There is evidence that the front-line of policing comprises, too often, the most junior in policing. This means vital experience can be lacking in investigating officers and their supervision. At no fault of their own, they may also be carrying excessive workloads: all of which is now a symptom of deeper causes including austerity in long-term funding then sudden recruiting within Uplift (from 2019) (Public Accounts Committee, 2022; Home Office, 2025).
With inexperienced staff, under pressure of excessive workloads, things will go wrong. Sevedzem (2024) reports on this is true across all sectors, including policing and nursing, where a toxic mix of inexperience and overload means too little time for quality causing high rates of burn out. Indeed, Professor Nicola Ranger, of the Royal College of Nursing, reported that NHS staff were so ashamed of the poor quality of care in the system that they “could not look patients in the eye” (Health and Social Care Committee, 11th March, 2026).
Reform means change not re-form
This current crisis in policing has been a long time brewing. Given also now there are proposals for police reform (albeit without the foundation of a Royal Commission) there should be an opportunity to address fundamental and much needed change. Whilst paying a decent wage for policing functions would help retention (Seacrest and Snider, 2025), how valuable resources are deployed also deserves attention.
Current reform narratives put eggs into the basket of artificial intelligence (AI) as an efficiency enabler. The Guardian (2026) investigated the use of Palantir supplied AI in speeding up analytical processes to give better data for detectives to base operational decisions upon. Of course, there will be some benefits in cutting faster through administrative and analytical burden using AI but if we seek better quality outcomes we must still invest in a professionally trained and supported workforce with the right people in the right place.
Upside down policing
David Bayley was a Professor at the State University of New York, who argued – back in 1994 – that the future of policing needed to address its functional structure being upside down. The point remains true today that those with the most experience in policing get posted away from core operational duties. Bayley (1994) illustrated the peculiarity of this working culture by contrasting policing to the medical profession.
In medicine, only the most experienced, highly paid, and most qualified get to do serious ‘hands on’ work. A surgeon’s expertise is needed in the operating theatre rather than behind a desk, because that’s what they are uniquely paid for. Professor Bayley is right to point out that medicine has an inverted skills structure compared to policing. With the police front-line meeting complex and life threatening challenges on a daily basis the notion that their most experienced and better paid colleagues are so far away makes little sense.
Policing is not unique as a public service to suffer under-funding in resources and facilities. Ironically, given Bayley’s points (Ibid.), the British Medical Journal (2023) found that 56% of surgeons surveyed reported a frustration that they could not spend more time operating because there was a lack of available operating theatres.
Inverting the triangle
Notwithstanding the effort being put into exploring AI, police reform ought to be thinking more fundamentally about a future of quality, not just fiddling with the edges. There is a gap of a Royal Commission (to help inform what is policing for) compounded by a bias towards structural change that replicates its own image.
If we listened to Professor Bayley we might envision a policing profession which is skills-based (rather than administrative-based), where the front-line is the most important line, where only the best work. Those behind desks would be lower paid administrative clerks. What would that look like? Constables and Sergeants would be the highest paid. There would be no ‘Chief’ Constables, just desk-bound administrators. Superintendents seeking promotion would need to apply to become constables, based on their ‘hands on’ skills in front-line duties.
Just imagine not only the structural, but cultural level, change that might cause within the police and, more importantly, in the service delivery the public receive. When the tax burdened public turn up at A & E they do not want to see an army of desk-bound administrators, or the strategic director of the NHS Trust, they want to see a doctor. It’s the same in policing: we should put the best skills at the front, with the best resources and equipment.
Comments