By Natalie Avlonitis, PhD Researcher, University of York. Published: 25 November 2024.
The first Vulnerability & Policing Futures Research Centre conference took place on 5 September 2024 and invited a mix of academics, practitioners, policy makers and police to present on, and engage with, the Centre’s research. The conference highlighted the expansive range of the research currently being undertaken related to vulnerability and policing including, but not limited to, domestic abuse, mental health, child online violence and county lines. The combination of topics covered emphasised the increasing reach and role of policing in society today, as well as how its increasing expanse impacts upon, shapes and contests notions of vulnerability. While the scope of the research presented was broad, it was clear everyone present was concerned with implementing change. This was the question that lingered with me through each session – what does this change look like?
Session 1 – What the public want from policing
The first session I attended really set the precedent for this line of questioning. The session presented findings from a Centre study exploring – ‘what do the public want from police’? Drawing upon data gathered from focus groups with members of the public in different areas in England, the project adapted a methodology inspired by the ‘minimum income standard’ to develop a ‘minimum policing standard’ – the minimum expectations the public have and want from the police.
The results from the focus groups indicated that members of the public were more concerned with how policing was conducted, rather than the outcomes the police achieved. The public wanted the police to be responsive, fair and respectful, as well as engaged and visible. When exploring thresholds for calling the police, the team found that participants were more likely to call if there was risk of violence, however, they also stated that when that risk was eliminated, they wanted police involvement to cease, and more appropriate services to respond.
These findings were interesting to me as they indicated a disconnect between what the public want from the police and public perception of what the police do. This disconnect was reflected in further findings as the research team took the minimum policing standard into survey form to measure the public’s confidence in policing and revealed that the public does not think police are meeting what they see as minimum standards of service.
Confidence in the police to deliver a minimum standard of expectation is extremely low. The takeaway message for the police from the project team was – do the minimum and you will be trusted to do the complex. Public perception however indicates that is a long way off. For me, in considering how we create change, the question remained – are the police the right agency to be dealing with some of the complexity that comes with working with ‘vulnerable’ people?
Session 2 – Learning from Less-Heard voices
It was with these thoughts lingering that the second, (and for myself at least) standout session of the day began. ‘Learning from Less-Heard voices’ consisted of a panel of three presentations with lived experience at the heart of each. The first presentation focused on child to parent violence and abuse and conducting collaborative participatory research with children and families. The second involved a panel discussion with lived experience members from Revolving Doors on the topic of redefining vulnerability and support. The last presentation explored what procedural justice looks like for racially minoritised young women reporting sexual harassment to the police. Each presentation was distinct, however, the focus on the experiences of young people who encounter the criminal justice system as well as the emphasis on the importance and benefits of co-producing research was woven throughout the session.
There was also a real focus on centring the complexity of the young people’s lives who encountered the police. The root causes of this contact could also be incredibly complex, and in many cases reflected years of wider state and service failings – the experience of ‘slipping through the cracks’. This was evidenced in the first presentation, where experiences of shame and stigma meant parents were unable to seek help, and even when they did, the right support often wasn’t available. This led to a risk of criminalising children who had often previously sought support. It’s here, where the victim/perpetrator narrative becomes complicated or entangled, that young people most needed support. In response to this, Revolving Doors were unequivocal in their advocacy and support for diversion – young people need care, not criminalisation.
The energy in the room after the session was palpable and I left feeling more convinced than ever that we need alternative systems of support and care to address the vulnerabilities at hand.
Session 3 – Mental health and policing
As the last session of the day began, I was curious to listen about the research from the Centre on mental health and policing and focus in on one area of vulnerability and policing. My concerns about whether the police were best placed to respond to the vulnerabilities in discussion were acute in this session.
This presentation focused on the experiences of police officers responding to mental health concerns and reported on data conducted through interviews, observations and a scoping review. It was clear that the police force was overwhelmed with mental health encounters, with potentially up to 40% of all call-outs being mental health related. It was identified as a messy area of practice, where police felt they lacked the power or medical expertise to fix things. However, despite the police themselves recognising that they weren’t the right agency to respond to mental health crises, and the implementation of the Right Care, Right Person model, it was clear that practice hadn’t significantly changed. This was evidenced in part by Section 136 being used as a preventative method.
What felt noticeably absent here were the voices of those who encounter the police in times of crisis, how those experiences felt, and what the longer-term implications were after that contact. The research team spoke about the next phase of the project and the need to centre the voices of people with lived experience in the design of alternatives. However, without fully understanding the harms caused through contact with our current system, we are at risk of implementing similar alternatives.
What’s Next?
Although I knew the question I had at the beginning of the conference would not be answered by the end of the day, I left feeling resolute in the need for transformative change to our current systems. Whilst a single conference can’t enact systemic change, spaces to have these difficult conversations are invaluable in creating the beginnings of longer-term transformations.