Massive Police Reforms announced in early 2026 had very little real engagement from front line cops. So back in February, I took it upon myself to offer a meaningful consultation for officers and others that no official organisation seemed interested in doing.
I promised that once there’s enough responses, I’d publish a summary report. Now my new Police Promotion and Leadership Seminars are off the ground, I’ve been able to get these results analysed for you. I outline the results so far and what it means for the Police Reforms agenda.
What are your views on the issues raised? Do the criticisms and ideas align with your own views?
While this is a snapshot, my objective and impartial survey remains open should you wish to contribute. Should I receive more feedback, I will report back, especially as more responses tend to firm up the apparent sentiments from those who have fed back so far.
And if you took the time to complete this survey, thanks again for your time. I hope you consider it worthwhile as I now share the results…
“We need to try something different. Policing at the minute is so poor and is not working for officers or the public.” – Survey respondent
Overall Sentiment and Ratings of Main Proposals
For context, 73% of respondents are serving police officers. Another 4% work in policing in other roles, and 20% were giving their perspectives having previously worked in policing. Only 3% answered from outside of policing, so that’s not enough to reliably determine what the general public think about these Police Reform proposals. Consider these results predominantly policing practitioner feedback.
Whatever your role, I sincerely thank you for your time and allowing me to pull together this briefing. Now let’s start with overall sentiments towards the plans.
The feedback regarding the proposed 2026 Police Reforms is overwhelmingly critical. While some respondents acknowledge the need for modernisation and national coordination, most people expressed deep-seated frustration and distrust of the changes and the organisations proposing/supporting them.
Following the early demographic questions I pose in the survey, I asked people to rate overall how effective they think these police reforms would be for policing, on a scale of 1-10.
As per the summarised stats above, the average score came back as a relatively low 3.4 out of 10. This is pretty weak. If the Police Reforms were a movie, it would comfortably place within IMDB’s “10 of the Biggest Movie Flops of All Time”.
But it’s not all bad. The different schemes within the Reforms received mixed reviews, ranging from complete contempt to highly supported. Here’s how people rated their overall agreement with items…
So very strong support for abolishing PCCs and AI and facial recognition schemes. The Neighbourhood Guarantee is also seen in a positive light.
At the other end of the scale, the Licence to Practice and Direct Entry Inspector proposals attracted overwhelming criticism. Results were somewhat more mixed (but still overall negative) about the merging of forces regionally, nationally, new Home Office powers, and the notion of a national performance framework.
“I support many of the strategic aims of the Home Office White Paper — notably strengthening national capability, modernising technology, and improving performance standards. However, I am cautious about elements that risk diluting local accountability, community connection, and operational autonomy — especially force mergers, abolition of PCCs, and expanded central control without robust checks. Successful reform must balance national capability with the preservation of local legitimacy and clear, ethical frameworks for new technology.”
I did ask a question to gauge whether police leaders (supervisors or above) had differing views to those at the rank of Constable. Those in charge of managing others have similar ratings of each scheme, albeit slightly less negative in some areas. For more senior police leaders, the sample was too small to determine an accurate perspective.
I also asked in the survey “Do you currently work in a frontline role in policing?”, accounting for over half of respondents to date. Those working in policing’s frontline seem more critical of the licence to practice and performance framework, but similar views on other matters.
While overall stats can be interesting, the devil is in the detail as they say. That’s why I thought it important to offer free text responses. This commentary really helps enhance understanding of what exactly is going through people’s minds, rather than the usual placing people in statistical pigeon-holes.
As we go through, I’ll provide summaries and snippets of the comments people gave in their responses. Over two-thirds of people provided this important context and commentary, which as an initial preview I summarise in the word cloud below. I’d like to again thank you for your time if you did this, as I know that makes completing the survey more time-consuming.
Before we get into the detail of each scheme, one intriguing question stood out. It demonstrates a concerning potential crisis of confidence in policing institutions…
Crisis of Confidence in Police Institutions?
In my survey, I asked, “How much CONFIDENCE do you have in each of the following high-profile policing organisations?” The results are astounding, although not surprising to anyone in touch with the grapevine. If this was the state of public confidence in policing, forces would be devastated…
The IOPC came out worst. Some stated it should simply be disbanded. Nearly all respondents indicated having very little or no confidence in this organisation, with just 5% having reasonable confidence or being neutral. This is unsurprising given the spoken reputation the IOPC and even some force’s internal Professional Standards departments have, whereby officers fear being thrown under the bus at any opportunity.
PCCs and the Home Office also received majority ‘no confidence’ votes. PCCs have been widely criticised as a failed experiment since being introduced in 2011 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. One respondent called PCCs “an abomination”. Others described why they think they’ve failed, for example:
“Policing is a political football to a far greater extent than it should be, mostly because chiefs openly play political games and because they are either unwilling or unable to stand up to politicians to back off from operational policing. That’s partly why PCCs have been a disaster.”
The Police Federation and College of Policing don’t fare too well either. The Police Federation have been lambasted in recent years by frontline cops. What started with poor strategic decisions around officer pensions has since morphed into widespread reports of a toxic culture, lack of representation around police pay, and then the scandal of using officers’ subs to pay their Chief Executive more than twice that of any other public sector leader.
And then, when you think it couldn’t get any worse, that CEO and other senior Fed figures were arrested as part of a City of London Police led fraud investigation. This slow-motion, Federation-shaped car crash has no doubt created ripe conditions for competition to represent police officers in England and Wales, with a new National Police Association on the cards.
“Federation is utterly corrupt, leaving officers with no support, Police Leadership are not being held accountable.”
The College have been working hard to stay relevant and shake their widespread reputation of irrelevance to front line officers and as ‘NCALT pushers’. For example, they’ve massively invested in their online leadership support to officers and are introducing a new ‘SIPP’ promotion processes. There’s also a College-led Leadership Commission aiming to define what leadership is required in policing, although that report was due for publication in May 2026. Some respondents, including former College employees, spoke particularly harshly…
“The College of Policing (I used to work for them, on secondment) are a joke and don’t know what they’re for.”
“The college are devoid of any meaningful practical contribution to the officers on the ground and are seen as blockers rather than facilitators.”
The NPCC doesn’t come out lightly either. The confidence doesn’t reach a reasonable level, and while this institution has more neutrals, it remains heavily weighted to the negative. A lack of connection with the front line and being seen as ‘out of touch’ often plays out in force staff surveys. Such concerns arose here too, along with strong sentiments their senior officers aren’t truly supportive or ‘on their side’.
“I feel most strongly about the disgraceful lack of leadership in the service.”
Police forces themselves seem to attract somewhat more confidence; certainly few said they have no confidence in them. The critique again tends to be more directed towards the senior leaders of forces.
What are your views on all this? Is there a crisis of confidence around you and in your teams? Do these comments resonate or is it all alien? Are you genuinely surprised and think that this survey has attracted just the most disgruntled people?
Now let’s explore each of the main reforms in turn, including relevant commentary from respondents to this survey. Remember, almost all responses come from those who work or used to work in policing, with the overwhelming majority being police officers…
Merging Forces Receives Mixed Feedback
While people recognised the need for efficiencies and modernisation, there is widespread scepticism about the practicalities of creating ‘mega-forces’. The survey results are net negative; 50% either disagreed or strongly disagreed with these proposals. 30% were in agreement, with the rest neutral.
“Regional mergers will only work for county lines and fraud crime types I believe this would leave local policing teams and neighbourhood working under pressure with below design resources available to them as is the case now.”
One common concern was that merging forces will drain resources from rural areas to serve the more high-demand urban centres. “Bigger is not better” is a recurring theme, with many citing the perceived failures of Police Scotland and the more recent Metropolitan Police BCUs as cautionary tales.
“Brigading/Amalgamating police resources has historically proved to be far less successful than promised.”
“BCU in the Met the force I served for 37 years has shown bigger is not better. Performance has not improved and officers are over worked and under resourced. Leaders need to be tackling retention, morale, leadership and finances.”
“The public are likely to want police on the streets…their streets and not miles away tied up in higher crime areas that they will be paying for in taxation but receive little or no service as a result.”
It could also divert attention from where it needs to be, degrade local accountability, and reduce community connections / intelligence.
“Small rural areas will immediately be forgotten about with regional mergers. Priorities will always be cities and rural communities will feel an even bigger pinch with police accessibility and visibility.”
“Local police officers and resources have local knowledge, which is key to a successful investigation, public satisfaction and service we provide.”
Concerns were raised about the ROCU not working as intended either or resolving cases handed to them. This made some sceptical about moving other strategic policing regionally too.
Others were a little more optimistic, recognising the cost-saving opportunities, buying power, and potential for consistency.
“Change is needed – force consistency is needed. All force systems should be the same & link together. There is so much duplication & this will assist in reducing that saving time & money. We also don’t need over 50 payroll, purchasing, training or HR depts so there are some clear gains to be had. We are very top heavy at Exec level so again this will assist in a reduction at those ranks & save money. There are clear benefits to be had.”
“Merger in line with the 10 ROCU areas could work but needs strong front-line input.”
“I think merging some forces together makes sense, for example if TVP merged with Gloucester and Wiltshire, these would be like two/three LCUs based on our current model. This would save money as you would lose two Chief Constables and ACC/DCC ranks, which is why the government want. Also, it would give forces more buying power in terms of uniform, vehicles, PPE etc.”
National Police Service Also Mixed
Again, the idea of a National Police Service (NPS) received overall negative but mixed feedback. The survey result proportions were similar to the creation of regional forces (50% agree, 30% disagree, 20% neutral).
On the supportive side, the consistency and cost savings are highlighted as opportunities, even long-overdue. Some support exists for “borderless” national units to tackle Serious Organised Crime (SOC) and County Lines, provided they don’t strip away local response officers.
“A National Police Service has been needed for many years. I believe all forces should amalgamate into UK Police Service, not only the CTP, ROCU and NCA aspects.”
“Create a National policing purchasing hub. Even create a national HR and finance department if necessary.”
Indeed, it is hoped that such a regionalisation/nationalisation of strategic, cross-border policing issues will allow local officers to focus on local issues. For it to work, another respondent argues procedures must be standardised across forces (and adhered to with some discipline) as they are in the military.
But there are sceptics. Some are sceptical whether it will even work, or highlight concerns with unintended consequences and that this road is well-trodden. Some suggest it will cost more money to implement than it will actually save.
“National police service will destroy counter terrorism policing and starve policing of experience dealing with serious OCG threat. It will create a two tier policing system with little to no transfer between the two. The NCA is inefficient and ineffective as it is. It is very good at management by spreadsheet but has a strike rate about the same as a good regional crime unit.”
“In principle a National Police Service could be a good thing (eg France) however i’m old enough to remember when this was mooted before and when SOCA became NCA – the biggest issue will be trying to do it on the cheap. NCA agents are paid significantly less than police officers – where is the incentive? Dealing with bigger, more complex stressful cases and getting paid less?”
Others think it unnecessary or not seeing the point, having national organisations already.
“We already have the NCA. When that was introduced it was lauded as the “British FBI”.”
Another concern raised with this NPS reform, and the creation of regional forces, is “constant fights over who is responsible for what”.
Licence to Practice Most Criticised
The Licence to Practice reform was roundly shot down by those completing the survey. Over 80% disagreed, most of those strongly. Under 10% agreed and the rest were neutral.
“License to practice is a waste of time with the current stringent training and many tick box NCALTS we complete.”
“The licence to practice is just another laborious process forced onto already over burdened officers for no tangible gain. It’s a bad idea, that seeks to create a process to keep the College of Policing in a job. Scrap the idea and move on.”
Most responses were fully against the proposed ‘licence to practice’ as police officers. Seen as a “hidden tax” to fund the College of Policing, respondents said it would add bureaucracy and in any case be unnecessary due to existing checks (e.g. PST, Taser, First Aid, PDR, UPP) and the existence of the Warrant Card. Others argue that the Licence would lead to even more officers on restricted duties.
“Licence to practice = licence to make money from police officers by the College of Policing.”
“Licence to practice – would only have ever been dreamt up by someone with no practical experience of policing. UK police are already more scrutinised than almost any other occupation. I have no confidence that the criteria for the licence will be relevant to the role, as it will probably be managed by the completely irrelevant CoP.”
Some people point to other similar schemes in place, supposedly to ‘professionalise policing’ (e.g. police degree entry programme), and yet there’s no actual studies showing they made any such improvement. The abstraction time to fulfil the licence requirements are also a concern.
But there were some supporters. Some came from the perspective of being a potentially useful tool to improve deployability by better “managing officers who have not performed a functional policing role for years” and getting the “laziness, incompetence, ‘bare minimum’ type of characters that the service does not deal with adequately” out of policing, for the sake of the hard-working majority.
“A licence to practice is something that is long overdue, however it shouldn’t be a hidden tax and must be meaningful. Each officer should have to prove that they are competent in the role and it should be rank specific.”
Direct Entry Inspectors Highly Criticised
“Direct entry inspectors is an awful idea. It has failed repeatedly. It will fail again. The evidence base for the failure has been ignored. It’s incredible that this is being tried again.”
This reform is strongly opposed by experienced officers, who say the role requires years of “on-the-ground” knowledge. Police officer leaders coming via direct entry are viewed as having “zero credibility” and being risk-averse due to a lack of operational experience.
“Direct entry doesn’t build the resilience needed to be a police officer – I have seen first hand the quality of direct entry and they struggle with the basics needed.”
“Direct entry Inspectors – I have known several, but none as good as those who have earned the rank through hard-earned experience.”
The scheme is also seen as a failure of being able to identify and nurture talent internally. Others had some more constructive criticism on improving the strategic leadership without the need for it to be focused on officers…
“Potentially a Civi staff role be more proportionate with a warranted INSP available for authorisations.”
Abolishing PCCs Receives Resounding Applause
“Abolish PCC about time. Keep politics out of policing.”
Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are largely described as a waste of money and a source of unwelcome political interference in operational policing. The proposals to abolish these were met with overwhelming support.
“PCCs are / were an abomination and should never have happened – they have been disastrous for policing overall.”
“PCCs – waste of money in my opinion, not exactly sure what they do for the police apart from being politics into policing.”
Removing PCCs is a critical step the government announced earlier, more a means to an end of enabling other changes in these reforms, such as creating super-forces (PCCs have previously been a key barrier to such amalgamation).
AI and Facial Recognition Supported
Nearly half of respondents agreed with the AI and Facial Recognition technologies, with 30% neutral. Only 20% disagreed in some way.
Facial recognition and AI are generally viewed as “inevitable” and potentially useful. Policing needs to move with the times, provided the implementation isn’t “botched” by the Home Office. As one person put it: “Most IT in policing is poorly implemented.”
“AI I believe is going to be a huge game changer in policing and it should hopefully assist in easing demands on officers.”
But this new surveillance is not without its detractors. Concerns were raised about privacy or competence in dealing with such data. (Read my blog for more on the responsible police use of AI.)
“AI has no place in policing. Facial recognition has no place in policing. We are the most watched nation in the western world.”
On a wider point about technology, many agree that 43 different IT systems are inefficient; there is a desire for a single, linked computer system across all forces. And several mentioned the ‘paperwork bureaucracy’ preventing officers doing their jobs, for which technology should be providing solutions (rather than seemingly increasingly adding to such bureaucracy).
Home Office Powers, NH Guarantee, Performance Framework
Fewer than 20% of respondents agreed with the new Home Office powers reforms, with the rest split evenly between disagreement or being neutral on the matter. It simply didn’t seem necessary, along with a some commenting that the Home Office appears out of touch with the public.
“The police do not need any MORE powers, we just need to be supported and trusted to use the ones we already have.”
There was general agreement with the Neighbourhood Guarantee, albeit with some scepticism whether it will be adequately resourced following force mergers…
“There will be less “local” officers despite an alleged increase in nhpt as they will be backfilling response in those areas.”
As for performance management regimes, this area was net negative with over 40% disagreeing and 20% agreement. Many officers remember the dark days of chasing stats under the prior Labour government.
“Policing is about people. We are moving back to KPIs and missing out tackling real crime.”
Ideas to Improve Policing
There was plenty of constructive criticism by those who responded, particularly from experienced officers who know the issues inside and out. Senior leaders, policing organisations and the government would do well to listen to some of their ideas.
One officer clearly broke down where they see the priorities:
“Policing does need to change. Three changes that would make the biggest impact I believe would be:
- Reduce bureaucracy: Current computer systems don’t compute data, they are data storage systems designed from the point of view of those who extract the information, not the people inputting the data.
- Recruitment: Standards dropped during Uplift and have not recovered, resulting in retention problems and substandard recruits.
- Staffing: The frontline staffing thresholds have not changed in my force for at least 15 years and have not accounted for increased training abstractions, increased time in data inputting etc. there is simply put not enough front-line staff to service the public’s need.”
Others proposed improving attraction and retention by paying new officers better, along with recognising and paying specialist roles. Wellbeing is reported as being insufficient or not tangible enough too.
“Improve welfare (non-existent) and stop thinking that another crisis line will help, it requires more effort.”
“There needs to be more support for officers rather than just emails or referrals.”
One person raised that police reforms should go back to pre-1990s fundamentals and reintroduce standards on “personal fitness, personal health and height regulations.”
Standardising purchasing, equipment and IT systems across forces were other suggestions that would improve the service while also saving money.
Do you agree? What would you add? How would you choose to improve policing? This last question is great prep for a police promotion board too!
Why Are Police Reforms Happening?
One final question I ask in my survey is why they believe the government is doing this.
The government say the main purpose of these sweeping reforms are to improve public confidence, improve police performance, and help policing keep up with the changing face of crime.
However, very few of my survey respondents believe this narrative. Half think the main driver is political ideology or being seen to do something. Most of the other half think it’s about cutting costs. Many comments also reinforced the notion that this is a cost-cutting exercise disguised as an improvement.
How Representative is All This?
You might wonder is this truly representative? Well, there’s two key reasons I’d say these results are hard to argue against or dismiss: The stats are sound and the sentiments are unsurprising.
First, statistically it is broadly representative of the policing profession. This sample of 112 people completing my survey gives these findings only a 10% margin of error. That means while 80% of my respondents disagreed with the notion of a License to Practice, you can be highly confident that if you were to ask everyone working in policing, the true result would come back somewhere between 70% and 90%.
And the fact that people give mixed reviews and scores of the schemes, both positive and negative, shows that these are considered responses. It’s not just an angry backlash by a few who could be bothered – AKA ‘response bias’.
Second, the results are not surprising when compared with anecdotes, articles and criticisms seen and heard elsewhere. There’s no credible contradiction anywhere else, and such congruence enhances the validity of these results. Or put another way: Try finding me 100 officers who overwhelmingly agree with the notion of a License to Practice, Direct Entry Inspectors, or have high confidence in the IOPC.
I’d like to add that no-one else is doing this, let alone refuting it. Not one of the multi-£million policing organisations are seeking such feedback on the police reforms from the very people it impacts. This is noticed by those taking the opportunity to respond to my independent consultation. There’s a real frustration that (yet again), the front line and practitioners aren’t consulted on such seismic changes.
“Talk to front line officers to establish what is required to rebuild policing after Cameron and May destroyed it.”
“The public need to be asked what they want not what policing & politicians think they want.”
“Where is the consultation with the officers and staff themselves? Equally important, if not more, where is the consultation with the general public?”
It’s unfortunately rare for policing institutions to genuinely seek front-line views on important policing issues or changes. Maybe that’s another reason why people report having little confidence in them and view them as “out of touch”. The new Leadership Commission did briefly incorporate front-line feedback after criticism for not doing so, which I publicised here. I’ll report back on their findings when this multi-£million review publishes its (now overdue!) findings report.
And if you have any doubts, please feel free to complete the survey yourself and invite colleagues to do the same. I would be willing to wager additional responses will solidify the sentiment already gained.
To spell it out for anyone in the Home Office reading this: Most people in policing perceive these reforms as being “top-down” and “out of touch.” There is a high risk that implementing these measures in their current form will further damage morale and accelerate the loss of experienced personnel.
Whatever your views, I hope you’ve found this analysis of my independent Police Reforms consultation helpful and interesting. I’ll leave the survey open in case you’re late to the party and want to add your perspectives, then report back with any additional feedback received in due course.
Kind Regards, Steve
Seeking police promotion? Want a MASSIVE head start right now and a focus on what matters? Hit the ground running with my great value digital promotion toolkits, and/or my market-leading Police Promotion Masterclass, seminars and CVF explainers. There’s nothing else like it to effectively prepare you for success and level the playing field of promotion. Any questions? Get in touch for a free call or to arrange more personal coaching support. Tune in to my extensive podcast for regular powerful leadership CPD and promotion insights.