Search this site

Summary The seventh  Easier Said Than Done  session explored a complex and often contested issue: the relationship between school exclusions, serious violence, and the role of policing. Bringing together Professor Alex Sutherland and Superintendent Simon Rotherham (NPCC Children and Young Persons portfolio), the discussion moved beyond simple assumptions to examine what the evidence actually shows - and where it remains uncertain. Setting the Scene: What Are We Talking About? The session began by clarifying key definitions. Suspensions (temporary removal) and exclusions (permanent removal) are distinct processes, both widely used across the education system. While exclusions are relatively rare (around 11,000 annually), suspensions are far more common, approaching   one million per year. This scale is important. It reframes the issue from a small high-risk group to a much broader population experiencing disruption in education. The Evidence: Correlation Is Not Causation A central theme was the widely cited link between exclusion and serious violence. Around 70% of children convicted of serious violence have previously been excluded But only ~6% of excluded children go on to commit serious violence This asymmetry is critical. It challenges the idea of a simple “pipeline” from exclusion to crime. The panel emphasised: Exclusion often reflects underlying behavioural or contextual issues These issues may exist before exclusion occurs Therefore, exclusion may be a marker, not a cause There is some temporal evidence (e.g. exclusions often occur 1–2 years before serious violence), but this still falls short of proving causation. The Policing Question: Where Should Police Sit? There is currently: No consistent national policing policy on exclusions Significant variation between forces and even individual schools Two potential roles were discussed: 1. Pre-exclusion Police contributing intelligence to inform school decisions Potentially helping schools understand safeguarding risks But this raises concerns: Could police information bias exclusion decisions? Should intelligence (often unproven) influence educational outcomes? 2. Post-exclusion Should excluded children be referred to police? Should they come “onto the radar”? This is contested. With only a small proportion going on to serious violence, there is a risk of: Over-criminalisation Unnecessary police contact for low-risk children Local Variation and the Limits of Assumptions One striking finding: London has the lowest exclusion rates in England, despite high levels of serious violence. This challenges a simple geographic or causal link between exclusions and crime. Instead, the panel pointed to: Strong regional variation School-level differences driven by policy, context, and practice The need for place-based analysis, not national generalisation What Actually Works? Evidence on reducing exclusions points to four main areas: Academic support Counselling and wellbeing support Targeted mentoring and relationships Teacher training in behaviour management Notably, policing has limited direct role in these. This reinforces a key tension: Policing is often involved downstream But the most effective interventions are upstream and educational The Bigger Issue: We’re Acting Too Late A recurring point was that exclusion decisions come late in a child’s trajectory. By that stage: Behaviour patterns are already established Opportunities for early intervention may have been missed The panel suggested a shift towards: Earlier identification Multi-agency support before exclusion Better use of existing school and local authority data Information Sharing: Necessary but Risky Information sharing between police, schools, and partners is essential—but difficult. Challenges include: Determining what is relevant Avoiding prejudicial use of intelligence Balancing safeguarding vs. overreach The principle suggested: Be clear on  why  information is shared, not just  that  it is shared. Key Takeaways The link between exclusion and violence is real but complex Exclusion is more likely a signal of risk than a cause Policing currently operates in a fragmented and localised way The biggest opportunity lies earlier in the process, not after exclusion Evidence supports education-led interventions, not police-led ones What Next? Both panellists pointed to gaps in the evidence base, particularly around: What works in multi-agency responses The impact of police involvement (positive or negative) Early identification and prevention strategies

If you are suspected of, arrested for, charged with or convicted of a crime or crimes in England and Wales it goes onto the police national database (PND). The PND covers the type of offence, location, date and time(s) when the offence(s) were committed, if that information is known. If you are convicted, or admit guilt, the criminal justice outcome is also recorded, with a few exceptions relating to ‘out of court disposals’. There is a good deal more in the PND, but even those few things I’ve mentioned can be used to great effect by policy-makers but aren’t at the moment because it’s very difficult to access and use PND data outside of police forces or a few teams inside the government. What can we use this information for? There are four main topics I’ll cover: understanding offending and types of offenders, predicting future offending, assessing policy effectiveness and multiplier effects. I link to research that used PND either on its own or linked to other data, but don’t mistake this as the norm - these are often one-offs but this sort of work should be much more routine but it won’t be unless we make it so. Understanding offending and offenders. This is a necessity for effective criminal justice policy-making but one that is neglected. Policies, particularly prison and rehabilitative ones, are after-the-fact attempts at incapacitation or ‘cures’ rather than trying to prevent crime in the first place. However, if we look at entire populations of offenders - such as those serving short-term sentences for hate crime - we can derive new insights into that type of crime, those who might commit it and what to do about it. For example, those imprisoned for violent hate crimes tend to have more prolific criminal careers than non-violent offenders, be older and typically have been to prison already. That means there will be multiple opportunities to try and change their behaviour. This also tells us that there won’t be an obvious ‘profile’ of a person who is imprisoned for hate crime but that people who have wide versatility in offending may have a higher propensity for hate crime, but we can also investigate further to understand if there are any ways of identifying these offenders earlier in life. At the other end of the spectrum, again using population-level data, we can look at young first time entrants to the youth justice system - a key transition into the CJS - to understand how that group changed over time in terms of their offence profile (more serious), look at spatial differences in FTEs (high), whether it’s possible to identify when rates changed (yes), and provide definitive answers as to why they changed (no). Beyond these applications, centrally held criminal records also allow us to investigate and develop ways of thinking about crime as emergent patterns of behaviour that can begin very early in life. International evidence suggests that there are often distinct offending trajectories relating to the onset, frequency and timing of criminal acts, including some that persist through one’s life. Through linking with educational data we can look at how early education, or risk factors such as school exclusion , relate to different types of offending such as violence . This is useful because it helps us to think about the different policy responses that might be necessary and when they might be best placed to start - not forgetting that it’s ‘ never too early, never too late ’ to prevent future criminal behaviour. Predicting future offending . Thanks to decades of research we can now do a lot better* than chance at predicting the future likelihood of crime using only a few pieces of information from criminal records, but this is still far from perfect and only works at the level of a group average over a pre-defined time-frame. So getting a score saying ‘high risk’ might mean, for example, that 70% of people with the same recorded characteristics and situation as you will, on average , commit another crime in the next year. It doesn’t mean you will . But tools producing predictions need to develop , otherwise they become less accurate as the nature of offending and the population changes over time. Again, working at population level with offence data we can incrementally update tools rather than taking decades to make changes that may make practice worse .   What’s coming - is already here - is the use of more advanced statistical techniques and “AI”. The combination of administrative data from different sources and unstructured data from those or other sources, combined with large-language models, mean that we may be able to add a few more percentage points to our predictive accuracy. At the same time, we also have to benchmark the ethics, performance and proportionality of these approaches as they develop; least of all so we’re not sold a lemon by companies claiming to be able to ‘do prediction’ better without the evidence supporting that. It is much more difficult to do any of that if core data sources are largely inaccessible.   Assessing policy effectiveness. Perhaps the most well recognised but still under-exploited research benefit of using PND data is that it allows us to evaluate policies and practices. This has been happening for decades through initiatives such as the justice datalab , and one-off evaluations such as this on burglary prevention, but it’s still far from routine. This means that policies in criminal justice aren’t rigorously evaluated, meaning we may have policies that are ineffective or make things worse (e.g. here ). (This problem is exacerbated by the lack of experimental studies in UK criminal justice - something that is changing thanks to the efforts of the Evaluation Task Force - see for example this study on offending behaviour in prisons .) But beyond basic questions about effectiveness on average , using PND and other criminal justice data moves us towards the idea of more precision in policy-making; i.e. what works for whom? Opening up PND to allow for more research and reassessing evaluations already conducted can have several benefits, for one, allowing us to identify whether programmes have unintended consequences .   Multiplier effects. With better access to PND data and by working closely with practitioners and policy-makers on R&D, researchers can help to develop tools and understanding faster, and possibly save the state money . Similarly, better access will allow for innovative solutions to be developed to understand risk - such as work showing the importance of co-offender networks in transmitting risk , but also how to target interventions better . More broadly, the UK is fortunate to have several birth cohort studies, starting in the 1950s. A new birth cohort study is beginning, and with it the benefits it will bring to understanding how generations change. These studies allow us to answer novel policy-relevant questions about how attitudes and behaviour change as children turn into adults, such as knife carrying , or extreme political attitudes . We can do more if we routinely link these studies to administrative data for research. When combined with representative data from surveys or the census, we can also plan for much faster and slower changes that may affect crime rates that are driven by changing attitudes or demographics. For example, there have been sustained moral panics about youth crime in the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s, while at the same time youth crime has dramatically decreased, along with many types of crime more generally (notably homicide ). Similarly, demographic changes, such as short-term spikes in male:female sex ratios may influence crime rates, as this study using Swedish registry data explored. Sticking with the Scandis, combining population data in different ways means we can investigate the development of crime from different perspectives. Low resting heart-rate (<60 bpm) during adolescence is predictive of crime , in particular violent crime . It’s not necessarily because of a low RHR that someone goes on to commit a crime or be violent but through knowing this association we can work to understand what else might be important .   What next? For nearly two decades there has been a gradual reduction in the volume and scope of centrally funded or conducted research on the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in the UK. This is because analytical functions inside government were cut, as was funding for research and evaluation, even on core Areas of Interest (which don’t come with funding). To get the best from the hoards of data the justice system generates as it functions, we need to vastly simplify access to and working with PND and other criminal justice data, ideally allowing researchers access without the need to burden government teams to supply data, and to provide training for future generations of analysts in and out of government how to work with these data sources for the benefit of public policy.     ***** *about 70% predictive accuracy versus 50% chance of being right through flipping a coin.

Our new series of updates on new studies relevant to policing practice have been published in the last few weeks. In this bulletin the research spans recruitment and organisational fairness, hotspot detection, violence against women and girls, investigative practice, policing technology, officer wellbeing, and the use of artificial intelligence in policing. Below is a selection of recent empirical studies and evaluations with potential implications for policing policy and practice. Have we missed anything? Let us know - coo@sebp.police.uk Police Vetting Decisions and Ethnicity Watson, Katus, Shah, Barnes, Melia & Sutherland Journal of Experimental Criminology (2026) Method:  Randomised vignette experiment with 1,778 vetting decisions by police vetting professionals This study examined whether ethnicity influences police vetting outcomes. Vetting professionals reviewed fictional applicant profiles where ethnicity was randomly varied. Across five of seven scenarios, ethnicity had no statistically significant effect on vetting decisions. However, in two scenarios involving more complex applicant backgrounds, minority ethnic applicants were less likely to be approved. The results suggest that vetting processes are largely consistent, but that bias may emerge when decision-making becomes more ambiguous. Monitoring outcomes and reviewing decision guidance may help ensure consistency in these situations. Tags:  recruitment, organisational fairness, legitimacy Link   A Globally Optimal Algorithm for Hotspot Detection Martin Boldt Crime Science (2026) Method:  Algorithm development and empirical evaluation of 1.75 million crimes across Malmö, Boston and New York This paper introduces a new algorithm designed to identify crime hotspots more effectively than commonly used spatial techniques. Using crime data from three cities, the algorithm captured a larger proportion of crimes within hotspot areas than standard kernel density approaches. The study also presents a faster “greedy” version that approximates the optimal solution while significantly reducing computation time. The approach may offer crime analysts improved tools for identifying priority patrol locations. Tags:  hotspot policing, crime analysis, resource allocation Link Invisible Harms: The Hidden Health Impact of Fraud Skidmore, Halkon, O’Connell, Meenaghan & Button Police Foundation / NIHR (2026) Method:  Survey (n=311) and qualitative interviews Fraud is the most common crime experienced in the UK, yet its health impacts remain poorly understood. This study surveyed fraud victims and conducted interviews across two police force areas. Most victims reported negative health impacts following victimisation, including stress, anxiety and sleep disruption. A substantial proportion reported behavioural changes such as withdrawal from activities, and a smaller group reported severe distress including thoughts of self-harm. The report argues that fraud should be treated as a significant public health issue and calls for policing and support services to recognise the wider harms experienced by victims. Tags:  fraud, victim support, wellbeing Link : Policing Violence Against Women and Girls: Trust and Engagement Aisha K. Gill & Sundari Anitha Policing & Society (2026) Method:  Mixed methods study: 52 police officers in focus groups, 55 case files, body-worn video review This study examines police engagement with racially minoritised victims of violence against women and girls. Researchers found that victims’ needs and expectations were not always fully met, and that inconsistent communication and investigative practices could undermine trust. However, the study also identified examples of promising practice, particularly where officers demonstrated empathy, proactive safeguarding and strong partnership working. The authors argue that improving trust requires both organisational learning and stronger engagement with affected communities. Tags:  VAWG, trust and confidence Link Investigating Intimate Partner Sexual Violence Cassandra Wiener, Andy Myhill & Merili Pullerits Policing & Society (2026) Method:  Qualitative study with practitioner interviews and case analysis This research examines how police investigate sexual violence within intimate relationships. The study argues that these cases are often poorly understood because they sit between domestic abuse and sexual offence frameworks. Forces that approached these investigations through a domestic abuse lens were better able to recognise coercive control dynamics and support victims effectively. The authors suggest that clearer investigative frameworks and training could improve outcomes for victims. Tags:  domestic abuse, sexual violence investigations Link Dynamic Guardianship and Residential Burglary van Sintemaartensdijk, Frerichs, Friehs & de Vries Journal of Experimental Criminology (2026) Method:  Behavioural experiments using virtual-reality burglary scenarios This research explores whether “dynamic guardianship” signals such as automated lighting, smart cameras and self-closing blinds, influence offender decision-making. Participants placed in simulated burglary scenarios responded differently to these signals. Cameras appeared to increase perceived risk, while other cues had weaker effects. The findings suggest that smart-home technologies may contribute to deterrence but should be considered complementary to traditional situational prevention measures. Tags:  burglary prevention, situational crime prevention Link   Measuring Police Burnout Using Brain Monitoring Chen et al. Scientific Reports (2026) Method:  Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) with machine learning Sample:  33 active police officers performing simulated operational tasks. Researchers used brain-imaging technology to measure stress responses in police officers during simulated tasks. A machine-learning model trained on the brain activity data was able to classify burnout levels with high accuracy. Although still experimental, the research suggests physiological indicators may eventually complement traditional self-report measures when assessing officer wellbeing. Tags:  wellbeing, burnout Link Social Media Campaigns and Adolescent Relationship Violence Seddig, Bartz, Bliesener, Rühs, Schauten & Thomsen Journal of Experimental Criminology (2026) Method:  Randomised survey experiment of 1,973 adolescents, 772 follow-up Researchers evaluated a social-media campaign (in Germany) promoting healthy relationships among young people. Participants exposed to campaign videos and audio content demonstrated improvements in knowledge and intentions to seek help. Attitude changes were smaller, but some effects emerged over time. The study suggests digital campaigns may increase awareness but may need to be combined with broader prevention efforts to achieve sustained behavioural change. Tags:  youth violence prevention, digital interventions Link : Natural Language Processing and Police Reports Lukmanjaya, Halmich, Butler, Cook & Karystianis Crime Science (2026) Method:  Scoping review of 61 studies This review examined how natural language processing techniques have been used to analyse police narrative reports. Across the studies reviewed, machine-learning models showed promising performance in tasks such as classifying domestic violence cases and extracting information from incident narratives. However, the authors highlight inconsistent reporting standards and limited discussion of ethical issues. They call for improved governance frameworks and shared benchmarks for applying NLP techniques to policing data. Tags:  AI, policing data, intelligence analysis Link Generative AI and Financial Crime Tiwari, Zhou & Lee Crime Science (2026) Method:  Quantitative systematic literature review (94 studies) This review examines how generative AI is influencing financial crime. The literature shows that offenders are increasingly using AI tools for fraud automation, voice cloning and synthetic identity creation. At the same time, law-enforcement agencies are beginning to apply AI techniques to detect suspicious transactions and identify emerging fraud patterns. The authors emphasise the importance of developing governance frameworks and analytical capabilities to respond to AI-enabled crime. Tags:  fraud, cybercrime, AI Link

The Police Graduate Research Showcase is now open for submissions. The online event, taking place on 6 May 2026 , will showcase high-quality, applied research conducted by police officers as part of the Police Constable Degree Apprenticeship (PCDA) or other policing-related degree programmes. The Showcase is hosted by the National Policing Education Research Hub and supported by the Society of Evidence Based Policing (SEBP) . We are inviting police officers who have completed research with clear practical relevance to policing to submit their work for consideration as speakers at the event. What we are looking for Submissions should be based on completed research that demonstrates practical application and learning for policing. Priority areas include research that supports: Safer Streets Violence Against Women and Girls Trust and Confidence in Policing Research from any other area of policing will also be considered, provided it offers clear operational, organisational, or policy relevance. Selection process and opportunity Applications will be reviewed by a panel drawn from the Higher Education Institutions Research Hub . Successful applicants will be invited to present their research at the online Police Graduate Research Showcase on 6 May 2026 . From these presentations, winners will be selected from each category . Those selected will : Receive a presentation slot at the National Evidence-Based Policing Conference in September 2026 Be shortlisted for the SEBP Emerging Talent Award , announced at the same conference This is a unique opportunity to share practitioner-led research with a national audience and to help shape the future of evidence-based policing. How to apply To submit your research access the submission form here 🗓 Deadline for submissions: 18 February 2026

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.

It’s 30 years since I’ve been to Canada, and that was off the back of winning a national ‘Young Enterprise’ competition linked to my Business Studies A level….feels like a long time ago! As I board the flight from Heathrow, excited by the prospect of representing UK SEBP at the second National Canadian SEBP conference, I wonder what is in store for me. I’ve had briefings from Chief Rich Johnston (Barrie Police) around what to deliver and as I’m sat on the flight out, I mull over in my mind if my presentation will hit the mark. I never sleep when I travel, and after getting up for the 74 th time to allow the person sat next to me to move out of their seat, I flick through my notes and hope the presentation and panel appearances will be what our friends in Canada are looking for. I arrive at Toronto airport and its 27 degrees….I’m sweltering already. If anything I had been expecting snow….I somehow successfully navigate the 2 hour drive to Blue Mountain, Ontario (who knew when the traffic light is red in Canada you can still turn right if you stop first?), only annoying 3 or 4 Canadian truckers on the way with my strict adherence to the speed limits. As I arrive at Blue Mountain, I can immediately tell this is going to be a slick, well managed and beautifully presented event. Blue Mountain is a ski resort in Ontario, and as you might expect is a beautiful location. On the first morning of the conference I am greeted by Chief Rich Johnston who couldn’t be more welcoming. The first day is full of plenary’s, with different panels (understandably I’m on the international one) with much time invested with people concerned with the governance and structure of Canadian Policing. This is an intelligent move, as it is critical these key stakeholders understand, and support, everything we are collectively trying to achieve in the EBP world. Day 1 provides some great insights, with highlights including international, national and provincial perspectives on EBP through a Canadian lens; Dr Rylan Simpson talking through the mechanics of EBP; and Supt Mark Langhorn of Victoria Police in Australia working through his study on how to create a learning organisation. As Day 1 of the conference draws to a close, I’m hugely impressed by the venue, the myriad of sponsors, and the enthusiasm and integrity of everyone present that I speak to. It's clear to me that there is a lot of exciting evidence based progress being made in Canada.   Day 2 of the conference begins with a keynote presentation from Dr Tamara Herold of the University of Nevada, giving some interesting examples of things like burglary reduction and implementation science. After some insightful presentations from colleagues in the Netherlands Police lunch is presented which again is excellent – good food always makes a difference! After lunch I’m on stage again as a panel member, discussing things as diverse as the impact of politics on EBP and the latest developments across the globe in EBP. The afternoon covers a wide range of subjects – hotspots, attrition forecasting and enhancing police legitimacy to name but a few. We then have a presentation from the 30 forward movement and hear about the fantastic progress the group is making supporting women in policing in North America. We then see some emotional scenes as there is a ceremonial signing of a pledge by numerous Police Chiefs from across Canada, and lifetime achievement awards presented to 3 female Canadian Police Officers (retired). We leave the emotional hall, and the day has the real feeling of a hugely successful collaboration event. Day 3 begins with my key note speech. I cover a variety of elements in my 45 minute slot, including – the history of EBP, with a nod to the ‘Godfather’ of EBP Prof Larry Sherman; a review of some of the points Prof Sherman made in his seminal ‘Triple T’ paper in 2013; what EBP strategies might look like in a policing organisation; a quick run through of a variety of studies; and some thoughts on what the future of EBP might look like. No heckling from the audience, I even managed to get an Ashes dig into a couple of Australian colleagues (the cricket is going to be interesting this winter) – so I think it went okay! We squeezed in a meeting of the International SEBPs (UK, Canada, Australia and USA) to give some thought to a potential global conference which could be on the horizon….watch this space! Due to my flight times, I then had to leave, missing out on presentations which included the targeting of violent crime, enhancing diversity in police recruitment and Supt Dave Cowan’s keynote speech from Victoria Police, Australia. As I type this up, sat at Toronto International Airport, I am left with a hugely positive feeling regarding EBP in Canada, but also, the spirit of collaboration with SEBP’s across the globe. Canada delivered an incredible conference, with lots of sponsors, a fantastic venue and 350 attendees! I was witness to so much passion, energy and drive, I cannot help but think that Canada will drive evidence-based progress in policing for years to come. It’s also reinforced my belief that EBP is a force for good; evidence informed approaches lead to increased public confidence, enhanced police legitimacy and better public value. This leads to better service delivery for our local communities and victims of crime, which is something we are all striving to achieve. Great job Canada and thanks for inviting me!

In an era of tightening resources and negative headlines, positive stories about policing are few and far between. But at this year’s National Evidence Based Policing Conference they were there in abundance. The two-day event brought together those tackling the wicked problems facing policing – demand outstripping resources, falling victim satisfaction, the epidemic of violence against women and girls, poor police morale – and showed there are solutions if you follow the evidence. This year’s conference, presented by the Society of Evidence Based Policing (SEBP) and the Youth Endowment Fund (YEF) took place at the shiny new campus of the University of Huddersfield. Speakers showcased the best of Yorkshire talent while showing that evidence comes in all different shapes and sizes and what really matters is finding and following it. Take PC John Porter, from South Yorkshire Police, who pioneered the use of a simple GPS device to help families find loved ones with dementia who go wandering. He at first faced misunderstanding, but with the help of a human rights lawyer, managed to convince his force to give him £10,000 for a 12-month pilot. Working with Sgt Ben Hanson, he gave the GPS device to the families of 50 people who had gone missing before. The GPS tracker reduced missing episodes from 84 in the previous year to one. They then teamed up with Professor Mike Doyle of Huddersfield University to develop a further trial in which devices were given to people with dementia who were newly diagnosed. In this group no one went missing, and the force saved £300,000 from not having to mobilise to find people. Or Chief Inspector Dan Hayes who showcased West Yorkshire Police’s solution to the problem that the main screening tool used to decide which domestic abuse victims get urgent support " doesn't work".  For want of a better alternative, the domestic abuse, stalking and honour-based abuse risk checklist (DASH) is being used to predict future harm even though it is not designed for the task. CI Hayes explained how, to better safeguard victims, West Yorkshire has designed an actuarial algorithmic tool. This pulls all relevant information together to predict the likelihood of future crimes occurring as well as their potential severity. Early tests showed it outperformed Dash in predicting repeat incidents in low and high-risk domestic abuse cases. The algorithm is now being piloted in Leeds in a randomised controlled trial, and early results are promising. The conference heard about another cutting-edge tool developed in collaboration between police forces and academics. Professor Andy Newton of Nottingham Trent University and Amanda Johnson of Essex Emergency Services Collaboration shared the pioneering work of Project Minerva, a data driven solution to prevent violence against women and girls (VAWG). Their statistical mapping tool identifies high-risk public places for violence against women and girls in Essex. It then uses open-source data to show what influenced victimisation at the local level, before predicting where further incidents could occur. The tool showed an increased risk of VAWG outside colleges and secondary schools. Armed with this information, the police force could not only deploy officers in the right places at the right times, but work with schools and women and girls to develop the interventions, such as better lighting and more attractive street furniture, they said would help them feel safer. But the best evidence and most effective tools will not work if the police officers using them are struggling with health problems or poor morale. Police officers are expected to perform well under immense pressure, yet as Dr Simon Baldwin of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police told the conference, they can only do so if they have the right training. His experiment first attached sensors to officers attending incidents to measure their heart rate. He found that even before they got out of their cars officers’ heart rates were at 170 bpm (the equivalent of a fast sprint). As well as leading to increased risk of cardiovascular diseases, such high stress levels can trigger poor decision making. After conducting a live simulation (in which some officers were so panicked they “shot” a suicidal man) he found that the right training didn’t reduce officers heart rates but did enable them to better perform under intense pressure. Other research highlighted a major cause of low police officer morale, and how a lot could be achieved by issuing looser uniform trousers. In a presentation called “It’s tough to tackle crooks when your tackle’s crooked” Dr Camilla De Camargo and Dr Stephanie Wallace from Lancaster University shared the results of the National Uniform Survey. They showed that not only do most officers believe that the uniform is uncomfortable and impractical, 63 per cent of male officers and 85 percent of female feel too tight trousers and ill-designed stab vests have harmed their physical health. They argued that designing uniform that is fit for purpose could make officers more effective, could reduce poor morale and increase public trust. But as Detective Superintendent David Cowan of the Australia and New Zealand Society of Evidence Based Policing pointed out, although you may have evidence showing what needs to change, converting this evidence to policy change on the ground is hard. Giving the example of the Royal Navy who took 50 years to introduce citrus fruit on ships after James Lind discovered it prevented scurvy, he told the conference that in many cases EBP challenges status quo, which creates resistance. But with persistence and well-designed experiments, and with the right leadership, the trials and tribulations can be overcome.   As always at the end of the conference, SEBP COO Dr Matt Bland and Chair Al Murray left delegates with a challenge to digest what they’ve learned at the conference and use it. So that next year, when they return delegates can demonstrate what changes they’ve made using the best available evidence. Slide decks and videos from the conference are now available on the SEBP Members' Hub .

We launched the National Evidence-Based Policing (EBP) Awards at the recent National EBP Conference in Huddersfield to recognise the people and partnerships turning evidence into everyday practice. The awards exist for a simple purpose: to celebrate use, production and communication of the best available evidence —and to encourage a culture where testing, learning and sharing “what works” is part of how policing gets things done. Judged by panels drawn from SEBP volunteers, staff, partners and trustees, the five categories reflect the different ways evidence improves outcomes: preventing harm, partnering well, innovating responsibly, nurturing emerging talent and honouring lifetime contribution. The Lawrence W. Sherman Prize At the heart of the programme is The Lawrence W. Sherman Prize for Career Contribution to Evidence-Based Policing —named for the scholar whose work helped define EBP as a disciplined blend of professional expertise, research and local data. The prize recognises individuals who have not only generated evidence but built the platforms and communities that allow it to influence policy and practice. 2025 recipient: Rachel Tuffin OBE (College of Policing). Rachel has spent her career equipping policing to use and share evidence—supporting practitioner-researchers, strengthening police–university partnerships and helping evidence reach the front line. “I’m delighted to accept this award in recognition of the hard work of the whole team at the College and all those out there in policing who love finding out what works. I’d like to pay tribute to two colleagues we have lost this past year and sorely miss, Dr Nicky Miller and Dr Jo Wilkinson. Amongst their many contributions, I’m grateful for the time they dedicated to supporting individual police officers and staff to do their own research, and to building up partnerships between police and universities to help share what works.”— Rachel Tuffin OBE Rachel Tuffin receives the 2025 Sherman Prize from Professor Lawrence Sherman and SEBP founder Alex Murray 2025 Award Winners in Full: Excellence in Prevention of Violence Karl Secker and Sharon Ward — Cambridgeshire Constabulary Recognised for evidence-informed prevention that strengthens partnerships and targets resources where they reduce the most harm. Their approach exemplifies the prevention mindset: clear problem definition, data-led prioritisation and practical measures tracked for impact in their work on Operation Guardian. Inspector Karl Secker of Cambridgeshire receives his award for excellence in the prevention of violence Outstanding Police–Academic Partnership Professor Andrew Wootton, Professor Caroline Davey, Dr Roberta Signori — University of Salfordand Greater Manchester Police A sustained, co-produced programme translating human-centred design research into tools and practices that support communities and frontline officers (including GMP Community Connect ). “We are honoured to receive this award, which recognises the value of rigorous, evidence-based collaboration between academia and policing. GMP Community Connect demonstrates how human-centred design research can deliver practical innovations that strengthen policing and community safety.”— Professor Andrew B. Wootton, University of Salford Outstanding Innovation PC John Porter and PS Ben Hanson — South Yorkshire Police The award acknowledges not just a smart idea, but the discipline to test it, measure it and learn from the results so others can replicate success. John and Ben's work on GPS tracking for dementia-sufferers has led to a substantial reduction in harm and demand in South Yorkshire. PC John Porter and PS Ben Hanson with Alex Murray and Supt. James Sutherland Emerging Talent PC Holly Cunnington — Northamptonshire Police While a Police Constable Degree Apprentice, Holly undertook the highly graded primary study— “The Mental Health Crisis: An exploration into the current organisational culture and the support frontline police officers are receiving for their mental wellbeing” . Like all apprentices, she produced this evidence while juggling the rigours of her new job, and her work represents a small insight into the mountains of research that new recruits have generated since 2018. Holly is now working with her force’s strategic portfolio lead to translate findings into action. “I am honoured to receive this award in the first ever National Evidence-Based Policing Awards… Being an officer, I have frequently seen how mental wellbeing can be ‘the elephant in the room’. My work was driven by a need to do better for policing colleagues and for the future of policing.”— PC Holly Cunnington Why these awards matter Evidence-based policing is not a single method; it’s a professional habit : define the problem precisely, draw on the best available research to choose a plausible response, test it fairly , and share what you learn. The National EBP Awards highlight that habit across an array of roles and ranks: Prevention winners show how focusing on harm reduction pays public-safety dividends. Partnership winners prove that co-production with universities turns research into usable tools. Innovation winners demonstrate that new ideas count most when they’re evaluated. Emerging talent reminds us the future of EBP is already on the front line. And the Sherman Prize honours the people who build the scaffolding—networks, standards and culture—so evidence can travel and endure. Congratulations to all our winners! For any more information get in touch with us via info@sebp.police.uk .

A year ago, the Youth Endowment Fund (YEF) formally joined forces with the Society of Evidence Based Policing (SEBP) with one shared aim: to help policing do more of what works. Together, we set out to better understand what the evidence says about preventing violence and keeping children safe—and crucially, to support those working in policing to apply this knowledge in practice. Twelve months on, we’re proud to celebrate the impact of that partnership and look forward to more development to come. Why SEBP? With a network of thousands of police officers and staff, SEBP is a unique organisation in the policing world. It’s a charitable community built by and for policing professionals who believe that better decisions come from considering the evidence on what works and what doesn’t. That makes SEBP a natural partner for us at the Youth Endowment Fund (YEF), where we’re committed to building a better understanding of how to prevent children and young people from becoming involved in violence—and making sure that knowledge gets used. Achievements: Bringing evidence-based policing into practice Over the past year, SEBP has gone above and beyond in helping to bring evidence closer to frontline policing. Here are just a few highlights: Grown stronger as an organisation : SEBP now has its first paid Chief Operating Officer, helping professionalise and future-proof the organisation. It’s also introduced new governance and strategic planning processes that put it in a strong position to keep growing its impact. Brought evidence to the forefront of policing events : SEBP has hosted both national and international conferences, alongside three regional events and numerous showcases at other conferences. These gatherings have brought together hundreds of officers and staff to explore how evidence can inform practice across a number of sectors old and new, including serious and organised crime professionals, cyber and online specialists and analysts working in vulnerability. Feedback has been overwhelmingly positive – more than 85% of respondents indicate these events add real value to them in their jobs. Focused on implementation : It's one thing to know what the evidence says; it’s another to apply it. That’s why we’re so proud of the introduction of implementation workshops - practical, interactive sessions that help translate research into action. These workshops have highlighted evidence-based approaches found in YEF’s violence prevention toolkit like hotspots policing , focused deterrence and problem-solving policing , provided SEBPs audience with an opportunity to interact with expert practitioners, and provided valuable reference materials. Improved access to knowledge : From launching a new website to creating a new Digital Members’ Hub, SEBP is making it easier than ever for policing professionals to access tools, resources, and insights. They’re even exploring how AI can help make evidence more understandable and actionable - a move we’re excited to watch unfold. Accelerated the growth of its community : Since the launch of our partnership, SEBP membership has increased by 27%. That’s over 1,500 new members in 12 months – the single biggest year of growth so far. What’s next? The journey’s far from over. Looking ahead, through the partnership, SEBP plans to: Grow its membership even further. The sky is the limit and we’re eager to see the membership base grow even further. There’s a lot of exciting plans ahead for developing the Members’ Hub and other member resources like the newsletter to help support members to find and use evidence in their jobs. SEBP will consult with its growing member-base to refine this resource. Host the 2025 National Evidence-Based Policing Conference in Huddersfield next month. This will mark the introduction of the first national EBP awards, including one dedicated to the prevention of youth violence. There will also be more regional events, starting with Gloucestershire in November. Run more conferences, workshops and evidence-sharing sessions—with an even stronger focus on youth violence prevention. The implementation webinars will expand to other areas of the YEF toolkit, and a new series of workshops will explore individual studies like YEF’s recent ‘police in classrooms’ and give members the chance to speak directly with authors. Expand work with other partners such as the College of Policing, Police-Academic Centres of Excellence and universities to amplify good use of evidence and provide tools for officers and staff. Continue to grow as a sustainable organisation. Next year, SEBP will recruit a second member of staff who will help to expand its digital hub and its outreach work to support its regional volunteer network. Our partnership will help SEBP beyond the lifetime of our agreement and help to build a lasting legacy of using evidence in policing. Together, we’ll continue to build on this momentum. We want every police officer and staff member – no matter their role or region – to feel confident using evidence to make decisions. Because we believe that’s how we’ll keep children safe and prevent violence. Here’s to another year of collaboration and change.

The Society of Evidence Based Policing (SEBP) and Youth Endowment Fund invite you to the National Evidence-Based Policing Conference 2025 , taking place at the University of Huddersfield on 10–11 September 2025 . This year’s conference will bring together leading thinkers, frontline innovators, and policing professionals from across the UK and beyond to explore how research and evidence can transform policing practice. With plenary sessions, parallel workshops, and opportunities to network with colleagues across the sector, the programme promises both inspiration and practical takeaways. 👉 Book your place now — spaces are limited, and this is the one event you cannot afford to miss. 📅 Programme Day One — Wednesday 10th September 08:30 – 09:00 Registration, Tea and Coffee 09:00 – 09:15 Welcome and Introductions Alex Murray (SEBP & National Crime Agency) Professor Jason Roach (University of Huddersfield) 09:15 – 10:00 Plenary 1 – Where should EBP cast its light next? Professor Jason Roach (University of Huddersfield) 10:00 – 10:45 Plenary 2 – Implementing a Global Assistive Positioning System (GAPS) for people with dementia Professor Michael Doyle (University of Huddersfield/NHS) PC John Porter, Sgt Ben Hanson (South Yorkshire Police) 10:45 – 11:15 Networking, Tea and Coffee 11:15 – 12:00 Plenary 3 – A Reasonable Officer: Stress, Training, and Performance in Use of Force Dr Simon Baldwin (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) 12:00 – 12:45 Plenary 4 – The Minerva Approach: Reducing VAWG in Public Places Professor Andy Newton (Nottingham Trent University) Amanda Johnson (Essex Emergency Services Collaboration) 12:45 – 13:45 Networking Lunch 13:45 – 14:30 – Parallel Session 1 Policing Safer Streets — Kate Moreton and Victoria Barrow (College of Policing) The Policing Problem Book — David Westby and Catrin Beetham (NPCC) 14:30 – 15:15 – Parallel Session 2 The 5 T’s of EBP — David Cowan (Australia and New Zealand SEBP) Predicting Gross Misconduct — Sgt Morven Brown (Police Scotland) 15:15 – 15:40 Networking ,Tea and Coffee 15:40 – 16:20 Panel Discussion – Can Performance Management Be Evidence-Based? Dr Paul Dawson (London Mayor's Office for Police and Crime) Alex Murray (SEBP, NCA) Professor Lawrence Sherman (Benchmark Cambridge) 16:20 – 17:00 Plenary 6 – Police in Corridors and Police in Classrooms Isobel Harrop (King’s College London) Kira Ewanich (King's College London) Amy Hamlyn (Cardiff University) 17:00 Close of Day One Day Two — Thursday 11th September 09:00 – 09:15 Welcome — Detective Chief Superintendent Neil Ralph (SEBP, Avon and Somerset Police) 09:15 – 10:00 Plenary 7 – SEBP 2.0 Dr Matt Bland (SEBP) 10:00 – 10:45 – Parallel Session 3 Gamification to Improve Victim Satisfaction — Supt James Sutherland (Cambridgeshire Police) Retail Crime: A Focus on Repeats — Supt Luke Baldock (Metropolitan Police Service) 10:45 – 11:15 Networking, Tea and Coffee 11:15 – 12:00 – Parallel Session 4 An Actuarial Algorithm for High-Harm Domestic Abuse — CI Dan Hayes (West Yorkshire Police) Project Theraean: Countering Terrorism — Shannen Benton (NaCTSO) 12:00 – 12:45 – Parallel Session 5 Using Nudge Interventions to Influence Stalker Re-Offending (RCT) — DSupt Daniel Thompson (Metropolitan Police Service) Centre for Police Productivity — T/Supt Mat Burbeck (College of Policing) 12:45 – 13:45 Networking Lunch 13:45 – 14:30 Plenary 8 – Insights from the National Uniform and Equipment Survey Dr Camilla De Camargo & Dr Stephanie Wallace (Lancaster University) 14:30 – 15:15 Plenary 9 – Evidence-Based Police Wellbeing Dr Ashley Cartwright (University of Huddersfield) 15:15 – 16:00 Plenary 10 – The Blurred Policing Mission Jonathan Hinder MP 16:00 – 16:15 Closing Remarks 16:15 Conference Close Why You Should Attend This event is the centre of the evidence-based policing movement in the UK. Whether you’re a frontline officer, senior leader, researcher, policy-maker or work in an organisation that supports policing, you’ll leave with fresh insights, practical tools, and new connections. All for the bargain price of £99 for both days or £59 for one! We hope to see you there. 👉 Secure your place today: Book your ticket here