Event library Webinars Conferences National Evidence Based Policing (NEBP) Conference 2025 10-11 September 2025 (University of Huddersfield, UK) SEBP Midlands Conference 2025 24 June 2025 (De Montfort University, Leicester, UK) Fighting crime with legitimacy and procedural justice 14 June (The Royal Society, London, UK) BETA Contact us to help improve this site 2018-2024 What Works for the Frontline? SEBP Annual Conference, 11-12 September 2024 The Importance of Focus: How EBP can Drive Precision Policing. SEBP Annual Conference, 9-10 November 2023 10 Challenges to Policing. Weekly webinar series, 24 March - 26 May 2021 SEBP Annual Conference, 1-2 March 2018

BETA Contact us to help improve this site Our people Board of Trustees Ben Linton Chair Ben held a wide variety of leadership, operational and strategic roles over nearly 17 years at the Metropolitan Police Service, ending his time as a Chief Inspector. Ben became Chair of Trustees in 2026 Caroline Fiennes Trustee Caroline is an advocate for evidence-based philanthropy, and has worked on this for over 20 years. She has advised many donors and foundations on many issues in many countries. Lewis Linton Treasurer Lewis has helped various businesses navigate their finances over the years, and has supported the SEBP since it was founded. Alex Murray OBE Trustee Alex is the founder of SEBP. He was previously Chief Constable at West Mercia Police, Commander for Serious Violence at the Metropolitan Police Service and Assistant Chief Constable at West Midlands Police. He is currently Director of Police AI. Simon Ruda Trustee Simon has worked for and with police for over a decade, including as Director of Home Affairs & International Programmes at BIT, and Head of the Strategic Insight Unit at the Metropolitan Police Service. He is currently an independent consultant. Executive Committee The Executive Committee (ExCo) has powers delegated to it by the Board of Trustees. It is responsible for the day to day delivery of SEBP's strategy. Alex Murray OBE Chair of Executive Committee As Chair of ExCo, Alex leads the operational delivery of SEBP. He is the founder of SEBP, formerly T/CC at West Mercia, Director at the NCA and is currently Director of Police AI. C/ Supt Neil Ralph Vice Chair: Leadership As Vice Chair: Leadership, Neil is responsible for co-ordination of the regional volunteer network embedded within policing. Dr. Matt Bland Chief Operating Officer Responsibility for the operational delivery of the SEBP's mission and objectives. He has worked previously in policing and academia. Matt is a full-time employee at SEBP. Helen Khezrzadeh Head of Engagement Helen is a full-time employee. She is responsible for leading on SEBP's engagement with the policing profession and leads the volunteer support teams for communications, events and programmes James Watson Communications James is the Lead Service Designer for Policing and Security at the Home Office. He advises SEBP on design principles for its digital assets and conferences. Suasnne Knabe-Nicol Communications Responsibility creating for educational and promotional media content for the SEBP. Susanne is a Lecturer and Programme Leader at London Middlesex University and the Police Science Dr. T/ACC Kate Anderson Regional Co-ordinator Kate was appointed temporary Assistant Chief Constable in September 2025. Kate has worked in Lincolnshire Police since 2021, having previously worked in Cambridgeshire Constabulary and for Northamptonshire Police. Dr Jennifer Norman Regional Co-ordinator Jen is Head of Policing at the Open University and co-lead for our South East region. Regional Co-ordinators Our volunteers are at the heart of everything we do and our Regional Teams span the whole of the UK. Each co-ordinates evidence-based practice requirements and developments in their constituent organisations across policing, academia and beyond. C/ Supt Neil Ralph Vice Chair: Leadership As Vice Chair: Leadership, Neil is responsible for co-ordination of the regional volunteer network embedded within policing. He is also the Regional Co-ordinator for the South West Region. T/ACC Kate Anderson Midlands Co-ordinator Kate was appointed temporary Assistant Chief Constable in September 2025. Kate has worked in Lincolnshire Police since 2021, having previously worked in Cambridgeshire Constabulary and for Northamptonshire Police. Dr Jennifer Norman South East Co-ordinator Jen is Head of Policing at the Open University and co-lead for our South East region. Supt. Mat Burbeck South East Co-ordinator Mat is a local policing Superintendent at Kent Police. Supt. James Sutherland East Co-ordinator James is Head of Organisational Development at Cambridgeshire Constabulary Millie Garrod East Co-ordinator Millie is a Higher Analyst at Norfolk and Suffolk Constabularies Julia Hall North West Co-ordinator Julia is Head of Design for Security at Greater Manchester Police Anna Baker Wales Co-ordinator Anna is Strategic Health and Justice Lead for the Police and Crime Commissioner in North Wales. C/Insp. Peter Bodley London Co-ordinator Peter is a Chief Inspector for the Metropolitan Police Service in London. Insp. Ross Greenwood Yorkshire Co-ordinator Ross leads the EVOLVE team for South Yorkshire Police Dr Ben Havers BTP Co-ordinator Dr Havers is Police Strategic Research Manager for British Transport Police DI Richard Simpson PSNI Co-ordinator Supt. Jon Harris Scotland Co-ordinator Jane Sanderson Midlands Co-ordinator

Understanding evidence The scientific process The scientific process is the foundation of evidence-based policing (EBP). It provides a systematic way to investigate questions, evaluate interventions, and make informed decisions. While experimentation is at the heart of EBP, not all evidence involves conducting experiments—some evidence is observational, and both types play a crucial role in understanding what works. The Steps of the Scientific Process The scientific process typically involves: Observation : Identifying a problem or phenomenon, such as an increase in burglaries in a specific area. Hypothesis Formation: Proposing an explanation or solution, for example, that increasing visible patrols will deter burglaries. Testing: Gathering data through experimentation or observation to test the hypothesis. Analysis: Evaluating the results to determine if the evidence supports the hypothesis. Replication: Repeating the process to confirm the findings. This process ensures that conclusions are based on reliable evidence rather than assumptions or anecdotes. Experimental vs. Observational Evidence Experimental Evidence: Experiments, such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs), are considered the gold standard for determining causation. They test whether a specific intervention, like hotspot policing, directly causes an outcome, such as reduced crime, by comparing results between a treatment group and a control group. Observational Evidence: Observational studies, such as analysing crime trends over time or interviewing victims about their experiences, involve collecting data without manipulating the environment. While these studies can identify correlations and patterns (e.g., increased patrols are linked with reduced crime), they cannot definitively prove cause and effect. One is not better than the other. Both types of evidence are essential: Experiments provide strong evidence of causation. We did this, and that happened as a result. Observational studies help identify patterns and generate hypotheses about how those patterns work, especially when experiments are impractical or unethical. Why This Matters for EBP In EBP, understanding the difference between correlation (things that happen together) and causation (one thing directly causes another) is critical. For example: Correlation: A study might observe that areas with more CCTV cameras have lower crime rates. But does the presence of CCTV reduce crime, or are cameras simply more common in safer areas? Causation: An experiment that installs CCTV in some areas but not others can test whether the cameras directly lead to crime reduction. Policing decisions must consider this distinction: Observational evidence can inform where to focus efforts or identify trends. Experimental evidence helps determine whether a specific action is effective and replicable. The scientific process ensures that policing practices are grounded in robust evidence. By combining observational and experimental approaches, practitioners can make better decisions about what works, for whom, and in what context. Grades of evidence Not all evidence is equal. Fortunately, there are various tools to help us differentiate. The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale (SMS) along with frameworks like EMMIE (which is used by the What Works for Crime Reduction toolkit) and the Youth Endowment Fund (YEF) toolkit, helps us evaluate the strength of research evidence. These tools differentiate studies based on their ability to establish causal relationships—how confidently we can say that A causes B. It’s important to emphasise that these frameworks are not about dismissing lower-level studies. Observational studies, for instance, serve different purposes than experimental ones. Instead, the goal is to understand the relative strength of evidence when making decisions about what works. Maryland Scientific Methods Scale The Maryland SMS ranks studies on a five-level scale based on the rigour of their methodology, particularly their ability to assess causality: Level 1: Correlation Studies Studies that describe a pattern such as an association between A and B but cannot determine if A causes B. Example: Crime is observed to drop in areas with CCTV, but the study doesn’t consider other factors that might influence crime rates. Purpose: Useful for identifying patterns and generating hypotheses. Level 2: Before-and-After Studies Without a Comparison Group Measures outcomes before and after an intervention but lacks a control group to isolate the intervention’s effect. Example: Assessing crime rates before and after introducing street lighting in one neighbourhood. Limitation: Cannot rule out other influences. Level 3: Before-and-After Studies with a Comparison Group Introduces a comparison group not exposed to the intervention, helping isolate its effects. Example: Comparing crime rates in one area with new street lighting to another area without it. Strength: Stronger indication of causality but still open to biases because we cannot be sure the comparison area is like-for-like Level 4: Quasi-Experimental Studies Uses techniques like matched comparisons to minimise bias, though not fully randomised. Example: Pairing similar areas (one with CCTV, one without) to measure differences in crime. Strength: Provides robust evidence when RCTs aren’t feasible. Level 5: Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) Participants are randomly assigned to intervention and control groups, eliminating most biases. Example: Randomly deploying extra patrols in some areas and not others to measure crime reduction. Gold Standard: The most reliable method for establishing causality. EMMIE: What Works for Crime Reduction Toolkit The EMMIE framework evaluates interventions across five dimensions, not just effectiveness: Effectiveness: Does it work? How well? Mechanism: How does it work? What is the underlying process? Moderators: Under what conditions does it work best? Implementation: How easy or practical is it to deliver? Economic Cost: Is it cost-effective? This approach ensures a broader evaluation, recognising that effectiveness alone doesn’t tell the whole story. YEF Toolkit Scale The Youth Endowment Fund (YEF) toolkit categorises evidence into three levels: Strong: High-quality studies, typically RCTs or systematic reviews, showing clear, consistent results. Promising: Studies with some methodological limitations but still providing useful insights. Mixed or Weak: Evidence with significant limitations or inconsistent findings. The YEF emphasises transparency, helping users understand where confidence in the evidence is strongest. Why Grades of Evidence Matter Understanding these scales helps differentiate the strength of evidence: Strong Evidence: Provides confidence that an intervention causes an effect. Weaker Evidence: Useful for generating ideas, identifying trends, or guiding further research, but less reliable for determining causality. The point is not to create a hierarchy or dismiss certain studies but to illustrate that not all research is equally robust. Even published studies can vary widely in quality. When using evidence, it’s essential to: Critically Assess: Consider the study’s methodology, sample size, and potential biases. Combine Evidence: Use a mix of observational and experimental studies to build a fuller picture. Apply Judgement: Understand the strengths and limitations of the evidence before acting. By appreciating the differences in evidence quality, practitioners can make more informed, effective decisions in their policing strategies. Research methods Evidence in evidence-based policing (EBP) is the product of research designs, which are structured approaches to answering questions and solving problems. Different research designs serve different purposes, and each has its own strengths and limitations. Understanding these designs helps practitioners evaluate the evidence and apply it effectively. Observational vs. Experimental Designs Research designs can broadly be grouped into two categories: Observational Designs: These involve collecting and analysing data without directly intervening. They are ideal for identifying patterns, correlations, or trends but cannot establish causation (i.e., whether A causes B). Experimental Designs: These involve actively testing an intervention by manipulating variables (e.g., introducing a policy change) and observing the outcomes. They are better suited for determining causality. Both types of designs are important in EBP, and the choice depends on the question being asked. Qualitative and Quantitative Research Research methods can also be divided into qualitative and quantitative approaches, which differ in their focus and outputs: Qualitative Research: Focuses on exploring experiences, perceptions, and contexts in depth. Produces rich, descriptive data (e.g., interviews, focus groups, observations). Example: Interviews with community members to understand their trust in the police. Strengths: Helps define problems, explore complex issues, and generate hypotheses for further testing. Limitations: Findings are not easily generalisable or measurable. Quantitative Research: Focuses on measuring and analysing numerical data. Uses structured methods (e.g., surveys, experiments, statistical analysis) to test hypotheses. Example: Measuring changes in crime rates before and after an intervention. Strengths: Provides measurable, comparable results and is essential for evaluating effectiveness. Limitations: May oversimplify complex issues by focusing solely on numbers. Mixed-Methods Research: Combines qualitative and quantitative approaches to leverage the strengths of both. Example: A study might use surveys to measure public confidence (quantitative) and interviews to explore why trust is increasing or decreasing (qualitative). Strengths: Provides a fuller understanding of issues by integrating numerical data with contextual insights. Examples of Research Methods Here are some common methods used in EBP and their purposes: Observational Methods Case Studies: Detailed exploration of a single example or incident. Useful for understanding unique or complex issues. Cross-Sectional Surveys: Collect data at a single point in time to identify patterns or relationships. Longitudinal Studies: Observe changes over time, such as tracking crime rates over several years. Experimental Methods Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs): Participants are randomly assigned to intervention or control groups to test causality. Quasi-Experiments: Similar to RCTs but without full randomisation, often used when random assignment isn’t possible. Natural Experiments: Observing the impact of real-world changes or policies without direct manipulation. Mixed-Methods Approaches: Combining surveys with interviews to evaluate both the measurable and contextual impact of an intervention. Why EBP Focuses on Quantitative Research Because EBP is primarily concerned with effectiveness—understanding what works and why—it tends to rely more heavily on studies with quantitative measurements. Quantitative methods are better suited to: Measuring changes in outcomes (e.g., crime rates, arrest numbers). Comparing interventions (e.g., whether one strategy reduces harm more than another). However, qualitative research plays a critical role in EBP by: Defining Problems: Providing insights into the lived experiences of communities or officers. Establishing Hypotheses: Highlighting issues or mechanisms to be tested in quantitative studies. Complementing Quantitative Data: Adding depth and context to numerical findings, helping to explain the “why” behind the “what.” For example, if a quantitative study finds that visible patrols reduce fear of crime, qualitative interviews can explore why people feel reassured by seeing officers. Choosing the Right Method The best research design depends on the question being asked: Exploratory Questions: Use qualitative or mixed-methods approaches to understand context or generate hypotheses. Causal Questions: Use experimental or quasi-experimental methods to determine what works. Monitoring Trends: Use observational methods to track changes over time or across groups. Each method has its place in the evidence base and combining them provides the strongest foundation for decision-making. Understanding research methods allows practitioners to critically assess evidence, ensuring that the decisions they make are based on reliable, relevant, and robust findings. Measurement Measurement is at the heart of any study in evidence-based policing (EBP). Whether it’s tracking crime rates, gauging public confidence, or evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention, the tools and methods used to measure outcomes determine the quality and trustworthiness of the evidence. Why Measurement Matters Measurement is more than just collecting data—it’s about ensuring that the data accurately represents what you’re trying to study. Without good measurement, even the most sophisticated study can produce misleading or unreliable results. For example: If a study measures "crime reduction" by counting arrests, it may not truly capture whether crime has decreased, as arrests don’t always equate to fewer offences. If a survey asks unclear or biased questions about trust in police, the results might not reflect actual public sentiment. This is where two key concepts come in: validity and reliability. Measurement Validity Validity refers to whether a measurement instrument accurately measures what it claims to. In plain terms: Are you measuring the right thing? Example 1: A study aims to measure fear of crime but only counts the number of reported burglaries. While burglary rates might be related, they don’t directly measure people’s fear, so the validity of this approach is low. Example 2: A public confidence survey uses clear and unbiased questions to gauge trust in the police. This increases the validity because the survey directly measures what it’s supposed to. Measurement Reliability Reliability refers to whether a measurement instrument produces consistent results. In other words: Can you trust the data to be the same if measured again? Example 1: A radar gun used to measure vehicle speeds gives the same readings under the same conditions, making it highly reliable. Example 2: An officer’s handwritten notes about incidents vary greatly between shifts. This inconsistency reduces reliability. A reliable instrument isn’t necessarily valid. For example, a flawed survey question might consistently produce the same wrong result, making it reliable but not valid. Interpreting Evidence Through Measurement Understanding validity and reliability is crucial when interpreting evidence. Before trusting the results of a study, ask: What was measured? Does the measurement align with the study’s goals? For example, measuring "officer workload" by counting hours worked might miss key aspects like case complexity. How was it measured? Was the measurement tool robust? For instance, was a standardised survey used, or was it created without testing? Is the data consistent? Were the same methods applied across all participants or settings? Inconsistent methods can weaken the findings. Why Measurement is Important for EBP Good measurement ensures that: Evidence is accurate: Policymakers and practitioners can trust the findings. Comparisons are meaningful: Data can be compared across studies, locations, or time periods. Interventions are properly evaluated: Success or failure is judged based on reliable and valid criteria. For example: A hotspot policing study might use the crime harm index to measure reductions in the severity of crimes in targeted areas. The index is somewhat valid because it reflects a perspective of harm, not just the number of incidents. A community engagement survey might use validated scales to measure trust and confidence, ensuring the findings are both reliable and accurate. What Practitioners Should Consider When evaluating evidence, pay attention to how measurements were done: Were the instruments tested for validity and reliability? Were clear and consistent methods used across participants or sites? Are the results presented transparently, with limitations acknowledged? These considerations help you critically assess the strength of the evidence and make better decisions based on the findings. Measurement is the foundation of good evidence. By understanding and applying the principles of validity and reliability, practitioners can ensure that the data they use is fit for purpose and leads to effective, evidence-based decisions. Why most EBP studies are quantitative When considering “what works” in policing, evidence-based policing (EBP) often leans towards quantitative evaluation. This is because many of the key questions EBP seeks to answer—such as whether an intervention reduces crime, improves efficiency, or enhances accountability—require measurable, numerical data. Quantitative studies are well-suited for evaluating these outcomes in a clear and standardised way. The Role of Quantitative Studies Quantitative research focuses on numbers and measurements. It allows practitioners to: Evaluate Effectiveness: For example, comparing crime rates before and after deploying hotspot policing. Demonstrate Accountability: Police forces can use quantitative results to justify decisions to the public or policymakers. Track Performance: Quantitative metrics, such as response times or conviction rates, are critical for assessing performance over time. Support Resource Allocation: Data-driven decisions ensure resources are targeted where they have the most impact. In the real-world context of policing, where budgets are tight and results are scrutinised, the ability to quantify impact is invaluable. For instance, demonstrating a reduction burglary rates after implementing a new strategy provides clear evidence of success. Where Qualitative Studies Fit In Quantitative studies are essential, but qualitative research plays a crucial role in complementing and enhancing EBP. Qualitative studies explore the lived experiences of individuals and communities, providing depth and context to numerical findings. They are particularly valuable for: Defining Problems: Understanding the root causes of issues or identifying emerging trends. Example: Interviews with community members might reveal concerns about a lack of visible policing that wouldn’t appear in crime data alone. Developing Interventions: Ethnographic research (observing and analysing behaviours within a community) can inspire innovative approaches to policing challenges. Example: Observations in a neighbourhood could highlight informal networks that influence local crime dynamics. Contextualising Results: Qualitative research adds meaning to quantitative findings, explaining not just what happened but why and how. Example: If hotspot policing reduces crime, interviews with officers and residents can uncover whether the reduction was due to deterrence, displacement, or increased community trust. EBP does not view qualitative research as “lesser.” Instead, it recognises that qualitative and quantitative methods serve different but complementary purposes. An Example Imagine a police force wants to address rising levels of youth violence: Defining the Problem with Qualitative Research: Conduct interviews with youth workers, teachers, and community members to hypothesise the root causes (e.g., lack of opportunities, gang influence). Conduct ethnographic observations in hotspots to reveal how and where violence tends to escalate. Testing an Intervention with Quantitative Research: Implement a youth mentorship programme and use quantitative methods (e.g., a randomised experiment) to evaluate its effectiveness. Contextualising the Results: If the programme reduces violence, qualitative interviews with participants and mentors could help explain why—perhaps the mentors provided role models, or the programme offered much-needed support structures. By combining these methods, the force can not only measure success but also understand and refine the intervention for future use. Balancing Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches While EBP often focuses on quantitative studies to answer “what works,” it values the insights qualitative research provides. Together, these approaches ensure: Holistic Understanding: Policymakers and practitioners get a full picture of a problem and its solutions. Practical Applicability: Interventions are informed by both hard data and the realities of lived experience. Ethical Awareness: Decisions consider the human impact alongside measurable outcomes. Quantitative studies may dominate EBP because of their ability to demonstrate impact in measurable terms, but qualitative studies are equally critical for shaping, interpreting, and improving policing practices. The most effective EBP draws on both to inform smarter, more empathetic decision-making. Statistics Statistics are essential tools in evidence-based policing (EBP). They help us make sense of data, identify patterns, and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions. While statistics can seem complex, they can be broken down into two main types: descriptive and inferential statistics. The goal here is not to teach you how to do statistics, but to help you understand the key concepts so you can interpret research with confidence. Descriptive vs Inferential Statistics Descriptive Statistics: These summarise data so we can understand it at a glance. Descriptive statistics don’t tell us why something happened—they just describe what the data looks like. Examples: Mean (average): The sum of all values divided by the number of values. For example, the average number of calls to a police station per day. Standard Deviation: This tells us how spread out the data is around the mean. A low standard deviation means most values are close to the average; a high one means there’s more variation. Percentages and Proportions: Used to show how often something occurs, such as the percentage of crimes resolved within a month. Inferential Statistics: These allow us to draw conclusions about a larger group (a population) based on data from a smaller group (a sample). Inferential statistics help answer questions like “Did this intervention reduce crime?” or “Is this difference meaningful or just random?” Core Concepts in Inferential Statistics: Sample vs Population: A population is the entire group you want to understand (e.g., all crimes in the UK). A sample is a smaller group you study to make inferences about the population (e.g., crimes in one city). The sample must be representative to give accurate conclusions. Standard Error: This measures how much the sample's results might differ from the population. Smaller samples tend to have a larger standard error, meaning the results are less precise. P-Values: A p-value tells us whether the results of a study are likely due to chance. Example: If a p-value is less than 0.05, it means there’s less than a 5% chance the result happened randomly. This suggests the result is “statistically significant.” Note: A small p-value doesn’t guarantee the result is meaningful in the real world—it’s just one part of the picture. Confidence Intervals: These give a range of values where we’re fairly confident the true result lies. Example: If a study finds crime reduced by 10% with a 95% confidence interval of 8%–12%, we can be 95% sure the true reduction is between 8% and 12%. Effect Sizes: Effect sizes tell us how big the difference or impact is, not just whether it exists. Example: If an intervention reduces crime by 2% in one area but 20% in another, the effect size tells us which is more impactful. Statistical Modelling and Tests Statistical models are like mathematical tools for understanding relationships between variables. For example, a model might explore whether an increase in patrol hours leads to a reduction in crime. The type of test used depends on the nature of the data: T-Test: Compares averages between two groups (e.g., crime rates in areas with and without CCTV). Chi-Square Test: Examines whether there’s a relationship between two categorical variables (e.g., crime type and location). Regression Analysis: Predicts how changes in one variable (e.g., patrol hours) affect another (e.g., crime rates). Different tests make different assumptions about the data, like whether it’s normally distributed (follows a bell curve). Choosing the wrong test can lead to misleading results, which is why statistics need to be handled with care. Why Statistics Can Be Tricky Statistics are notoriously complex, and it’s normal to feel overwhelmed when reading about them in research. Even experienced researchers sometimes struggle with advanced analyses or interpreting results correctly. Don’t feel bad if you find it difficult—it’s more important to understand the general concepts and ask questions when you’re unsure. When looking at statistical results: Look Beyond the Numbers: Statistics don’t provide all the answers—they’re tools to help interpret the data. Check Assumptions: Was the right test used for the data? Did the study explain its methodology? Focus on Practical Meaning: Even statistically significant results might not be relevant in real-world policing if the effect size is too small. Understanding these core statistical concepts allows you to interpret evidence more critically and confidently. The more familiar you become with these ideas, the easier it will be to engage with research and apply it to your work. How much can we believe in this evidence? Evidence-based policing (EBP) relies on research to guide decisions, but interpreting evidence isn’t as simple as just trusting what a study says. Practitioners need to think critically, using their judgment and experience to decide how much weight to give to the evidence and whether it applies to their specific situation. Two important concepts can help with this: internal validity and external validity. Internal Validity: How Reliable Are the Results? Internal validity refers to how well a study is designed to ensure its results are accurate and not influenced by other factors. In simple terms: Did the study really show that A caused B, or could something else explain the outcome? High Internal Validity: A study uses rigorous methods, such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs), to minimise bias and isolate the effect of the intervention. Example: An RCT tests whether increased patrols reduce street robberies by randomly assigning extra patrols to certain areas. The randomisation ensures other factors, like differences in neighbourhoods, don’t affect the results. Low Internal Validity: A study lacks controls or fails to account for other factors that might influence the outcome. Example: A study claims crime dropped after more patrols were introduced, but it doesn’t consider that the weather also changed, which might have reduced outdoor activity and crime. Key Takeaway: The higher the internal validity, the more confident you can be that the intervention caused the result but there is no fixed numerical scale for it. External Validity: Will It Work Here and Now? External validity refers to how well the findings of a study apply to other settings or situations. In other words: If it worked there, how likely is it to work here? High External Validity: A study has been tested successfully in different locations, with different populations, and under varying conditions. Example: A strategy like hotspot policing has worked in multiple cities around the world, making it more likely to succeed in your area. Low External Validity: A study was conducted in a very specific context that may not apply elsewhere. Example: A study showing that foot patrols reduced crime in a densely populated city might not apply in rural areas where population density is lower. Key Takeaway: Even if evidence has high internal validity, it’s up to practitioners to decide if the context and conditions are similar enough for it to work in their setting. Balancing Evidence with Judgment No matter how strong the evidence, there’s no guarantee an intervention will work every time or in every place. Practitioners play a critical role in interpreting evidence, using their expertise to assess: The Quality of the Evidence: Is the study well-designed and reliable? Does it have high internal validity? Scales like SMS, EMMIE and the YEF Toolkit help us here. The Relevance to Their Context: Are the conditions in the study similar to those in their area? Does it have external validity? Only you can decide. The Fit with Local Needs: Even if the intervention worked elsewhere, does it align with local resources, priorities, and community needs? Again – this is on you, the practitioner. Example: Imagine a study shows that body-worn cameras reduce complaints against officers in large metropolitan areas. If you work in a similar city with similar issues, you might expect similar results. If you work in a rural area with few complaints to begin with, you might question whether the intervention is relevant or likely to have the same impact. The Practitioner’s Role Interpreting evidence is not just about following what the research says. It’s about applying professional discretion and experience: Consider Probabilities, Not Certainties: If a study has worked multiple times in different places, it doesn’t guarantee success, but it does make it more likely. How much more likely is for you to decide, based on the evidence and your context. Think Critically: Ask questions like: What might make this work—or fail—here? Are there local factors the study didn’t account for? Combine Evidence with Local Knowledge: Use the research as a guide but adapt it to your specific circumstances. Add to the evidence: don’t just try it, test it. Put in place an evaluation framework of your own and feed it back to other so they can learn from your experiences. This is the scientific process in action. Believing in evidence isn’t about blind trust. It’s about weighing its strengths and weaknesses, considering its relevance, and making informed decisions that suit your unique situation. Critics of EBP sometimes point to it being a polar opposite to experience and craft-based knowledge. It really isn’t. It’s something that fits in underneath those things. Evidence provides the map, but you decide the route. Reading scientific papers The reality of working in evidence-informed ways will inevitably lead you to have to read scientific papers from time to time. These are a special kind of human invention! Scientific papers can seem daunting, especially if you’re unfamiliar with their structure or technical language. However, you don’t need to read every word to understand the key points. By focusing on specific sections, you can quickly extract the information you need for evidence-based policing. Here’s a straightforward framework to guide you. Understanding the Structure of a Scientific Paper Most scientific papers follow a standard format, often abbreviated as IMRAD: Introduction: Explains the problem and why the study was done. Methods: Details how the study was conducted, including design, data collection, and analysis. Results: Presents the findings, often with tables, graphs, and statistical data. Discussion: Interprets the results, explains their implications, and addresses limitations. Abstract: A short summary of the entire paper, typically found at the start. A Quick-Read Framework You don’t need to read a paper from start to finish. Instead, follow these steps to get the key points efficiently: Start with the Abstract: The abstract gives a snapshot of the study’s purpose, methods, main findings, and conclusions. Ask yourself: Does this study seem relevant to my question or context? Check the Introduction: Focus on the first and last paragraphs, which often explain the problem being addressed and the study’s goals. Ask yourself: Why was this study conducted? Is it tackling a problem I recognise? Skim the Methods: Look for the type of study (e.g., randomised controlled trial, observational study). Note the sample size, location, and key methods. Ask yourself: Is this method robust? Could these findings apply to my situation? Focus on the Results: Check tables and graphs for key outcomes. Look for summaries of the main findings (often highlighted in text or captions). Ask yourself: What were the main results? Are they statistically significant (e.g., p-values) and practically meaningful (e.g., effect sizes)? Read the Discussion and Conclusion: Focus on how the authors interpret their findings and the practical implications they suggest. Pay attention to any limitations they mention, as these could affect how you use the evidence. Ask yourself: What do the results mean in practice? Do the authors identify any risks or caveats? Review the References (Optional): If the study seems highly relevant, check the references for related studies to explore further. What to Look For in Each Section To get the most out of a paper, focus on these elements: The Research Question: What problem is the study addressing? The Study Design: Was it experimental or observational, quantitative, qualitative or mixed? How does this affect its reliability? The Main Findings: What does the evidence say? Are the results clear and consistent? The Implications: How do the findings relate to your policing context? The Limitations: Are there weaknesses in the study (e.g., small sample size, lack of randomisation) that might affect its applicability? Good studies will tell you about these openly. Tips for Practitioners Don’t Be Intimidated by Jargon: Focus on the big picture. You don’t need to understand every technical detail to grasp the key points. Use Your Judgment: Not all studies are equally relevant or robust. Look critically at how the evidence aligns with your needs. Start with Reviews or Summaries: If you’re new to reading scientific papers, begin with systematic reviews or toolkits like EMMIE or the YEF Toolkit. These often summarise multiple studies and provide clear takeaways. Practice Makes Perfect: The more papers you read, the easier it becomes to spot what’s important. By focusing on the key sections and asking the right questions, you can quickly understand what a paper offers and decide how its findings might apply to your work. Remember, reading scientific papers is a skill that improves with practice—and you don’t need to be an expert to make evidence-based decisions. BETA Contact us to help improve this site

BETA Contact us to help improve this site Where to find evidence Toolkits Toolkits distil complex research into clear, actionable insights, making them invaluable for busy practitioners. They are typically created by aggregating high-quality evidence from systematic reviews, evaluations, and meta-analyses. Usually, each intervention is assessed for effectiveness, cost, ease of implementation, and relevance, ensuring users have access to rigorously curated information. Key toolkits for EBP: What Works Centre for Crime Reduction (WWCCR) Toolkit: A toolkit that uses the EMMIE framework to evaluate interventions based on their effectiveness, mechanisms, moderators, implementation, and economic cost. It summarises evidence in plain language, with easy-to-read ratings for outcomes like crime reduction or community trust. Youth Endowment Fund (YEF) Toolkit: A toolkit focused on interventions aimed at preventing youth involvement in crime and violence. It offers detailed evaluations of approaches like mentoring, school-based programs, and family support, complete with cost-effectiveness insights. The Evidence-Based Policing (EBP) Matrix: A visual tool categorising studies based on proactivity (reactive to proactive), specificity (general or focused), and target (individual or place). It only includes interventions rated Level 4 or 5 on the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale, ensuring high methodological rigor. Advantages of toolkits: Accessibility: Toolkits break down technical research into user-friendly formats, using visuals, summaries, and practical recommendations. Efficiency: They save time by eliminating the need to navigate lengthy academic papers or raw data. Transparency: Users can see not just what works but also why it works (mechanisms), under what conditions (moderators), and at what cost (economic evaluation). Tailored guidance: Many toolkits include filters to refine results based on your needs, such as specific crime types, populations, or operational priorities. Databases Databases are online repositories that catalogue published studies, evaluations, and research papers. In the context of evidence-based policing, they are essential tools for accessing the latest findings, understanding prior studies, and identifying high-quality evidence to guide decision-making. Databases offer several benefits: Comprehensive search capabilities: They include peer-reviewed studies, grey literature, and reports from various disciplines relevant to policing, criminology, and public safety. Advanced filters: Allow users to refine searches by topic, publication year, methodology, and more. Access to full-text papers: Many databases provide direct links to full studies, though some require subscriptions. Key databases for EBP: Global Policing Database (GPD): One of the most comprehensive collections of intervention studies related to policing. It contains over 7,000 studies covering topics such as crime prevention, procedural justice, and technology use in policing. Web of Science: A multidisciplinary database that includes high-impact journals in criminology, social sciences, and public policy. It is excellent for identifying foundational studies and tracking citation networks to see how research has evolved. Advanced tools also allow for citation analysis and finding the most influential works in EBP. Campbell Collaboration Library: Focuses on systematic reviews and meta-analyses across social sciences, including crime and justice. Offers plain-language summaries and detailed breakdowns of evidence quality, making it accessible to non-academics. PubMed: Though primarily used in medicine, PubMed includes studies on public safety, mental health, and substance abuse that intersect with policing. Useful for exploring topics like trauma-informed policing or interventions related to health and safety. ProQuest Criminal Justice Database: Specialises in criminology, law enforcement, and security management topics. Features both academic papers and professional reports, bridging the gap between theory and practice. Google Scholar: A broad search tool for academic content, including peer-reviewed articles, conference papers, and theses. Users can set up alerts for keywords like "evidence-based policing" to stay updated on new research. SAGE Journals Online: Provides access to a wealth of social science and criminology research, including studies published in leading journals like Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. Frequently includes articles with practical applications for police agencies. Tips for Using Databases Start Broad, Then Refine: Use general terms like "crime prevention" or "evidence-based policing" initially, then narrow by keywords, regions, or methods. Check Abstracts First: Abstracts summarize a study's focus, methodology, and findings, helping you determine relevance quickly. Explore References: Studies often cite other key research, providing a trail to follow for additional evidence. Leverage Alerts: Many databases let you set alerts for specific topics, ensuring you stay up-to-date with the latest findings. Databases provide the foundation for evidence-based decisions, offering access to the rigorous research needed to assess and implement effective policing practices. Systematic reviews A systematic review is a research method that combines findings from many studies to answer a specific question. By carefully evaluating all available evidence, systematic reviews help identify what works, what doesn’t, and under what circumstances. How Systematic Reviews Are Done Define the Question: Researchers start with a focused question, like “Do body-worn cameras reduce complaints against police?” Search for Studies: They look through databases, journals, and reports to find all the studies on the topic. Pick the Best Evidence: Only studies that meet strict quality standards are included. For example, studies with robust methods, like randomized controlled trials, are prioritized. Summarize Findings: Researchers combine the results of these studies to identify patterns and trends. This process ensures that the review includes a wide range of high-quality evidence, making it more reliable than relying on individual studies. Why Systematic Reviews Are Highly Trusted Systematic reviews are near the top of the evidence hierarchy because they: Summarize Multiple Studies: They look at all the available evidence instead of focusing on just one or two studies. Reduce Bias: The process is transparent, so there’s less chance of cherry-picking results to support a particular viewpoint. Provide Clear Answers: By combining evidence, systematic reviews help practitioners make informed decisions about what works in policing. For example, systematic reviews have shown that hotspot policing is an effective way to reduce crime without pushing it to other areas. What Is a Meta-Analysis? A meta-analysis is a part of some systematic reviews that uses statistics to combine results from multiple studies into one clear answer. It calculates an overall “effect size,” showing how strong the evidence is for an intervention. For instance, a meta-analysis on body-worn cameras might find that their use leads to a 20% reduction in complaints against officers (this reduction is the "effect size"). Why Meta-Analyses Can Be Hard to Understand Effect Size: This tells you how much of a difference the intervention makes, but interpreting it requires understanding what the numbers mean. Variability Between Studies (Heterogeneity): This measures how different the studies are from each other. For example, one study might test body-worn cameras in a large city, while another tests them in a small rural town. These differences can affect the overall results. What is heterogeneity? It’s simply the variation or differences between the studies included in the review. Researchers try to account for these differences, but it’s important to consider when applying the findings. The Campbell Collaboration The Campbell Collaboration is a global organization that produces systematic reviews focused on social sciences, including crime and justice. Their reviews are highly regarded for their rigor and practical utility. Plain-Language Summaries: Campbell reviews are written to be accessible, even for non-academics, making them especially useful for police practitioners. Examples of Topics: Reviews cover a range of policing issues, such as the effectiveness of neighbourhood watch programs, strategies to reduce gang violence, and interventions to improve procedural justice. Using resources like the Campbell Library ensures that decisions are grounded in the best available evidence. How Systematic Reviews Help Policing Systematic reviews are practical tools for making evidence-based decisions: Save Time: Instead of reading dozens of studies, a systematic review provides a clear summary of what works. Reduce Risks: They highlight proven strategies, so resources aren’t wasted on ineffective interventions. Inform Training and Policy: Reviews can guide officer training programs or shape policies based on what has been shown to work. For example: A systematic review might confirm that restorative justice programs are effective in reducing reoffending, helping a department justify their use. Another review might show that predictive policing tools require careful implementation to avoid bias, guiding agencies on their ethical use. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are powerful tools for understanding the effectiveness of policing strategies. While meta-analyses can include complex statistics, focusing on the practical conclusions allows practitioners to confidently apply evidence in the field. Artificial intelligence tools There’s a temptation to use AI for everything these days and finding evidence-based policing tactics is no different. In fact, AI tools can be really helpful if used in the right way and with care. Here is a description of some of these tools: Key AI Tools for Finding Research ChatGPT: What It Does: A conversational AI model that can explain concepts, answer questions, and summarize research in plain language. Strengths: Easy to use, great for quick summaries or generating ideas. Limitations: It doesn’t access live databases or provide citations unless explicitly connected to curated datasets. Research Rabbit: What It Does: A research discovery tool that allows users to explore related studies by visualizing connections between papers, authors, and topics. Strengths: Excellent for building a deeper understanding of a research area and discovering less obvious connections. Limitations: Requires some familiarity with academic research to interpret the connections effectively. Consensus: What It Does: Uses AI to scan academic papers and provide direct answers to research questions, often with supporting evidence. Strengths: Focuses on providing evidence-backed answers and highlighting the strength of the evidence. Limitations: Coverage is still developing, and nuanced topics may yield incomplete results. Elicit: What It Does: Specializes in assisting with literature reviews, identifying relevant papers, and comparing study results. Strengths: Designed for systematic reviews, it helps users identify gaps or patterns in the evidence. Limitations: Best suited for users familiar with systematic review methods, as it doesn’t replace expert judgment. Limitations and Potential Problems Accuracy and Bias: AI tools are only as good as the data they are trained on. If the underlying data is biased or incomplete, the outputs may be misleading. These tools can sometimes generate inaccurate or oversimplified summaries, especially for complex or contested topics. Lack of Context: AI might miss the nuance or context of a study, such as limitations in methodology or applicability to specific policing scenarios. Citation Issues: Tools like ChatGPT may not provide citations unless linked to curated sources, making it difficult to verify the origin of the information. Over-Reliance: Users may overly depend on AI, risking the loss of critical thinking or neglecting deeper dives into primary research. Using AI Tools Effectively and Responsibly To maximise the benefits of AI tools while minimising risks: Validate Information: Always cross-check AI-generated summaries or answers with original sources to ensure accuracy. Focus on Specific Questions: Use clear and specific queries to get the most relevant and useful results. Combine with Traditional Research: Use AI tools as a starting point, but follow up with traditional research methods, especially for critical decisions. Understand Limitations: Be aware of the tool’s scope and avoid using it for highly specialized or nuanced questions without further verification. Protect Data Integrity: Avoid inputting sensitive or confidential information into AI tools, as they may store or process data in ways that aren’t secure. AI tools can significantly enhance how policing practitioners engage with research by making evidence more accessible and actionable. When used responsibly, these tools can save time, broaden understanding, and improve decision-making. In your own organisation Many valuable sources of evidence exist within your own organisation. From crime reports to internal evaluations, these materials—often called grey literature—can provide insights that academic studies might overlook. What is Grey Literature? Grey literature refers to research and reports that are not formally published in academic journals. Examples include: Internal evaluations of policing interventions. Crime analysis reports. Policy reviews or white papers. Presentations or training materials. Grey literature is typically created to address immediate, practical questions within organisations, making it highly relevant to local challenges. However, it often lacks the formal peer review process used in academic publishing, so its quality and reliability can vary. Evaluating Studies and Reports from Your Organisation When using internal research, it’s essential to critically assess its credibility and applicability. Here are some things to look out for: Clarity of Purpose: Does the report clearly define its objectives? For example, is it measuring the effectiveness of a new initiative or examining broader trends? Data Quality: Are the data sources reliable? For instance: Are crime statistics complete and accurately recorded? Were survey questions unbiased and clear? Incomplete or poorly recorded data can lead to misleading conclusions. Methodological Rigour: Is the study design robust? Common issues to check for: Lack of a control group to compare outcomes. Small sample sizes that might not represent broader populations. Failure to account for alternative explanations (e.g., crime trends unrelated to the intervention). Transparency: Are the methods and assumptions clearly stated? If it’s unclear how conclusions were reached, the findings may be unreliable. Bias: Does the report reflect an agenda? For example: Was it commissioned to justify a policy decision rather than evaluate it impartially? Are the authors connected to the programme being assessed? The Role and Merits of Peer Review One of the key differences between academic research and grey literature is peer review. This process involves independent experts evaluating research before it is published. Peer review increases the value of research evidence because it: 1. Ensures Rigour: Reviewers check that the study’s methods and findings are robust and reliable. 2. Identifies Errors: Peer review catches mistakes, inconsistencies, or oversights that might compromise the study. 3. Reduces Bias: Independent reviewers provide an impartial assessment, minimising the influence of vested interests. While grey literature often skips this step, that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful—it just requires more critical examination by the user. Making the Most of Internal Evidence To use internal studies and reports effectively: Supplement with External Evidence: Cross-check findings against peer-reviewed studies or systematic reviews to ensure consistency. Seek Expert Input: Where possible, have internal evaluations reviewed by external experts for an impartial perspective. Encourage Documentation: Ensure that internal reports clearly document their methods, data sources, and limitations. This increases their reliability and utility. Balance Local and General Insights: Internal evidence is often highly specific to your organisation or region. While this makes it relevant, combining it with broader studies ensures more robust conclusions. Grey literature from within your organisation can be a powerful tool when used responsibly. By critically evaluating its quality and combining it with external evidence, you can maximise its value for evidence-based decision-making.

BETA Contact us to help improve this site Welcome to the Society of Evidence Based Policing We are a registered UK charity that exists to improve policing for the public through the use, production and communication of evidence based practices in policing. We've been around since 2012 and although we're run by and for police personnel, we're an entirely independent grassroots organisation. On this site you can learn about what we do, access our resources and find out how you can get involved. We've got lots to show you including: > Exclusive resources held in our Member's Hub. > Blogs and research articles open to all > Details of our upcoming events > Links to valuable evidence based resources Welcome to the Society of Evidence Based Policing Improving policing for the public through the use, production and communication of the best available research What is EBP? Evidence-based policing is about making better decisions using the best available evidence. It combines research, data, professional experience, and community needs to help policing achieve better outcomes. Rather than relying on habit or assumptions, it asks: what is most likely to work, and how do we know? Evidence-based policing can be applied across everything from crime prevention and investigations to leadership, policy, training, and organisational change. It is not a rulebook. Research is often incomplete, contested, or still developing. Being evidence-based means using the best available evidence to inform decisions, alongside professional judgement and local context. Our mission Read about why we were founded and the core goals that guide us as an organisation. Our people Meet our national executive, regional co-ordinators and trustees. Volunteer Help strengthen evidence-based policing across the UK and support the people working to improve practice on the ground. Donate Support our mission to make policing more effective, fair and evidence-based. Join the SEBP Become a member of the Society of Evidence Based Policing and connect with a passionate community dedicated to using research and data-driven approaches to solve policing challenges, generate fresh insights, and improve public safety outcomes. Why Join? • Exclusive Access to The Members' Hub – Your gateway to ‘Get Started’ guides, free training courses, event recordings, and practical tools designed to support evidence-based policing. • Discounted Rates for Our Annual Conference – Network with leading practitioners and researchers, gain insights into cutting-edge policing strategies, and be part of the conversation shaping the future. • Advanced Notice of Exclusive Events – Get early access to special online and in-person events, giving you the chance to engage with top thinkers and practitioners before anyone else. • Monthly Newsletter – Stay informed with a round-up of the latest research, case studies, and evidence-based insights to keep you ahead of the curve. Who Can Join? SEBP membership is open to anyone committed to making a difference through evidence-based approaches. Whether you are a serving officer, researcher, policymaker, or engaged community member, your voice and contribution matter. Join today and be part of a movement that’s transforming policing through evidence and innovation! Join now Our partners & supporters Latest posts Upcoming events Easier Said Than Done 10: Knife Carrying: What Predicts Escalation, and What Doesn’t? Tue 16 Jun Join our expert panel to discuss cohort study evidence, evidence on peer effects and deterrence assumptions when it comes to knife crime. Share Book ticket Easier Said Than Done 11: Trauma-Informed Policing: Evidence, Misuse and Missed Opportunity Tue 07 Jul Join our expert panel to hear about the evidence behind trauma-informed policing practices. Why do we do it and how is it best implemented? Share Book ticket Easier Said Than Done 12: Social Media, Status and Violence Involving Children Mon 27 Jul Join our expert panel to hear about the evidence on signalling, digital disputes and potential interventions. Share Book ticket Get in touch If your enquiry relates to a specific police force or geographic area, please quote the region in your email and we'll forward it to the relevant regional coordinator . We're also working to establish dedicated email addresses for each regional coordinator, which will be available soon. Contact us First name Last name Email* Phone Message* Submit

BETA Contact us to help improve this site < About us Board of Trustees Caroline Fiennes Caroline is an advocate for evidence-based philanthropy, and has worked on this for over 20 years. She has advised many donors and foundations on many issues in many countries. Lewis Linton, Treasurer Lewis has helped various businesses navigate their finances over the years, and has supported the SEBP since it was founded. Alex Murray, OBE Alex brings a wealth of policing experience to the SEBP, with his most notable roles including Chief Constable at West Mercia Police, Commander for Serious Violence at the Metropolitan Police Service and Assistant Chief Constable at West Midlands Police. He is currently Director of Policing.AI Simon Ruda Simon has worked for and with police for over a decade, including as Director of Home Affairs & International Programmes at BIT, and Head of the Strategic Insight Unit at the Metropolitan Police Service. He is currently an independent consultant. Ben Linton, Chair Ben held a wide variety of leadership, operational and strategic roles over nearly 17 years at the Metropolitan Police Service, ending his time as a Chief Inspector. Ben became Chair of Trustees in 2026

The Society for Evidence-Based Policing (SEBP) champions research to enhance policing practices and reduce crime. BETA Contact us to help improve this site Latest posts 1 2 3 4 5 Welcome to the Society of Evidence Based Policing We are a registered UK charity that exists to improve policing for the public through the use, production and communication of evidence based practices in policing. We've been around since 2012 and although we're run by and for police personnel, we're an entirely independent grassroots organisation. On this site you can learn about what we do, access our resources and find out how you can get involved through research, events and volunteering. Upcoming events Tue 16 Jun Easier Said Than Done 10: Knife Carrying: What Predicts Escalation, and What Doesn’t? / Book ticket 16 Jun 2026, 13:00 – 14:00 Webinar Join our expert panel to discuss cohort study evidence, evidence on peer effects and deterrence assumptions when it comes to knife crime. Share Tue 07 Jul Easier Said Than Done 11: Trauma-Informed Policing: Evidence, Misuse and Missed Opportunity / Book ticket 07 Jul 2026, 10:00 – 12:00 Webinar Join our expert panel to hear about the evidence behind trauma-informed policing practices. Why do we do it and how is it best implemented? Share Mon 27 Jul Easier Said Than Done 12: Social Media, Status and Violence Involving Children / Book ticket 27 Jul 2026, 11:00 – 12:00 Webinar Join our expert panel to hear about the evidence on signalling, digital disputes and potential interventions. Share Load More Welcome to the Society of Evidence Based Policing We are a registered UK charity that exists to improve policing for the public through the use, production and communication of evidence based practices in policing. We've been around since 2012 and although we're run by and for police personnel, we're an entirely independent grassroots organisation. On this site you can learn about what we do, access our resources and find out how you can get involved. We've got lots to show you including: > Exclusive resources held in our Member's Hub. > Blogs and research articles open to all > Details of our upcoming events > Links to valuable evidence based resources

BETA Contact us to help improve this site Youth Endowment Fund We are proud to partner with the Youth Endowment Fund (YEF). YEF’s mission - to prevent children and young people from becoming involved in violence by continually discovering what works and putting that knowledge into practice - resonates deeply with SEBP’s dedication to ensuring decisions are grounded in rigorous research evidence. Missions Aligned by Evidence Both SEBP and YEF are fundamentally united by a mission to use the best available evidence to drive real-world impact. YEF achieves this by funding, evaluating, and mapping interventions to understand “what works, for whom, when, and why” in preventing youth violence. Similarly, SEBP champions research-informed policing - promoting, producing, and communicating evidence-based approaches “to solve policing problems” and improve public safety. In essence, YEF creates and curates the evidence, while SEBP applies and amplifies it within policing, especially in domains related to youth and violence prevention. It’s these complementary purposes that underpin YEF’s award of grant funding to SEBP – funding which has fundamentally transformed how SEBP operates. A Catalyst for Change With YEF’s funding, SEBP has expanded and professionalised. Since 2024, the YEF grant has enabled: the appointment of our first Chief Operating Officer, providing leadership and capacity to grow the development of a strategy and professionalisation plan to expand our community and scale our impact the launch of a national programme of activity, including conferences, digital events and tools, and the inaugural National Evidence-Based Policing Awards YEF’s leadership goes beyond funding. Our partnership with them creates a culture of rigorous evaluation and evidence-informed action within SEBP. Together, we are fostering an environment where practices are not just well-intentioned, but demonstrably effective both within the charity and within policing. Our collaboration exemplifies the power of partnerships built on shared values: evidence, impact, and integrity—working from the ground up to build lasting impacts in the policing sector, both for children and young people and the wider public.

Sponsored by Partnered with SEBP Annual Conference: What Works for the Frontline? 11-12 September 2024 University of Cambridge Time & Location 11 September, 09:15 - 12 September, 14:00 Faculty of Law, Sidgwick Site, David Williams Building, 10 West Rd, Cambridge CB3 9DZ, Cambridge About The Society of Evidence Based Policing and the University of Cambridge's Institute of Criminology are proud to join forces for a combined annual conference. This year's theme - 'What Works for the Frontline?' - focuses on how research can be translated into actionable insights for frontline officers and staff. Our speaker line up boasts a diverse range of experts from the world of evidence-based policing, including representatives from the College of Policing, Youth Endowment Fund, MOPAC, Home Office, Centre for Justice Innovation and various universities and police forces. The full programme can be viewed on our blog > Tickets Conference and formal dinner (11 September) at St John's College: SEBP member - £150 Non-member - £250 Conference only: SEBP member - £100 Non-member - £200 Bookings Bookings are closed as of 4 September 2024. Send enquiries to events@college.police.uk . Note that bookings are handled by the College of Policing. Further information Please click here for more information including advice on direction, transport and accommodation.

Our mission Who are we? The Society of Evidence Based Policing (SEBP) was founded in the United Kingdom in 2012. We are an independent charitable incorporated organisation dedicated to embedding evidence-based approaches in policing. The SEBP emerged from a simple but powerful belief: that policing decisions should be informed by the best available evidence, just as medicine transformed itself through rigorous research and testing. We are a member-led organisation that brings together police officers, staff, researchers, and citizens who share a commitment to improving public safety through evidence. Membership of the society is open to anyone who is committed to making a positive impact in the community through the use of evidence-based approaches. Our core aims Promote the use of best available research evidence to solve policing problems. We work directly with forces to translate research into practice. This means helping officers and leaders understand and apply evidence in their daily work, from neighbourhood policing to serious crime investigation. We provide tools, guidance and support to ensure that proven approaches are implemented effectively, while challenging practices that lack evidential support. Support the production of new research evidence by police practitioners and researchers. The best evidence often comes from within policing itself. We empower officers and staff to become researcher-practitioners, conducting their own studies and trials. Through our network, mentoring programmes and partnerships with academic institutions, we're building a culture where testing and learning are core parts of police professionalism. We particularly focus on addressing evidence gaps in areas critical to UK policing. Lead the communication of research evidence to police practitioners and the public. Evidence is only powerful when it's understood and used. We bridge the gap between academic research and operational policing through clear, accessible communication. Our Members' Hub, events, publications and digital channels ensure that vital findings reach those who need them – from frontline officers to police leaders to community members. We translate complex research into practical insights that drive real-world change. Our governance & structure We are a charitable incorporated organisation (CIO). This means we are a registered charity with our own legal identity, allowing us to enter contracts and employ staff in our own name, while our trustees normally have limited liability. The charity is overseen by a Board of Trustees who are responsible for governance and strategic oversight. Day-to-day operations are delegated to the executive team.As a CIO, we are regulated by the Charity Commission for England and Wales. Our governing document sets out our constitution, charitable objects, and how we operate. We file annual reports and accounts with the Charity Commission to maintain transparency and accountability. Our independence & values As an independent charitable incorporated organisation, we operate without political bias or vested interests. We're not tied to any single force, supplier, or approach. This independence allows us to: Advocate for what the evidence shows, even when it challenges conventional wisdom Support all forces equally, regardless of size or resources Maintain credibility with practitioners, researchers and the public Focus solely on what improves public safety and police effectiveness BETA Contact us to help improve this site

< About us < Our partners & supporters BETA Contact us to help improve this site Youth Endowment Fund We are proud to partner with the Youth Endowment Fund (YEF). YEF’s mission - to prevent children and young people from becoming involved in violence by continually discovering what works and putting that knowledge into practice - resonates deeply with SEBP’s dedication to ensuring decisions are grounded in rigorous research evidence. Missions Aligned by Evidence Both SEBP and YEF are fundamentally united by a mission to use the best available evidence to drive real-world impact. YEF achieves this by funding, evaluating, and mapping interventions to understand “what works, for whom, when, and why” in preventing youth violence. Similarly, SEBP champions research-informed policing - promoting, producing, and communicating evidence-based approaches “to solve policing problems” and improve public safety. In essence, YEF creates and curates the evidence, while SEBP applies and amplifies it within policing, especially in domains related to youth and violence prevention. It’s these complementary purposes that underpin YEF’s award of grant funding to SEBP – funding which has fundamentally transformed how SEBP operates. A Catalyst for Change With YEF’s funding, SEBP has expanded and professionalised. Since 2024, the YEF grant has enabled: the appointment of our first Chief Operating Officer, providing leadership and capacity to grow the development of a strategy and professionalisation plan to expand our community and scale our impact the launch of a national programme of activity, including conferences, digital events and tools, and the inaugural National Evidence-Based Policing Awards YEF’s leadership goes beyond funding. Our partnership with them creates a culture of rigorous evaluation and evidence-informed action within SEBP. Together, we are fostering an environment where practices are not just well-intentioned, but demonstrably effective both within the charity and within policing. Our collaboration exemplifies the power of partnerships built on shared values: evidence, impact, and integrity—working from the ground up to build lasting impacts in the policing sector, both for children and young people and the wider public.

BETA Contact us to help improve this site All about evidence-based policing What is EBP? Evidence-based policing (EBP) is the philosophy and practice of using the best available research evidence to guide and evaluate decisions in policing. It's not about replacing experience or professional judgment but enhancing them with rigorous and relevant research. EBP can inform anything and everything from crime prevention strategies to organisational policies. The main principles of EBP include: · Using scientific methods to evaluate what works, what doesn’t, and why. · Emphasising prevention of crime, harm, demand, and efficiency of practice by ensuring resources are allocated to the most effective practices as established by those scientific methods · Applying evidence across all levels of policing, from frontline officers to senior leaders, support staff to volunteers, suppliers to governing bodies. As you will see from this guidance and other resources, EBP is not black and white. There is no manual which says ‘you must do this to achieve that’. Research evidence is sometimes complicated, limited or simply doesn’t exist. Being ‘evidence-based’ doesn’t mean slavishly following a set of rules, it means using evidence to inform decisions. What is the case against EBP? Critical thinking is a cornerstone of any evidence based philosophy, including EBP. Simply put, don’t take anything for granted. With that in mind, it’s only right we ask “what evidence is there that EBP works?”. Aside from being a bit ‘meta’, this question is valid and no true EBP advocate would say otherwise. Many commentators and researchers have made arguments against using evidence-based philosophies in policing. Justifications range from: · The focus of EBP is too narrow · Policing activity cannot be measured through statistics · There is an over-emphasis on quantitative research · Evidence cannot really be sorted into a hierarchy · No police force really has the time to do this · Research in one place cannot be generalised to another · Police data are not good enough to support these methods · EBP shackles professional discretion · Policing only requires common sense and all this academic nonsense is a waste of time And there are more arguments we might add. Each of them has a justification (apart from the last one perhaps) worth considering. You won’t be surprised to learn that at SEBP, we don’t agree with any of these but in the spirit of the philosophy we propose we urge you to make your own mind up. How does EBP relate to other models of policing? Policing is traditionally full of fashionable new initiatives and it might be tempting to think of EBP in this way. That would be wrong. EBP as a ‘brand’ might be something that comes and goes but behind the scenes EBP is just a manifestation of scientific process applied to policing. That existed long before EBP was thought up. The scientific process goes all the way back to the Renaissance although historians would likely point to the relatively more recent developments of sociology and criminology as the roots of EBP. In this way, EBP is quite separate from all of the other models we might think of but that is not to say it isn’t worth considering how they might be related. Intelligence-led policing (ILP) ILP is centred on the use of data (intelligence) through analysis to produce plans of action, which should be evaluated. There are prescribed techniques for collecting, collating and analysing information. In these senses, ILP shares some features with EBP but the focus and the detail are quite different. ILP is primarily concerned with criminal threat assessments. It seeks to direct policing practice in a narrower sphere than EBP (for example, ILP would not apply to recruitment and retention but EBP might). The methods used for analysis are also generally less rigorous than in EBP and often don’t take as long to complete. Problem-oriented policing (POP) Like ILP, POP also advocates analysing data to inform police actions. It also advocates for testing those actions to check for impact. POP is specifically focussed on micro problems and while it is data-centric, it also prioritises the voice of the community and partner-police-public based responses. In this way it is more of a philosophy for tactical practices in a particular area (usually small-scale community problems) than a framework that can be applied strategically. EBP encompasses POP and there have been studies on the effectiveness of the technique. National decision model (NDM) NDM is a generic approach to making individual decisions - find out more on the College of Policing website . You can make a good case for how EBP might inform decisions made in this framework. When assessing threat and risk, the decision maker might ask ‘how good are these methods for assessing threat and risk’ (there are studies on this sort of thing – for example the DASH has been studied numerous times). Evidence might also inform the policies, options and contingencies that the decision maker considers. How that happens, particularly in dynamic situations, is complicated. Community/Neighbourhood policing Community policing advocates for strengthening ties with the communities being policed to improve legitimacy, trust and confidence. It is a technique which might be tested (indeed, it has been at times) using an EBP framework. Wondering about other models and how they relate to EBP? Give us a shout and we’ll add to this page. Where does EBP originate from? EBP draws inspiration from evidence-based medicine (EBM), which emerged in the 1990s to improve clinical decisions. Similarly, EBP aims to address inefficiencies, biases, and outdated or ineffective practices in policing. Similar philosophies exist in education, human resources and management where the connecting idea is ‘how can we do this better?’ Milestones in the development of EBP: · 1998: American Professor Lawrence Sherman introduces the idea of EBP, advocating for experiments and data-driven practices in policing. · 2000s: EBP gains traction in the UK, Australia, and the US. · 2010s: The modernisation of police data and computing capacity, and the rise of practitioner-academic collaborations expand EBP's reach. Several organised EBP groups emerge (the Societies of Evidence Based Policing). · 2020s: Artificial intelligence and advanced analytics further innovate EBP methodologies. Today, EBP is prevalent in many countries. In the UK it is a key part of the College of Policing’s mission and is referred to by the Home Office, His Majesty’s Inspectorate and the National Police Chief’s Council. There is no national oversight of evidence-based policing though – it is not something that is ‘owned’ by any single party. Further reading There is so much you can read about evidence-based policing it’s almost too much! This page and our other resources have been designed to give you a solid working knowledge. However, if you’re keen, here are some other resources you might like to consider: The College of Policing website has numerous resources on EBP and this is a good place to start: https://www.college.police.uk/research/evidence-based-policing-EBP The Centre for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University has a range of reading you can do, including this wordy study guide: http://cebcp.org/wp-content/evidence-based-policing/EBP-Guide.pdf There are loads of books on EBP. Here are some of our personal favourites (no commission involved): · Evidence-Based Policing: The Basics - Jerry H. Ratcliffe · Evidence-Based Policing: An Introduction - Edited by Renee J. Mitchell, Laura Huey · Evidence-Based Policing: Translating Research into Practice - Cynthia Lum, Christopher S. Koper · Critical Reflections on Evidence-Based Policing - Edited by Nigel Fielding, Karen Bullock, Simon Holdaway