Search this site

Announcing Our Winning Research Thank you to everyone who joined our first Police Graduate Research Showcase. The standard of research presented was outstanding, and we are grateful to every officer who shared their hard work and insights with us. Thank you to our academic partners for putting on this showcase with us. Presentations were drawn from the Police Constable Degree Apprenticeship programme - a scheme that combines frontline experience with academic study, developing officers who can question, analyse and improve their practice. As our host, Dr Matt Bland observed on the day, these officers have not only learned how to do the job, but how to think about it and challenge it too. A winning presentation was selected from each category by a panel of judges. We are delighted to announce the four winners below, each of whom has been invited to present at The National Evidence-Based Policing Conference in September and has received a nomination for the prestigious Emerging Talent Award. The winning presentation from each category were: DC Karl McCrombie (Merseyside Police) who presented his research titled, 'Unheard Voices: Barriers to Reporting Intimate Partner Violence and Police Response Effectiveness'. Karl's research explored why so many victims of intimate partner violence do not report to police and why well-intentioned policies can sometimes make things worse. He found that victims often do not recognise coercive or psychological abuse as abuse at all, while financial dependency, children, and deep-seated shame act as powerful barriers to coming forward. A particularly striking finding concerned mandatory arrest policies. The evidence showed these have no material impact on re-offending, and can have serious unintended consequences: when abusers phone police first and portray themselves as the victim, officers operating under mandatory arrest policies can end up arresting the actual victim. The shock and distress of being arrested, especially for someone in a position of trust, can permanently damage their confidence in the police and deter future reporting. Karl's research called for arrests to be treated as one option, not the automatic default, for officers to develop professional curiosity at the scene, and for confidential disclosure services to be offered to victims - something Merseyside Police has since implemented. PC Brad Feather (West Yorkshire Police) who presented his research titled, 'Should operational police officers be authorised to carry and administer Naloxone in the UK?' Brad's research was sparked by a moment during a shift when he attended an overdose and could do nothing effective until paramedics arrived and administered naloxone. The reversal was immediate. That experience led him to ask: why don't frontline officers have access to this drug? Naloxone is a nasal spray that reverses opioid overdoses within minutes, can be given by anyone, and carries minimal risk. With drug poisoning deaths rising every year since 2012, and police consistently the first on scene at overdose incidents, Brad's research made a compelling case for officers to carry it as standard personal protective equipment. Brad recommended that: - naloxone be issued to all officers as standard PPE, - that national training guidance be developed, and - that formal working agreements be established between police and ambulance services. Forces including North Yorkshire have since moved to equip most officers with promising early results. PC Oliver Willows (Suffolk Police) who presented his research titled, 'What are the most effective strategies employed by Police Forces to deter and reduce instances of drink and drug driving to improve road safety'. Oliver's research highlighted a stark and growing problem: drug driving is rising far faster than drink driving, yet the tools and training available to officers have not kept pace. In Suffolk, the roadside drug wipe currently detects only cannabis and cocaine, missing ketamine, opiates and amphetamines, which are increasingly present in driving offence cases. Oliver himself has been on response for four years without the opportunity to receive drug testing training. Applying deterrence theory, which holds that people are less likely to offend when being caught feels certain, swift and severe, Oliver proposed four practical recommendations: - upgrading roadside drug testing equipment to detect a wider range of substances; - using deterrent signage in pub and club car parks based on the behavioural "nudge" approach; - introducing alcohol interlocks for repeat offenders; - running influencer-led social media campaigns targeting the Gen Z and millennial demographics who account for the majority of these offences. More than 316 people die from drink and drug driving each year. Oliver's research makes the case that prevention, visibility and modern technology must work together to bring that number down. PC Sheridan Hobson (South Yorkshire Police) who presented her research titled, 'Investigate and develop the attitudes and perceptions of neurodiversity in the workforce in South Yorkshire Police and how could it be improved?' Sheridan's research came from personal experience. Working on a response team, she observed first hand the stumbling blocks that neurodivergent officers face and the misconceptions that surround them. Her dissertation set out to understand: - how South Yorkshire Police (SYP) supports its neurodivergent staff, - how those staff members are perceived by colleagues - what could concretely be done better. Using an anonymous questionnaire and thematic analysis, Sheridan found that disclosure is widely experienced as a tick-box exercise with no real follow-up. Whether a neurodivergent officer feels supported depends heavily on the individual supervisor they happen to have - a postcode lottery of understanding. Assessment waits of two to five years for ADHD or autism mean officers cannot even access the reasonable adjustments they are legally entitled to without a diagnosis. Sheridan also found that policing's well-documented "hard as nails" culture can cause neurodivergent staff to mask their needs entirely - getting through training and briefings by suppressing who they are, which leads to burnout and prevents genuine learning. Practical barriers like Pronto, SYP's case management system, lacking a spell-checker were repeatedly cited as unnecessary sources of stress. Her four recommendations were: - neurodiversity training for all staff and supervisors; - regular supervisor check-ins to build trust and approachability; - a spell-checker added to Pronto; - different training arrangements for neurodiverse staff, such as smaller groups where questions feel safe to ask. These are simple, low-cost changes with the potential to meaningfully improve the working lives of officers and the retention of talent SYP has worked hard to recruit. All recordings are now available to watch on our Members Hub!

At the Modernising Justice Conference last week, our Chief Operating Officer, Matt joined a CGI panel exploring why sustained change across criminal justice remains so hard, even when the problems are well understood. The discussion focused on the fact that the criminal justice system is not really one system: it is a set of organisations, priorities, data environments and ownership boundaries that often make reform difficult. The panel also looked at where AI may help, not as a magic fix, but as a way to test ideas, understand pressure points and help the system learn faster. From SEBP’s perspective, the key question is whether AI-enabled change can be made legitimate through evidence, evaluation and a clear link to better justice outcomes.

We are proud to launch the 2026 National Evidence-Based Policing (EBP) Awards, a celebration of the individuals, teams, and partnerships transforming policing through the use of high-quality evidence, taking place in Milton Keynes on 23rd September 2026, as a part of our National EBP Conference. These awards shine a spotlight on innovation, collaboration, and impact - recognising those who are not only using evidence, but actively producing and communicating it to improve policing outcomes. Evidence-based policing continues to play a vital role in shaping effective, ethical, and accountable policing practices. By grounding decisions in robust research and data, forces across the country are improving outcomes for communities, reducing harm, and driving meaningful change. The National EBP Awards exist to: Celebrate excellence and innovation in evidence-based approaches Encourage collaboration between policing and research partners Highlight impactful projects that can be scaled or replicated Inspire the next generation of practitioners and leaders Award Categories for 2026 This year’s awards recognise a diverse range of contributions across policing: Police-Research Partnership Award – Recognising exemplary collaborations between police practitioners and academic researchers that have generated meaningful evidence and delivered practical improvements to policing. Policing Innovation Award – Honouring creative, evidence-informed initiatives that have achieved significant improvements in service delivery, community relations, operational effectiveness, or public trust. Emerging Talent Award – Celebrating early-career practitioners, researchers, or students who demonstrate exceptional promise and dedication to advancing the principles and practice of evidence-based policing. Excellence in evidence-based prevention of violence involving children - Sponsored by the Youth Endowment Fund, this award recognises the outstanding use of projects that make a difference for children and demonstrate the impact. How to Submit a Nomination Submitting a nomination is straightforward. Share your colleague's project, partnership, or contribution through our online form and tell us how evidence has shaped the work and outcomes. Please refer to our award criteria and terms and conditions. Please note the deadline for submissions is Midday on 10th July 2026. Join us at The 2026 National Evidence-Based Policing Conference and Awards The National Evidence-Based Policing Conference 2026 will bring together police leaders, practitioners, researchers and partners from across the UK to explore the role of evidence in the next phase of police reform. Taking place in Milton Keynes on 23–24 September 2026, the conference will focus on the emerging “What Works” agenda in policing - examining both the evidence on how the police reform agenda can be implemented effectively and the capabilities policing will need in a modern, evidence-informed model. Secure your place here. Stay tuned for further updates! #NEBP2026

What Works in Delivering Police Reform | 23–24 September 2026 | The Open University, Milton Keynes We are thrilled to announce the full speaker programme for this year's National Evidence-Based Policing Conference - the flagship event for everyone who believes that good evidence should sit at the heart of policing. Hosted at The Open University in Milton Keynes on 23–24 September 2026, the conference brings together leading researchers, senior police leaders, policymakers and practitioners for two days of debate, insight and genuine knowledge exchange. Tickets are just £99 for both days, including lunch and refreshments. Day One: 23 September The conference opens with remarks from Al Murray OBE, Executive Chair of the Society of Evidence Based Policing, and Professor David Phoenix, Vice Chancellor of The Open University, before moving straight into a headline keynote panel -The Big Picture - featuring some of the most senior voices in UK policing: Chief Constable Jason Hogg, Thames Valley Police Rt Hon Sarah Jones, Minister for Policing Chief Constable Gavin Stephens, National Police Chiefs' Council Chief Constable Sir Andy Marsh, College of Policing Morning Sessions Professor Nick Fyfe (University of Dundee) and Professor Andy Wooff (Scottish Institute for Policing Research) will examine the lessons, opportunities and challenges of police reform in Scotland - a valuable case study for forces across the UK. After a networking break, the morning continues with two sessions that cut to the heart of the reform challenge. Professor Rob Briner (Queen Mary University London) asks a provocative but important question: You can't change workplace behaviour by changing 'culture' - so what does work? He is followed by Professor Tom Kirchmaier of the London School of Economics, presenting the evidence on what actually works in reforming large organisations. Afternoon Sessions The afternoon includes a session on the Police Race Action Plan, followed by a rich set of Youth Endowment Fund Breakout Sessions covering child-centred policing, police safeguarding responses, violence against women and girls, and tackling racial disproportionality. Professor Paul Taylor then takes the stage to address a topic that cuts through the noise: What Is Not What in Science-Led Policing - a timely reminder to apply the same critical rigour to policing research that we ask of policing itself. The day closes with a session on Freedom from Violence and Abuse: A Cross Government Strategy, presented by Deputy Chief Constable Katy Barrow-Grint (Gloucestershire Police) and Dr Ruth Weir (Violence and Society Centre), before the formal close from T/Assistant Chief Constable Kate Anderson (Lincolnshire Police). Evening: National EBP Awards Dinner Day one ends in style with the National Evidence Based Policing Awards Drinks Reception and Dinner at The Leonardo Hotel - a wonderful opportunity to celebrate the best of evidence-based practice across the country. Day Two: 24 September Day two opens with an important panel on Evidence-Based AI in policing, bringing together practitioners from across the landscape: T/Chief Superintendent Lewis Lincoln-Gordon (Police AI), Chief Superintendent William Lyne (Head of Economic and Cybercrime, Metropolitan Police), Greg Elliot (National Crime Agency), and Chief Inspector Tom Perry (West Yorkshire Police). Breakout Sessions A packed programme of breakout sessions follows across both the morning and early afternoon, showcasing some of the most compelling applied research in the field: From Enforcement to Care: Embedding Indirect Victim Support in Online Child Sexual Abuse Investigations - Mille Fjelldal-Robertson Understanding Police Time Use, Demand and Complexity through the Police Activity Survey - Jake Walker and Lucy Green Does Focussed Deterrence Work Outside Cities? Lessons from Rural Implementation - Jennifer Laibach and Chris Williams, Wiltshire OPCC The 'Where, Who, How, and Against Whom' of Street Sexual Harassment in the Night-Time Economy - Dr Ioana Crivatu and Detective Inspector Tina Wallace Police Graduate Research Showcase -PC Oliver Willows, DC Karl McCrombie, PC Sheridan Hobson Testing Whether Behaviourally Informed Communication Can Increase Voluntary Surrender Among Wanted Offenders: A Randomised Controlled Trial - John Wilde MSt (Cantab), Metropolitan Police Service / University of Cambridge Forecasting Future Demand for Strategic Analysis - Dr Matt Ashby, University College London From Confidence to Competence: Rethinking Police Training Effectiveness in RASSO Investigations - Dr Arun Sondhi and Professor Emma Williams, Anglia Ruskin University Starting to Understand Demand and Capacity in Policing - Chief Inspector Colin Clarkson and Dr Joshua Skoczylis, Lincolnshire Police Cambridge University Panel One of the highlights of day two is a dedicated Cambridge University Panel, chaired by Assistant Professor Brandon Langley, featuring: Detective Inspector Chris Gadd (Metropolitan Police) on Behavioural Insights in Bail Compliance: RCT Using Text Messages Ethan Thomas (National Crime Agency) on Root Access: A Descriptive Analysis of Entry-Level Cyber Dependent Offending Using Police Data The conference concludes at 13:10 with closing remarks from Al Murray OBE, Executive Chair of the Society of Evidence Based Policing. Book Your Place This is two days you won't want to miss. Whether you're a researcher, a practitioner, a senior leader or a policymaker, the 2026 National EBP Conference is the place to engage with the evidence that is shaping the future of policing. Tickets: £99 for both days (including lunch and refreshments) Book now at www.sebp.police.uk Follow the conversation on social media using #NEBP2026 Use | Produce | Communicate | Evidence

When a child goes missing, the episode is rarely the whole story Every year, police forces across England and Wales record hundreds of thousands of missing person reports. The majority involve children. Many of those children go missing again and again. For decades, each episode tended to be treated in isolation - find the child, complete the paperwork, close the case. The evidence now tells a more complicated and more urgent story. Episode 9 of Easier Said Than Done, SEBP's webinar series produced in partnership with the Youth Endowment Fund, brought together two of the leading voices in this field to examine what the research actually says about repeat missing episodes, what policing is doing with that evidence, and where the gaps remain. The demand is concentrated - and the data is partial Dr Jessica Phoenix, principal researcher at the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and a longstanding researcher in this field, outlined the pattern that has emerged consistently across studies: a small proportion of children account for a disproportionate share of missing person demand. Children in care, those with mental health vulnerabilities, and those at risk of exploitation are over-represented in this group. But the data that captures this pattern is incomplete by design. As Alan Rhees-Cooper, who works full time on the NPCC's missing persons portfolio, set out in careful detail, police statistics reflect three things simultaneously: the behaviour of the young person, the reporting behaviour of carers, and police recording practices - none of which are consistent across forces. Children in care are reported missing earlier and more frequently, in part because carers operate under different obligations. Children in some family settings may disappear for weeks before anyone calls the police at all. Dr Phoenix reinforced this from her own research experience, noting that a significant proportion of the children she studied who had been through return home interviews did not consider themselves to have been missing at all. Getting useful intelligence from a child who doesn't believe they needed finding is, as she observed, a significant challenge. The harm problem is more complicated than it looks One of the most striking points in the session came from Alan Rhees-Cooper's description of NPCC-commissioned research led by Aidan Sidebottom. That research identified three statistically significant risk indicators across age groups: out-of-character behaviour, suicidal ideation, and previous harm whilst missing. The finding attracted some media coverage suggesting police should prioritise missing adults over missing children because the harm rate is higher in adults. Alan was direct about why that framing misses the point. Harm is frequently not disclosed, particularly by children who are being exploited. It is inconsistently recorded. And much of the most relevant harm data sits in free-text fields that standard analytical approaches cannot reach. Asking whether a child suffered harm whilst missing is, he argued, the wrong question. The more useful question is whether they were exposed to harm - including incidents where police intervention prevented something worse. New research commissioned through Liverpool University is attempting to address this, with vetted researchers accessing police records directly to extract contextual data that has never been systematically analysed before. The findings are not expected before mid-2027, but the framing alone represents a meaningful shift in how the evidence base is being built. Risk assessment: consistency without rigour Risk assessment practice emerged as a thread running throughout the session. Forces apply broadly similar questions when a child is reported missing, but reach very different conclusions. Some forces grade 70% of cases as high risk; others fewer than 5%. The College of Policing's Authorised Professional Practice is under enhanced review, and HMICFRS plays an important role in driving consistency - though, as Alan noted, inspection pressure can sometimes produce blunt policy responses that create new problems rather than solving existing ones. He described a force that, in response to criticism, graded all children with certain risk flags as high risk automatically. Their specialist team went from investigating four high-risk cases a day to eighteen, with no additional resource. The four children who most needed intensive police attention received a diluted response. The solution, both speakers agreed, is not policy standardisation alone but better training - particularly multi-agency training that puts police officers, social workers, residential carers and foster carers in the same room, working through anonymised real cases together. The partnership data problem Dr Phoenix's current work at the Greater Manchester Combined Authority brought a different dimension to the conversation. Even where agencies genuinely want to share information and work collaboratively, practical barriers frequently prevent it. Different systems, incompatible terminology, information governance obligations that are neither uniform nor straightforward - these are not marginal obstacles. They are structural features of the landscape that practitioners navigate every day. The data that could most improve how risk is assessed and harm is prevented is often held across multiple agencies in formats that do not speak to each other. Return home interviews, where they exist and where they are well-conducted, can yield genuinely useful intelligence. But the quality and consistency of that data varies enormously. What does good look like? Both speakers pointed to examples where better practice is emerging. Alan highlighted the Children Missing and Care framework piloted in West Yorkshire, and the positive impact it has had on how residential care homes understand and respond to missing episodes. He also cited multi-agency training workshops, which he described as among the most effective tools available for getting different professionals onto the same page. One area of ongoing challenge is the supported accommodation sector, 16-to-18-year-olds in provision that does not always recognise the same duty of care obligations as registered care homes. Training, registration and accountability in this sector remain inconsistent. Helen also flagged forthcoming national research from Missing People, which indicates that children are twice as likely to disclose harm to the Missing People helpline or to a return home interview professional as they are to police officers - a finding with significant implications for how information flows and where investment should go. What the evidence tells us - and what it doesn't yet The honest picture from this session is that the evidence base in this field is growing but incomplete. The data is partial. Risk assessment tools have historically lacked the rigorous evidence foundation needed to be operationally credible. The new Liverpool University research may change that - but the findings are some way off. What the session made clear is that the practitioners working in this space are not waiting for perfect evidence before trying to improve. They are working with what they have, being honest about its limitations, and building the foundations for something more robust. The recording is now available on our Members Hub. Use | Produce | Communicate | Evidence

Written by Barnaby Prince Police Community Support Officer at Lincolnshire Police Dementia Safeguarding Lead & Member of the force Safeguarding Network Police lead for the Atlantis Alliance – Collaborative Coastal Working Every summer, the Lincolnshire coastline attracts millions of visitors. Families arrive for rest, recreation, and connection but behind the scenes, policing, rescue and community services prepare for intense demand, heightened risk, and devastating consequences if things go wrong. This blog tells the story of Operation ATLANTIS, a multi‑agency, evidence‑led response to missing children on Lincolnshire beaches. It is not a story of a single intervention or a “silver bullet”. Instead, it is a practical example of how evidence‑based policing, structured problem solving, and true partnership working can reduce harm, save lives, and deliver real value for policing and the public. The Catalyst: Why Change Was Necessary In August 2022, a child was reported missing on the Lincolnshire coast. A large‑scale multi‑agency search was launched. After five hours, the child was tragically located in the water and pronounced dead at the scene. No agency failed. Every service responded professionally and with commitment. Yet the incident exposed a difficult truth: the system was almost entirely reactive. That moment became the catalyst for change. SCAN: Understanding the True Scale of Harm Following the 2022 season, neighbourhood teams at Mablethorpe and Skegness conducted a detailed review with partner agencies. What the data revealed Police systems recorded 22 lost or missing children from beaches. RNLI lifeguard data recorded 56 reports, including 39 multi‑agency searches. On the day of the fatal incident, officers recalled around 10 missing children, yet only four were formally logged. The conclusion was clear but uncomfortable: despite best efforts, policing did not fully understand the scale or nature of the problem. Patterns emerged even within incomplete data: Two consistent hotspots: Skegness Central Beach and Mablethorpe Central Beach Peak risk hours between 1300–1900, with highest risk 1600–1900 All children were under 13, non‑local, and visiting the county National RNLI data confirmed this was not unique, Skegness consistently ranked among the busiest beaches nationally for multi‑agency missing‑child searches. ANALYSE: Why Was This Happening? Partner analysis and frontline debriefs identified multiple contributory factors: Lost‑child searches are extremely resource‑intensive, often pulling officers from core policing duties Officers were deployed close to water without appropriate rescue equipment Preventative engagement was minimal and largely shouldered by policing alone Agencies routinely worked in parallel rather than together Communication relied on separate radio systems, creating risk during live incidents The working hypothesis was that children became lost due to: Crowd density and spatial disorientation Lack of local knowledge “Holiday psychology” - a perception that beaches feel inherently safe Across all findings, one gap stood out: prevention. RESPOND: Operation ATLANTIS Using the SARA problem‑solving model, partners redesigned their approach from the ground up. Building the Alliance Agencies brought together included: Lincolnshire Police RNLI Lifeguards and Lifeboats HM Coastguard National Coastwatch Local councils Holiday parks and community businesses Joint training, tabletop exercises, and honest debriefs clarified roles, formalised shared objectives, and embedded daily points of contact. A Visible, Preventative Model The Sandi Starfish wristband scheme became central: Free wristbands for children and vulnerable adults Highly visible safe‑point flags staffed by trained partners Distribution by police, lifeguards, Coastwatch, businesses and holiday parks Children knew where to go. Adults knew what to do. Prevention became everyone’s responsibility. Smarter Responses On operational days: Teams staffed hotspots between 1100–1900 Every incident logged via police CAD and a shared missing‑child log Single points of contact coordinated searches Early dynamic risk assessments prevented escalation In 2024, partners trialled shared Airwave and VHF communications, significantly improving live incident coordination. An anonymous staff survey later showed 79.16% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the radio trial had a positive impact on their work. ASSESS: What Changed? Across 2023–2025, the results were clear: 96% reduction in reports of lost and missing children Minimum policing savings of £85,000 This saving was calculated using national average investigation costs: Low/medium risk incidents: £2,500 High‑risk incidents: £8,500 Based on reduced demand, this equated to: £72,500 saved between 2022/23 £12,500 saved between 2023/24 Additional outcomes included: 607 recorded staff engagement hours across 44 days in hotspot areas 22,000 pieces of crime‑prevention and water‑safety literature distributed Frontline and partner feedback echoed these findings: “In my 15 years with the RNLI, this is the closest I’ve seen our organisations work together and it’s translated directly into better outcomes.” An independent review by Lincoln University corroborated the findings and the evaluation report can be provided on request. Learning Forward Success did not end the learning cycle. New risks emerged including paddleboards drifting, weaver fish injuries, and UXO washing ashore, all now addressed through partnership planning. Future priorities include: Reaching families before they travel Better data capture on public engagement Joint, synchronised media messaging Expanding interactive engagement methods Continuing regular multi‑agency debriefs year‑round Why This Matters Operation ATLANTIS demonstrates that: a tested approach (POP) can be practically applied Prevention saves lives, money, and wellbeing Collaboration requires structure, trust and accountability The SARA model is not abstract - it is deeply practical Most importantly, it shows that complex safeguarding problems cannot be solved by policing alone. If there is one question this project leaves for all of us, it is this: “What are we only reacting to that we could prevent together?”

Here are the studies we found this month that may be worth your attention. As ever, if you spotted something we missed, let us know and we'll add it into the next brief. TL;DR Summary Strip searches in police custody and ethnicity Black detainees face significantly higher odds of being strip-searched in custody, even after controlling for offence type, vulnerability and use of force. What shapes police officers' attitudes toward AI-assisted policing Organisational justice and supervisory support significantly shape whether officers accept AI tools. A community policing communication field experiment A brief collaborative message during door-to-door visits significantly improved citizen perceptions and reporting intentions. School exclusion, missing children and serious harm School exclusion, exploitation and missing incidents frequently overlap in the most seriously harmed child cases. Automated feedback and AI body-worn camera review Automated positive feedback emails improved officers' acceptance of AI-driven body-worn camera review. Strip searches in police custody and their association with ethnicity: evidence from an English force Authors: Ali and Dymond Criminology and Criminal Justice Study design: Quantitative analysis of administrative custody data (binary logistic regression, N=25,676) Setting: England and Wales Summary: Using four years of custody records from an English force, this study finds that Black detainees face over twice the odds of being strip-searched compared to White detainees, even after controlling for offence type, vulnerability indicators and use of force. Black men and Black children face disproportionately higher odds than either characteristic alone would predict, providing evidence of racialised policing in the custody suite. You'll be interested if: you work in custody, equality, professional standards, inspection or research, or if you are responsible for ensuring policing is fair and lawful. Relevant to all forces given proposed PACE Code C changes. What shapes police officers' attitudes toward AI-assisted policing Authors: Jian, Sun, Wu et al Journal of Experimental Criminology Study design: Vignette experiment Setting: Taiwan Summary: This vignette experiment tests what contextual factors shape police officers' willingness to accept AI-assisted tools. It finds that organisational justice, supervisory support, and the perceived purpose of the AI system all significantly influence officer attitudes. Officers are more accepting when they believe the technology supports rather than replaces professional judgement. You'll be interested if: you are implementing AI tools in a force, leading technology change, or researching the human side of AI adoption in policing. How police communication influences citizen perceptions and cooperation: a community policing field experiment Authors: Canales and Santini Journal of Experimental Criminology Study design: Randomised field experiment (N=980 households) Setting: Mexico Summary: Officers conducting door-to-door visits were randomly assigned to vary their uniform type and whether they delivered a brief collaborative safety message. The message condition significantly improved citizen perceptions of police and their willingness to report crime. Uniform type alone had little effect. Findings support procedural justice theory and suggest low-cost communication changes can meaningfully improve public cooperation. You'll be interested if: you work in neighbourhood policing, community engagement or public confidence. Note: Mexican context. School exclusion, missing children and serious harm: disentangling the interlinking factors Authors: Fox CrimRxiv (preprint — not yet peer reviewed) Study design: Mixed-methods analysis of Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews using machine learning-assisted content analysis Setting: UK Summary: This preprint analyses Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews to examine how school exclusion, missing child incidents and exploitation co-occur in the most seriously harmed cases. Findings show these factors frequently intersect, with exclusion functioning as both a vulnerability indicator and a pathway to further harm. Uses accessible machine learning methods to analyse sensitive text data at scale. You'll be interested if: you work in child protection, exploitation, vulnerability, or multi-agency safeguarding. Also relevant for those interested in how AI-assisted text analysis can support research with sensitive case review data. Automated feedback and the acceptability of AI-generated body-worn camera review: an implementation science natural experiment Authors: Watts, del Pozo, White and Malm Journal of Experimental Criminology Study design: Natural implementation science experiment (within context of two randomised controlled trials) Setting: United States Summary: Automated emails highlighting positive professionalism scores from AI-driven body-worn camera analysis were associated with significantly improved officer acceptance of the technology. This is the first implementation science study in a police setting and finds that feedback design, not just tool validity, matters for successful adoption. You'll be interested if: you are implementing body-worn camera AI, leading technology adoption, or interested in what implementation science can offer to evidence-based policing.

SEBP is pleased to highlight an important update from the All‑Wales Policing Academic Collaboration (AWPAC) - a partnership that exemplifies what can be achieved when policing and academia work side by side with a shared purpose. In a recent reflection, Temporary Assistant Chief Constable Ross Evans, Co‑Chair of AWPAC, set out the scale of progress made across Wales and the growing impact of collaborative, practice‑focused research. His message is clear: Wales has built something genuinely pioneering, and its momentum must continue. Where policing meets research: Transformative impact across Wales By Temporary Assistant Chief Constable Ross Evans, Co-Chair of AWPAC "As I prepare to step down from my role as co-chair of the All-Wales Policing Academic Collaboration (AWPAC), I’ve been reflecting on just how far we have come - and how vital it is that this work continues to grow. What began as a shared ambition to strengthen ties between policing and academia in Wales has evolved into the nation’s first collaboration of its kind: a nationally recognised model of evidence‑based partnership that is shaping practice, policy, and future research capacity across the country. AWPAC’s core purpose has always been clear: to bring policing and academia together to advance evidence-based change and ultimately keep our communities safer. Brought together by the Wales Innovation Network (WIN), and supported by Policing in Wales, AWPAC has spent the past several years transforming that purpose into meaningful, tangible results. AWPAC has funded fifteen research projects so far, each a collaboration between researchers and police officers, producing recommendations now being embedded into policing practice across Wales. These aren’t abstract academic exercises - they are shaping the way officers engage with communities, respond to harm, and address emerging challenges. Some examples include: Understanding misogynistic behaviour and predicting domestic abuse risk A Bangor University project with North Wales Police and Dyfed-Powys Police is exploring how indicators of misogyny can help predict domestic abuse risk, with the aim of feeding these findings into training and operational practice. Strengthening specialist units tackling violence against women and girls Cardiff University researchers partnered with all Welsh police forces to evaluate violence against women and girls specialist units. This work has provided evidence to support future policing plans and improvements. Improving community engagement and training Findings from a Bangor University–led project, developed with North Wales Police and university partners, have been incorporated directly into North Wales Police’s communications strategy, strengthening how the force connects with the public. Boosting student volunteering A multi‑agency project involving South Wales Police, University of South Wales, University of Wales Trinity Saint David, and Cardiff Metropolitan University identified the barriers and enablers to volunteering within policing. The resulting recommendations are already informing new approaches to student engagement. These projects demonstrate what is possible when police and academic partners work closely and openly together: research with immediate relevance, shaped by policing needs, to improve practice today while shaping the policing of tomorrow. One of AWPAC’s greatest achievements is how it has built on existing local connections to establish networks that now operate at an all-Wales level. For the first time, policing research in Wales is connected, collaborative, and strategically aligned. Through AWPAC, policing and academic colleagues have: formed national research networks that strengthen collaboration connected with major funders such as UKRI and NIHR, opening doors for wider research investment into Wales built links with UK and international networks including the College of Policing, the Welsh Centre for Crime and Social Justice, the N8 Policing Research Partnership, and violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence networks pursued global opportunities, such as work between three Welsh universities and the National Forensic Sciences University in India, supported through Global Wales This connectivity is invaluable. It raises Wales’ profile, increases our influence, and ensures we are part of the conversation about the future of policing research. A particular point of pride for the group has been AWPAC’s support for early career researchers and PhD students. Three AWPAC-funded projects were led by early career academics, helping build essential skills, confidence, and connections within the policing research community. We have also supported wider academic projects not directly funded by AWPAC, such as facilitating connections for Project DRAGONS and DRAGONS+, which focus on countering online child sexual exploitation. This commitment continues with AWPAC now funding the development of a training resource to prevent online grooming. This work lays the foundations for the next generation of Welsh policing research, built through genuine collaboration between universities, police forces and police and crime commissioners. By co‑designing research and sharing expertise, we ensure that innovation is driven jointly by academic insight and frontline experience. As my tenure as co-chair comes to an end, one thing is abundantly clear: AWPAC’s work is vital and we must continue to build on the strong foundations that we’ve established. The challenges facing policing are complex and evolving - from digital crime and technological change, to vulnerability and community cohesion. Using evidence to guide policing practice is now fundamental to effective policing. AWPAC has proven what sustained collaboration can achieve. We have shown that well-designed research, rooted in real-world need, can transform practice, shape strategy, and improve outcomes for the public. But there is more to do. More questions to answer. More innovation to unlock. More opportunities to connect Wales with national and international best practice. That is why continued and expanded investment in AWPAC is so important. With the right support, this collaboration can reach even further, bringing greater insight, stronger partnerships, and deeper impact for policing across Wales. AWPAC is a powerful example of what happens when policing and academia join forces with a shared purpose. I look forward to seeing this collaboration continue to grow, evolve, and make Wales a leading voice in evidence-based policing. To all our academic partners, police colleagues, funders, and supporters of AWPAC: thank you."

We’ve bundled up the highlights from some interesting papers and reports circulating in the last few weeks. TL;DR? Shorter is sweeter? Short, focused hot‑spot patrols can deliver similar violence‑reduction benefits to longer deployments. Maybe. Improving investigations: Trauma‑informed interview training could lead to more victim‑centred practice and fewer harmful questioning behaviours in sexual offence investigations. Evaluations are no picnic: Practical insights from a series of youth violence evaluations It's what's inside that matters most: Officers’ sense of legitimacy is shaped more by internal fairness and leadership than by public attitudes alone. What do police do: Police in England and Wales spend very little time on visible patrol and crime prevention. A null effect: Serious Violence Reduction Orders do not reduce reoffending or weapon carrying. Protecting the workforce: Workload, role design and organisational support are critical to wellbeing, rather than exposure to sensitive material alone (among child sexual exploitation investigators). How long should hot spot patrols last to reduce serious violence? Authors: Kochel, O’Guinn, Nouri, and Haberman Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice Study design: Randomised Controlled Trial Setting: USA Summary: This study found that shorter, focused hot spots patrols achieved comparable reductions in gun violence to longer deployments, with diminishing returns beyond a certain patrol length. The findings support more efficient patrol strategies, particularly relevant for forces facing workforce and response pressures but... the authors are clear more research is needed to improve confidence that the finding holds elsewhere. You’ll be interested if: you design, deploy or oversee hot spot patrols, or are responsible for balancing visibility, effectiveness and limited officer time. This study is particularly relevant for those managing patrol strategy under workforce and response pressures and considering whether shorter, more targeted deployments can deliver similar violence‑reduction benefits. Trauma-informed interview training for sexual offence investigations Authors: Campbell et al. Journal of Experimental Criminology Study design: Randomised Controlled Trial Setting: USA Summary: Trained investigators demonstrated more victim-centred communication and fewer harmful questioning behaviours than those in a comparison group. The study supports specialist trauma-informed training for RASSO investigators, aligning with UK VAWG priorities. You’ll be interested if: You work in, lead or commission training for RASSO or other specialist investigative teams. The findings will also resonate with those responsible for improving victim experience, interview quality, and alignment with VAWG priorities through evidence‑based training. Police self-legitimacy and organisational justice Authors: Kuen & Hyun Kim British Journal of Criminology Study design: Quantitative Observational Setting: South Korea Summary: Internal procedural justice and leadership fairness were stronger predictors of officer self-legitimacy than public attitudes alone, reinforcing the importance of internal organisational justice. You will be interested if: You hold a leadership, supervisory or HR role and want to strengthen officer morale, ethical decision‑making and legitimacy from the inside out. The study is especially relevant for those focusing on leadership practices, fairness, and internal culture as levers for organisational performance. Lessons from evaluating youth violence interventions Authors: Acquah, Kung & Sherlock Behavioural Sciences Study design: Reflective review of multiple RCTs Setting: UK Summary: The paper highlights challenges around recruitment, consent, retention and racial equity in youth violence evaluations, offering practical guidance for police and partnership-led programmes. You’ll be interested if: You are involved in designing, commissioning or evaluating youth violence prevention work, particularly in partnership settings. The paper offers practical insights for anyone grappling with recruitment, consent, retention and equity challenges in real‑world evaluations. How police in England and Wales spend their time Authors: Home Office with support from Price Waterhouse Cooper Link Study design: Observational study based on a survey of 6.1 million working hours Setting: England & Wales Summary: This report provides a detailed breakdown of how police time and resources are actually spent. It finds that officers spend more time investigating violent crime than any other crime type, while spending almost no time investigating social‑media posts—challenging some common media narratives. Overall, only around 7% of police time is spent on visible patrol and less than 1% on crime prevention. Even neighbourhood teams devote only 18% of their time to patrol and 1.6% to prevention. You’ll be interested in this if you: Lead, oversee or scrutinise police demand, resourcing or neighbourhood policing models; work on public confidence or police visibility; or engage in debates about police priorities such as shoplifting, online harms or prevention. The report is particularly useful for those seeking an evidence‑based counterpoint to media commentary on what police do—or don’t—spend time on. Serious Violence Reduction Orders (SVROs): what did the pilot achieve? Authors: Ecorys Link Report type: Mixed‑methods evaluation of impact Setting: England (pilot forces: Merseyside, Sussex, Thames Valley and West Midlands) Summary: This independent evaluation examined the two‑year SVRO pilot introduced under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Using a quasi‑experimental quantitative design alongside extensive qualitative fieldwork, the evaluation found no clear or consistent evidence that SVROs reduced reoffending or weapon carrying among those subject to an order compared with similar individuals who did not receive one. Take‑up was far lower than anticipated, with only a minority of eligible cases resulting in an SVRO being issued, and implementation was uneven across forces. Stakeholders highlighted significant operational burdens, legal complexity, and concerns about proportionality. You’ll be interested in this if you: Are involved in serious violence policy, stop and search governance, or deciding whether enforcement‑led interventions should be expanded, amended or discontinued. The report is particularly relevant for senior leaders, PCC offices and central government teams weighing the costs, benefits and risks of extending SVROs, and for anyone concerned with evidence‑based approaches and disproportionality in policing. Psychological outcomes for investigators of online child sexual exploitation Authors: Wortley, Powell & Smallbone Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology Study design: Cross‑sectional quantitative study Setting: Australia Summary: This study compared the psychological well‑being of investigators working on online child sexual exploitation (CSE) with that of investigators in other policing roles. While CSE investigators showed higher levels of distress on some measures, such as disengagement‑related burnout, role overload and lower organisational identification, there were no significant differences on most mental health indicators, suggesting that many stressors are common across policing. Importantly, the study identified key protective factors for CSE investigators, including psychological mindedness and high, “vigorous” work engagement, while role overload emerged as the primary risk factor. The findings challenge assumptions that CSE work is uniquely damaging in all respects and point to organisational and job‑design factors as central to safeguarding investigator well‑being. You’ll be interested in this if you: Lead or support online harms, CSA/CSE or digital investigations; design wellbeing, supervision or selection processes; or are concerned about burnout and retention in high‑exposure roles. The study is especially relevant for forces seeking evidence‑informed ways to protect staff without unnecessarily restricting access to specialist investigative work.

Introduction The first webinar in the AWS x SEBP 2026 series brought together experts from the military and ambulance service to explore a deceptively simple question: what really shapes decision‑making in critical incidents? Across policing, health, and emergency response, practitioners increasingly operate in environments saturated with data - dashboards, feeds, sensors, mapping tools, and AI‑enabled systems. Yet, as this session made clear, the human emotional experience remains inseparable from the decisions made under pressure . SEBP's Chief Operating Officer Matt Bland opened the session by framing the challenge: critical incidents unfold too quickly for calm, analytical weighing of all available information. Instead, decisions are shaped by time pressure, uncertainty, threat, and emotional load . Experienced commanders rely heavily on pattern recognition  - a sense that “something doesn’t feel right” - built from years of exposure to similar situations. Matt brought together two speakers from outside policing to broaden the perspective: Steve Killick , Tactical Director at Airbox and former senior military leader with 38 years’ experience in operations. Dave Williams , senior leader in the ambulance service and doctoral researcher studying emotional decision‑making in large‑scale incidents . Both speakers emphasised that while technology is advancing rapidly, the emotional and cognitive realities of decision‑makers must remain central . Training, Pattern Recognition and the “Right” Information Dave highlighted that effective decision‑making begins long before  an incident occurs. Training, exposure, and prior knowledge create the mental patterns responders rely on when events unfold at speed. “How do we ensure the data we’re looking at matches something that we see?” he asked, emphasising the role of preparation in building those internal templates. Dave described responding to the 2009 Boeing 777 crash, where information was limited to voice‑only radio updates - a stark contrast to today’s digital tools. The lack of visual data increased uncertainty and anxiety, reinforcing his research finding that information flow can mitigate fear , which he defines (via Huberman) as anxiety + uncertainty . Steve echoed this from a military perspective: early in a career, concise information is essential; with experience, leaders prefer more  data so they can self‑filter. But accuracy and consistency are critical — every step in the chain (gathering, transmitting, receiving, interpreting) introduces potential distortion. Emotion, Instinct and the Limits of Data Both speakers agreed that instinct - far from being guesswork - is the brain’s rapid matching of current cues to past patterns. Dave noted that experienced responders often act instinctively first, then use data to steer or validate their decisions. Data becomes an enabler , not a replacement for human judgement. Dave's research uses self‑evaluation tools to track emotional states during decision‑making. While physiological measures (heart rate, eye tracking) are possible, simple self‑reflection remains highly effective. Designing Technology for Humans, Not the Other Way Around A recurring theme was the need for systems that support, rather than overwhelm, decision‑makers. Dave argued strongly for visual information  as a stabilising force. Many responders are visual learners, and mapping tools help reduce emotional load by grounding people in space and context. “Stability in information gives you key evidence to drop your emotions down a bit,” he explained. Steve described how Airbox evolved from an aviation tracking tool into a multi‑agency situational awareness platform, shaped by user feedback rather than theoretical design. But he acknowledged that current systems rarely incorporate emotional cues - an area ripe for development. Both emphasised: intuitive interfaces simplicity under pressure systems usable even after long gaps early and continuous user involvement in design As Dave put it: “System design can either add to or reduce anxiety.” Emotional Regulation: A Missing Piece of Training One of the most compelling discussions centred on whether experienced leaders “turn off” their emotions. Both speakers rejected the idea. Emotions cannot be switched off - but they can  be regulated. Dave noted that emotional regulation is a trainable skill , yet rarely taught in emergency services. He argued for embedding emotional intelligence, fatigue awareness, and self‑reflection into command training, especially for 3am decision‑making when cognitive resources are low. Steve added that repeated realistic training conditions people to operate effectively despite emotional load, and that heightened emotion can sometimes sharpen decision‑making when time is critical. Gamification and Safe Failure Both speakers saw huge potential in gamification , VR, and simulation. Steve argued that humans learn best from failure - but real‑world failure in major incidents is unacceptable. Technology allows safe experimentation, pushing scenarios to breaking points to reveal hidden weaknesses. Dave emphasised narrative‑based learning: exercises should tell a story, not just present isolated tasks. This mirrors how humans naturally make sense of events. What Should Procurement Teams Look For? The session closed with practical advice for organisations buying decision‑support tools: Intuitive, simple interfaces  that reduce cognitive load Visual mapping and spatial tools User involvement from the earliest design stages Systems that work under pressure and after long periods of non‑use Evaluation criteria that measure emotional impact, not just technical performance As Steve warned, if a system is too complex, “under pressure, they’re just not going to use it.”

Introduction The latest session in SEBP’s Easier Said Than Done  series brought together practitioners, researchers, and oversight professionals to explore one of the most contested areas of policing: the grounds recorded for stop and search. This session featured Dr. Paul Dawson , Head of Evidence & Insight at the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC), joined by Dr. Anthony Dugay , a data science specialist from the same team. The focus was a major new piece of research analysing all 152,000 stop and search records in London during 2023 , including nearly 17 million words  of free‑text grounds written by officers. Paul described this dataset as “ fantastic ” in scale and offers an unprecedented opportunity to understand how grounds are constructed, how they vary, and what this means for fairness, legitimacy, and operational practice. Why This Research Matters Stop and search remains one of the most scrutinised police powers, particularly due to persistent disproportionality affecting Black Londoners. Previous studies suggested that Black individuals were more likely to receive vague or subjective grounds, but these were based on small samples. MOPAC’s new analysis scales this up dramatically, using a combination of: Human-coded samples  (600 grounds texts) A bespoke coding framework developed with community scrutiny experts Natural language processing models trained to code all 152,000 records This hybrid approach allowed the team to analyse the entire dataset with consistency and rigour. What the Research Found 1. Black Londoners receive more vague and subjective grounds The analysis confirmed significant differences in the types of grounds recorded. Black Londoners were more likely to have grounds referencing: “ concealing clothing ” “ area known for weapons or robbery ” “ attempts to avoid police contact ” “ smell of drugs ” White Londoners, by contrast, were more likely to have evidential  grounds recorded, such as: “ subject seen stealing ” “ subject admitted possession ” Clearer articulation of what was being searched for This aligns with earlier small‑scale studies but now rests on a dataset of unprecedented size. 2. A new ‘quality of grounds’ metric MOPAC developed a statistical measure of “quality” based on whether particular grounds were associated with positive outcomes (e.g., finding the item searched for). Paul clarified: “ When I say quality, I’m talking about the statistical likelihood that it will find something or not. ” The key findings were: Grounds like “ attempting to avoid contact ” or “ concealing clothing ” were not  associated with positive outcomes. These factors were instead linked to no further action . Black Londoners had significantly lower quality  grounds in several search types, including weapons, going equipped, and stolen property. 3. Quality varies by time of day, age, and borough Quality was highest during low‑volume early morning hours. For white Londoners, quality remained stable throughout the day. For Black Londoners, quality dropped sharply  during peak operational hours. Young people (14–19) received the lowest quality  grounds. Inner London boroughs showed lower average quality than outer boroughs. 4. A strong link between quality and public perceptions Boroughs with higher‑quality grounds also had more positive public attitudes  toward the fairness of stop and search. As Paul described: “ The public are able to pick up when stop and search is being done well. ” Introducing the ‘Groundskeeper’ Tool One of the most practical outputs of the project is a new tool — the Groundskeeper  — which allows users to paste in a grounds text and receive: A quality score Automated feedback Identification of key factors present in the text Paul described it as “ a really interesting tool that we can share with supervisors, with community groups… ” SEBP attendees were enthusiastic about its potential for scrutiny panels, training, and reflective practice. What's Next? MOPAC plans to: Repeat the analysis annually (2023, 2024, 2025…) Track changes over time, including the impact of the Met’s Stop & Search Charter Explore new variables such as officer length of service and repeat stops Expand the methodology to other forces if interest grows The Met has already committed to using the findings to strengthen supervision and local learning. As Paul summarised: “ This is a good example of really actionable analytics. ” Access the slides that Paul shared on the link below:

Sponsors of NEBP2026 The National Evidence-Based Policing Conference 2026 will take place  23–24 September 2026 at The Open University, Milton Keynes. This conference brings together police leaders, practitioners, researchers and partners to examine what works for police reform. Our aim is simple: to showcase rigorous, practice-relevant evidence that can inform the future of policing. We are seeking research that speaks directly to the real challenges facing policing today and helps decision-makers understand what works, what does not, and why. What we are looking for We invite submissions from anyone working in or alongside policing who has evidence with clear implications for policing practice, strategy or the reform agenda. We welcome all kinds of research, including experiments, quasi-experiments, data analysis, systematic reviews, implementation studies, and qualitative or mixed-methods work. What matters most is rigour, transparency, and practical relevance. Presentations should demonstrate: Practitioner-led or collaborative research Evidence that informs decision-making in policing Testing or evaluation of policing practices, policies or reforms Partnerships between policing, academia and other sectors We strongly encourage submissions reporting negative or null findings where these provide useful lessons for policing. Priority themes The 2026 conference focuses on  evidence of what does and doesn't work in policing reform , including: Artificial intelligence Crime prevention Digital policing Implementation Leadership Local policing Productivity Professionalisation Public confidence Who should submit Submissions are welcomed from: Police officers and police staff Researchers and academics Students Partner organisations and charities Collaborative teams involving policing and external partners Both practitioner-led and academic research are encouraged. Presenting at the conference Successful submissions will be invited to present to a national audience of practitioners, leaders and researchers. We will provide some guidelines to successful applicants but as an indication presentation slots will last around 30 minutes including discussion. Some submissions may be selected for poster presentations, panel discussions or workshops. Submission requirements Please submit an abstract of up to 300 words to info@sebp.police.uk outlining: Context and aims Methods used Key findings (or expected findings) Implications for policing reform Please also include: Presenters(s) and organisation(s) Presenter contact details Preferred format: presentation, discussion or workshop Key dates Submission deadline: 14 May 2026 Notification of outcome: 1 June 2026 Conference: 23–24 September 2026