Comparison of Students' Views across Police Entry Routes: Report for Lancashire Constabulary

Abstract

Police Education is undergoing a revolution. Beginning with the recognition in the 1980s and
1990s that traditional policing methods had little or no impact on crime rates, there has been
increasing pressure over the last few decades for a shift towards evidence based policing. In
Britain a key moment in this shift was the launch of the Initial Police Learning and
Development Programme (IPLDP) in 2006. However, though this programme was intended to
educate police officers in the ways of evidence based policing, its inheritance of a
predominantly training culture and alongside its limitations as a Level 3 qualification, meant
that IPLDP effectively marked the opening of a process of change rather than its realisation.
The next step on this process was the launch of Police Education Qualifications Framework
(PEQF) as a series of connected degree level programmes (Level 6 qualifications) in
collaboration with several Higher Education Institutions (HEI’s) including UCLan. Alongside
the launch of a standard undergraduate degree in Professional Policing, two on-the-job
programmes of learning were created: a three year Police Constable Degree Apprenticeship
(PCDA) culminating in a Level 6 qualification for non-degree holding applicants to the police
service alongside a two year Degree Holder Entry Programme (DHEP) for those officers who
already held a Level 6 qualification.

The present study is intended to measure the response of trainee police officers undergoing
the new education routes. Lancashire Constabulary conducted surveys at three time points –
after one week, twenty-four weeks and thirty four weeks of the courses – to allow for a
comparative assessment of attitudes towards the IPLDP, PCDA and DHEP courses. This data
analysis was carried out by colleagues from UCLan.

There were two standout features of the data: First, IPLDP, PCDA and DHEP students all had
very similar experiences, both positive and negative, across the three courses. This is
particularly interesting given that the launch of PEQF provision at UCLan was quickly followed
by the Covid Lockdown, with its attended and previously unforeseen shift to online learning.
This is contrasted to the IPLDP cohort which began in 2018 and was not adversely affected by
national lockdowns, meaning students underwent a ‘normal’ period of training. Positively, all
three cohorts enjoyed their learning experience, especially roleplay and scenario based
learning, and praised their tutors. Negatively, all recognised problems of work-life balance.
This problem was more pronounced amongst PEQF Officers who had more academic
demands on their time, and suggested the need for more time and resource given over to
their education both by UCLan and Lancashire. Second, while all three cohorts expressed a
commitment to evidence based policing, the IPLDP students expressed concern that they had
insufficient opportunity to critically reflect on what they had learnt. This concern suggests
that PEQF marks not only a step in the right direction, but it is one that fits with the hopes
and expectations of the new police recruits.

Overall, the study illuminates real strengths of PEQF provision as an evolutionary
development of IPLDP from which officers should develop a critical understanding of evidence
based policing. PEQF seems to be working despite lockdown, though this study does point to
obvious areas for improvement including more protected time for student officers to learn,
more scenario based teaching, better lecturing, less online provision and more time for critical
reflections on that which is being taught and learned. Whilst increasing numbers of students
undergoing PEQF will mean meeting these needs will be difficult, the current report provides
an evidence-base from which such improvements can be made to benefit PEQF students in
future.