can offer real value if they are deployed within practical governance frameworks, and if their effectiveness and impacts are systematically monitored and evaluated. There are opportunities to improve decision-making, reduce administrative burdens, support investigations, and generate insights that would otherwise be inaccessible. However, without careful evaluation and meaningful oversight, we risk sleepwalking into problems that could set policing back significantly. Ineffective or harmful technologies will damage public trust. They will drain already stretched resources. They will undermine the legitimacy of evidence-based practice. This challenge is further amplified by the speed and scale at which private sector vendors are moving into this space, often marketing powerful systems to forces whose capacity to appraise, test, and monitor what is being sold to them is limited. A single high-profile failure in deploying these new, potentially transformative AI applications could poison the well, making it far harder for genuinely beneficial tools to gain acceptance in the future. The task is therefore to ensure that AI adoption aligns with the principles of evidence-based policing. That means clearly defining the problem a tool is intended to solve; planning evaluations before deployment, not after; running trials and phased testing before scaling; and scrutinising accuracy, bias, operational impacts, proportionality, and public acceptability throughout. It also means learning from other sectors that have already faced similar challenges. Crucially, it means recognising that an AI tool is not evidence-based simply because it happens to use data. AI can genuinely deliver for policing and for society if we treat its adoption as an evidence-generation challenge, not as a procurement exercise. The goal should be to build a future where technology strengthens practice because it has been scrutinised, tested, and shown to work. That is how we avoid repeating past mistakes, protect fragile public trust, and realise the positive potential of AI in the long term. Dan Birks, Professor of Computational Social Science at the University of Leeds Dan is also Deputy Director and Data Science Lead at the ESRC Vulnerability & Policing Futures Research Centre, and Co-Director of the Yorkshire Policing-Academic Centre of Excellence (TYP-ACE), jointly hosted by the Universities of Leeds and York. TYP-ACE is one of nine nationally recognised Policing-Academic Centres of Excellence established by the NPCC and UKRI.

The Society of Evidence Based Policing (SEBP) is searching for a Head of Engagement who will help us build a national movement that puts evidence at the heart of police practice. With backing from the Youth Endowment Fund, we're scaling up to connect officers, researchers, and innovators across the UK to reduce harm and improve decision-making. The opportunity This isn't just another communications role – it's a chance to shape how thousands of police officers and leaders think about and use evidence in their daily work. As our second employed staff member, you'll have a genuine hand in building an organisation from the ground up. We need someone who can be our connection-maker, storyteller, and movement-builder. You'll lead our outreach, digital communications, and membership growth, turning complex research into actionable insights that drive real change across police forces. What you'll do As Head of Engagement, you'll own the strategy and delivery of connecting the policing community with evidence that works. This means designing mentoring programmes, running engaging webinars, and working directly with forces to embed evidence-based approaches – particularly those that reduce violence involving children. You'll transform our Members' Hub into a vibrant resource, manage our digital presence across all platforms, and find creative ways to reach and inspire our growing community. It's strategic and hands-on: one day you might be crafting a social media campaign, the next you could be standing in front of senior police leaders making the case for evidence-based practice. What we're looking for Essential Exceptional communication skills – can turn complex ideas into clear, actionable messages Digital fluency across websites, social media, and online events Credibility to engage and influence policing audiences at all levels Strategic thinking with hands-on delivery Self-motivated and comfortable working remotely Track record in engagement, communications, or membership development Desirable: Experience with evidence-based policing, criminology, or applied social science Background in designing change programmes in complex organisations Understanding of policing culture and operational realities Experience with grant-making organisations The package Salary: £45,000 per annum Contract: 2-year fixed term, full-time Leave: 25 days + UK bank holidays Working: Fully remote (UK-based), flexible hours Benefits: Employer pension contribution, equipment provided Impact: Shape a growing national movement at the heart of UK policing reform Ready to apply? Send your CV and a short cover letter (max 2 pages) explaining why you're right for this role to coo@sebp.police.uk by 21st December 2025.

A recurring theme in my conversations about evidence-based policing (EBP) is how comfortably it sits within certain parts of policing — and how absent it feels in others. We’ve come to expect evaluation in fields like neighbourhood policing, domestic abuse response or stop-and-search. But what about the areas of policing that operate more quietly, behind the scenes — the ones that rarely feature in research journals or conference case-studies? Financial investigation is one of those areas. I recently travelled up to Newcastle to spend some time with financial investigators from across the North East and Yorkshire — a reminder for me that this is a highly professional, specialist branch of policing with decades of practice behind it. These are the officers who trace illicit cash-flows, map networks of shell companies, and use the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) to take the profit out of organised crime. Organised Crime Groups (OCGs) are, at their core, motivated by money. Financial investigators give us one of the most direct routes to attack that motivation — to disincentivise participation in organised crime, not through the threat of incarceration, but by removing the reward. It’s a powerful idea. The challenge is that we don’t actually know how much difference it makes in practice. This piece is about that gap — and what we can do, realistically, to close it. It’s both a reflection and a call to action: for the Home Office, for academia, and for practitioners to collaborate in finding out what really works when we target the money, not just the people. The missing leg of the stool Evidence-based policing rests on three legs: Professional judgement, Public and political priorities, and The best available research In financial investigation, the first two are solid. Investigators are among the most analytically minded professionals in policing, and the public and political appetite to “make crime not pay” is unwavering. But the third leg — robust research — is conspicuously short. The College of Policing’s Evidence Gap Map confirms how sparse the evidence is in this field.  One of the few serious attempts to study it — the Home Office’s 2012 report, “The Contribution of Financial Investigation to Tackling Organised Crime” — found that financial investigation regularly added value: identifying assets, mapping networks, strengthening prosecutions but was  rarely used to identify organised crime in the first place . It was also silent on the effects on future offending. Over a decade on, we know the powers are being used — thousands of cash and account forfeiture orders every year, over £700 million recovered in six years . But we still can’t say, with confidence, what difference that makes. What we know (and what we don’t) UK reviews have painted a mixed picture. Confiscation orders, imposed after conviction, are the main route for taking the proceeds of crime. But as the National Audit Office noted, criminals still keep “around £99 out of every £100” they make. Enforcement has improved — especially with the creation of regional Asset Confiscation Enforcement (ACE) teams — but total recovery still represents a tiny fraction of the criminal economy. Non-conviction powers, by contrast, are fast becoming the workhorses of asset recovery. Account Freezing Orders and cash forfeitures now account for almost half of all recovered criminal assets. They are flexible, they can be used early, and they bite hardest where conviction is least likely. But again, the  impact  — on crime disruption or deterrence — remains largely unmeasured. A pragmatic path forward When I spoke with investigators in Newcastle, they described how most of their work is directed by available intelligence or by the quality of initial lines of inquiry — reactive by necessity. When I asked which made the bigger difference, a criminal conviction with a confiscation order or a non-conviction forfeiture, the room fell silent for a moment. Most instinctively said the former, but everyone agreed:  no one really knows . That’s not a failing — it’s an opportunity. We don’t need to wait for a perfect experiment to start learning. The “purist versus pragmatist” debate in evidence-based practice misses the point. Pragmatism doesn’t mean cutting corners; it means using what’s available to make knowledge cumulative rather than anecdotal. We don’t necessarily need a lot of research funding to make progress. Financial investigation produces mountains of administrative data — values, timelines, crime types, case outcomes, order enforcement rates. With thoughtful design, we can use that to start exploring what works: through before-and-after analysis, matched comparisons, or structured case audits. It’s about  feeling our way in the half-light , rather than standing still in the dark. Measuring what matters Finding good outcome measures is one of the hardest tasks in this part of policing. Convicted re-offending tells us little — the cohort is small and biased. OCG disruption panel scores give useful context, but are inherently subjective. Yet there are data points within reach: Repeat association within financial intelligence systems, The time it takes a known network to re-form after seizure, Trends in asset types or recovery values linked to OCGs, The ratio of assets seized to estimated market turnover. None of these are perfect. But they are  better than nothing  — and they’re measurable. Pragmatism in evidence-based policing means acknowledging limitation without surrendering to it. A call to action If we want to extend the reach of EBP beyond its traditional boundaries (something SEBP does), we must support specialist policing areas like financial investigation. We should start by asking a single, deceptively simple question: Does a non-conviction POCA order — cash, bank balance or crypto-forfeiture — cause more disruption (or equivalent disruption) to crime than a criminal conviction and confiscation order? That question could reshape strategy, priorities, and funding. It’s also answerable, if we’re willing to get pragmatic and collaborative — to connect researchers, analysts and practitioners, and to make better use of the data we already hold. The financial investigators I met in Newcastle instinctively know that  hitting the money hurts . The task for evidence-based policing is to help them prove it — and in doing so, to expand what “evidence-based” really means for policing as a whole.

BETA Contact us to help improve this site < About us Our people Operations Committee Matt Bland Chief Operating Officer Responsibility for the operational delivery of the SEBP's mission and objectives. Matt is currently the only paid member staff at the SEBP. James Watson Design Lead Responsibility for developing and managing the SEBP's digital assets. James is the Lead Service Designer for Policing and Security at the Home Office. Susanne Knabe-Nicol Digital Engagement Lead Responsibility creating for educational and promotional media content for the SEBP. Susanne is a Lecturer and Programme Leader at London Middlesex University. Ruth Halkon Staff Writer Responsibility creating for authoring the SEBP's newsletter and other articles. Ruth is a Researcher at the Police Foundation. Nicole Graveson Events Lead Responsibility for organising the annual conference and other major SEBP events. Nicole is an Events Officer at the Police Foundation. Reference Committee Nerys Thomas Committee Member Nerys is the Knowledge, Research & Practice Lead at the College of Policing. Roger Hirst Committee Member Roger is the Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Essex. Rick Muir Committee Member Rick is the former Director of the Police Foundation. Stevie-Jade Hardy Committee Member Stevie is the Head of Change for Policing & Youth Justice at the Youth Endowment Fund (YEF). Nick Dale Committee Member Nick is the Vice President for the Police Sector at CGI. Regional Network Neil Ralph Chair of Regional Network & South West Co-ordinator Responsibility for Avon & Somerset Police, Devon & Cornwall Police, Dorset Police, Gloucestershire Constabulary and Wiltshire Police Millie Garrod Eastern Co-ordinator Responsibility for Cambridgeshire Constabulary, Bedfordshire Police, Essex Police, Hertfordshire Constabulary, Norfolk Constabulary and Suffolk Constabulary. Peter Bodley London Co-ordinator Responsibility for the City of London Police and Metropolitan Police Service. Thomas Young London Deputy Co-ordinator Responsibility for the City of London Police and Metropolitan Police Service Kate Anderson Midlands Co-ordinator Responsibility for Derbyshire Constabulary, Leicester Police, Lincolnshire Police, Northamptonshire Police, Nottinghamshire Police, Staffordshire Police, Warwickshire Police, West Mercia Police and West Midlands Police Lee Gosling North East Co-ordinator Responsibility for Cleveland Police, Durham Constabulary and Northumbria Police Annabel Straw North West Co-ordinator (Shared) Responsibility for Cheshire Constabulary, Cumbria Constabulary, Greater Manchester Police, Lancashire Constabulary and Merseyside Police Julia Hall North West Co-ordinator (Shared) Responsibility for Cheshire Constabulary, Cumbria Constabulary, Greater Manchester Police, Lancashire Constabulary and Merseyside Police Richard Simpson Northern Ireland Co-ordinator Responsibility for the Police Service of Northern Ireland (Seirbhís Póilíneachta Thuaisceart Éireann) Jon Harris Scotland Co-ordinator Responsibility for Police Scotland (Poileas Alba) Jennifer Norman South East Co-ordinator (Shared) Responsibility for Hampshire & Isle of Wight Constabulary, Kent Police, Surrey Police, Sussex Police and Thames Valley Police Matt Burbeck South East Co-ordinator (Shared) Responsibility for Hampshire & Isle of Wight Constabulary, Kent Police, Surrey Police, Sussex Police and Thames Valley Police Anna Baker Wales Co-ordinator Responsibility for Dyfed-Powys Police, Gwent Police, North Wales Police and South Wales Police Vacant Yorkshire & the Humber Co-ordinator Responsibility for Humberside Police, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire Police and West Yorkshire Police Ben Havers Specialist Police Forces Co-ordinator Responsibility for British Transport Police, Civil Nuclear Constabulary and Ministry of Defence Police. Trustees Alex Murray Founding Trustee Alex brings a wealth of policing experience to the SEBP, with his most notable roles including Chief Constable at West Mercia Police, Commander for Serious Violence at the Metropolitan Police Service and Assistant Chief Constable at West Midlands Police. He is currently Director of Threat Leadership at the NCA. Simon Ruda Chair of Trustees Simon has worked for and with police for over a decade, including as Director of Home Affairs & International Programmes at BIT, and Head of the Strategic Insight Unit at the Metropolitan Police Service. He is currently an independent consultant. Ben Linton Trustee Ben held a wide variety of leadership, operational and strategic roles over nearly 17 years at the Metropolitan Police Service, ending his time as a Chief Inspector. Lewis Linton Trustee Lewis has helped various businesses navigate their finances over the years, and has supported the SEBP since it was founded.

BETA Contact us to help improve this site < About us Our partners & supporters

BETA Contact us to help improve this site < About us What is evidence-based policing? Evidence-based policing (EBP) is the philosophy and practice of using the best available research evidence to guide and evaluate decisions in policing. It's not about replacing experience or professional judgment but enhancing them with rigorous and relevant research. EBP can inform anything and everything from crime prevention strategies to organisational policies. The main principles of EBP include: Using scientific methods to evaluate what works, what doesn’t, and why. Emphasising prevention of crime, harm, demand, and efficiency of practice by ensuring resources are allocated to the most effective practices as established by those scientific methods Applying evidence across all levels of policing, from frontline officers to senior leaders, support staff to volunteers, suppliers to governing bodies. As you will see from this guidance and other resources, EBP is not black and white. There is no manual which says ‘you must do this to achieve that’ . Research evidence is sometimes complicated, limited or simply doesn’t exist. Being ‘evidence-based’ doesn’t mean slavishly following a set of rules, it means using evidence to inform decisions.

In this introductory course, SEBP's Chief Operating Officer, Dr Matt Bland, aims to provide an introduction to the subject and offer a structured approach for further learning about EBP. The program begins with definitions and an overview of the scientific process. It then moves on to how research is put together and teaches tips on how to find and interpret evidence-based papers, the challenges of implementation and how to do EBP in an ethical way. The course is around 8 hours and involves cheat sheet resources, quizzes, and case studies.