The Police Service of Northern Ireland: An inspection of police effectiveness and efficiency

Overall summary

Our judgments

Our inspection assessed how good the Police Service of Northern Ireland is in two areas of policing. We make graded judgments as follows:

Area	Grade
Preventing and deterring crime, antisocial behaviour and vulnerability	Adequate
Managing offenders and suspects	Requires improvement

We set out our detailed findings about things the service is doing well and where it should improve in the rest of this report.

Introduction

About us

His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) independently assesses the effectiveness and efficiency of police forces and fire and rescue services to make communities safer.

In preparing our reports, we ask the questions that the public would ask, and publish the answers in accessible form. We use our expertise to interpret the evidence and make recommendations for improvement.

Our commission

Section 41(2) of The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (‘the Act’) requires us to inspect and report to the Department of Justice (Northern Ireland) on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (‘the PSNI’ or ‘the service’) each year.

In accordance with the Act, in 2024 we were commissioned to inspect the service. We were asked specifically to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of the service in relation to crime prevention and deterrence, and managing suspects and offenders.

The PSNI

The police service in Northern Ireland differs from English and Welsh forces due to the political and social context in which it operates.

There is still a significant divide between communities in Northern Ireland, most often based on political opinion and religious belief. PSNI personnel continue to be under threat from terrorist groups. In some communities in Northern Ireland the PSNI isn’t welcome, and many people are unwilling to work with the service for fear of reprisals. This means that neighbourhood policing in Northern Ireland is different to that in England and Wales.

To reflect those differences, we adapted the methodology we use in our police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy assessment of police forces in England and Wales.

In March 2024, the terrorism threat level in Northern Ireland was reduced from severe to substantial. This means an attack is likely. In announcing the change, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said: “This positive step reflects the commitment of communities from across Northern Ireland to build a safer place to live and work.”

Terms of reference

Our terms of reference were to inspect and report on:

• How good is the service at preventing and deterring crime and antisocial behaviour, and reducing vulnerability?
• How good is the service at managing offenders and suspects?

Methodology

Our inspection took place in November 2024. We did:

• a document review, in which we examined 57 documents, including policies, procedures and other material;
• an audit of the Violent and Sex Offender Register (ViSOR);
• interviews and focus groups with police personnel; and
• reality testing by speaking with individual police personnel.

Terminology in this report

Our reports contain references to, among other things, ‘national’ definitions, priorities, policies, systems, responsibilities and processes. In some instances, ‘national’ means applying to Northern Ireland, England and Wales. In others, it means applying to Northern Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland, or the whole of the United Kingdom.

HM Inspector’s observations

In our 2023 report, I commented on the police budget shortfall in Northern Ireland. To meet its budget, the service had to make some difficult decisions, which its leaders were uncomfortable with. For instance, it had to achieve a £10 million saving by reducing its workforce by 424 police personnel posts.

At the time, police officer numbers had already fallen to 6,699, the lowest since the service was formed. In 2023, I expressed concern that a required reduction in headcount could lead to fewer neighbourhood officers. This would mean reduced visibility, problem-solving activity, engagement and reassurance for communities.

The service’s budget settlement for 2024/25 hasn’t improved the situation. By the time we began our fieldwork, officer numbers had fallen even further to 6,305. Inevitably, this inspection report identifies many of the consequences of the budget shortfall and the continued challenges that face the chief constable and his team.

I have concerns about the performance of the service in keeping people safe, preventing crime and providing victims with an effective service. There are some areas for improvement in its prevention and deterrence work.

I also have concerns about how the service is managing offenders and suspects.

Neighbourhood policing is suffering the effect of the budgetary cuts

The service’s leaders told us they valued, and recognised the importance of, neighbourhood policing. But in our inspection, we found that the service often took neighbourhood officers away from their core roles to cover response and other policing duties. While this prioritisation is understandable, the service’s senior leaders told us it wasn’t a decision they wanted to make. Despite best efforts, neighbourhood policing has borne the consequences of the budgetary position, which means the service is less able to prioritise prevention activity.

The service told us that it needed 952 neighbourhood officers to provide an effective service to its communities. But at the time of our inspection, there were only 558. This means that neighbourhood policing has 394 fewer officers than the service says it needs. This situation has led the service to merge some neighbourhood areas to maintain cover.

A further consequence of this reduction in officers is that the service has withdrawn its commitment to a 16-hours-a-day neighbourhood policing provision.

The service’s current vision to “help build a safe, confident and peaceful Northern Ireland” relies on policing with communities. But the current resourcing picture is stark, with neighbourhood officers diverted away from their main duties so often that they are sometimes working only a couple of shifts per month in their communities.

Management of violent and sex offenders needs to improve

The service must improve how it manages the risk posed by violent and sex offenders. It must improve its oversight of risk assessments and reduce the number of overdue visits to registered sex offenders. It must also make sure that it shares safeguarding information promptly with health and social care trusts.

Child abuse investigators and offender managers need more psychological support

During this inspection, we found a worrying lack of adequate support for officers who managed violent and sex offenders or investigated offences involving children. We also found the service didn’t have psychological screening for officers in the offender investigation unit or the child internet protection team. Without adequate screening and support, officers carrying out such psychologically demanding roles are likely to find their health and well-being adversely affected. The service needs to provide better support for child abuse investigators, offender managers and their supervisors.

Financial pressures are limiting what the service is able to achieve

Throughout our visits and inspections, I continue to be impressed by the professionalism and dedication of officers and staff serving in the PSNI. Their commitment to keeping people safe, preventing crime and providing victims with an effective service, often in the most difficult circumstances, is unwavering.

However, the continued financial pressures facing the service, if unresolved, are likely to further affect the service it can provide. The chief constable, his officers and staff are clearly determined to provide a high-quality service and to secure the trust and confidence of all communities. But this inspection highlights that the service’s capacity to realise this ambition is under great strain.

Lee Freeman KPM

His Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary

Preventing and deterring crime and antisocial behaviour, and reducing vulnerability

The PSNI is adequate at prevention and deterrence.

Main findings

The service should use data more effectively

Neighbourhood policing activity is supported by an effective governance framework with a suitable range of internal performance meetings. Senior leaders have access to a wide range of data. They interpret the data to identify emerging themes and direct policing activity appropriately.

The service uses its data to support problem-oriented policing. The head of performance and insight has received training in the scanning, analysis, response and assessment (SARA) problem-solving model. This has increased their knowledge of the principles of problem-oriented policing and improved the way the service’s analysts present data to leaders and operational staff.

Analysts produce briefing documents, which identify hotspot areas and focus patrol activity. But the service told us there was a lack of proactive analysis of information to support neighbourhood officers in their roles. Generally, officers identify a problem and then ask for analytical support to understand the scale of the problem. This means the service spends more time reacting to problems than taking a preventative approach.

The service has made more data available to its officers about vulnerable people, groups and locations, repeat antisocial behaviour, repeat victims and repeat suspects. This is presented in the form of dashboards on a system called Pulse, which uses the Microsoft Power BI platform. Neighbourhood officers have access to Pulse. The data can also help identify such things as emerging or recurrent crime types and domestic abuse incidents. It can be used to determine the action needed, such as targeted patrols, creating problem-solving plans, providing victims with crime prevention advice or welfare visits, or sharing information with partner agencies to help prevent crime and reduce vulnerability.

Neighbourhood officers have access to Pulse. But we found officers weren’t using the dashboards to their full potential. The service told us many officers lacked confidence in using Pulse to search for information. It should make sure all frontline officers have been trained and are confident in the use of Pulse. This will help them to understand the nature and scale of threat and risk in their neighbourhoods, and to target activity more effectively.

Data sharing between police and partner agencies needs to improve

During our inspection, we found the service worked well with partner agencies to prevent and deter crime and antisocial behaviour. It holds regular meetings with partners and, when problems require a joined-up approach, they work well together.

Officers told us that partner agencies had good data that could support prevention and deterrence, but access was limited and it wasn’t routinely shared with the service. They told us that, at police community safety partnership meetings, there was an over‑reliance on police data; partnership data was available only when it was specifically requested, and analysis of such data was limited.

The service should work with partners to find a direct and efficient way for greater information sharing and analytical support. This would mean the service and its partners benefit from a much wider and more informed intelligence picture.

The service is focused on crime prevention

The service recognises that effective neighbourhood policing protects vulnerable people, groups and locations. But the current financial position means its neighbourhood model isn’t as effective as it could be at preventing crime and antisocial behaviour.

The service’s crime prevention strategy for 2021–25 is under review. The service intends to align its new strategy with the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s national policing prevention strategy. This will update the service’s approach to prevention and provide a consistent approach to prevention activity. The service will be able to use the strategy in governance meetings to provide focused oversight of its prevention activity. We will monitor how effectively the new crime prevention strategy supports the service to carry out consistent preventative activity.

The service uses a range of techniques to prevent crime and antisocial behaviour

We have commented in previous reports that different communities in Northern Ireland have varying degrees of trust and confidence in the service. This may mean that some people are still unwilling to communicate with it for fear of reprisals. Our recent inspections have found officers invested significant effort in working with communities and the service used a range of techniques to prevent crime and antisocial behaviour.

In our 2023 inspection, we found the service allocated crime prevention officers to support older victims of any crime type, with an officer allocated to attend every burglary where the victim was over 60 years old. The crime is also allocated to the crime investigation department for further investigation. The service identifies repeat victims of crime and creates individual contact plans. For example, if a person over 60 years old has been a victim of crime six times in the previous year, local policing teams create, and are responsible for, a problem-solving plan to reduce repeat victimisation. However, we feel this approach should be based on risk rather than the number of repeat incidents.

During this inspection, we saw successful use of the Clear, Hold, Build approach to target organised crime groups. Operation Conexus uses early intervention and prevention strategies to reduce the harm caused by paramilitary activity and build resilient communities.

Neighbourhood policing teams have worked to build trust and confidence with young people to divert them away from paramilitary groups and offending behaviour. And, working with the service and other partners, the education authority led a youth engagement programme to divert young people away from antisocial behaviour during Halloween.

The service also works closely with retailers to tackle crime. It is a member of the business crime partnership (BCP). Other members include:

• the Department of Justice for Northern Ireland;
• the Northern Ireland Policing Board; and
• representatives from the retail and business communities.

The BCP is responsible for developing actions and identifying solutions relating to business crime and retail concerns. One example is safe shop, which is scenario‑based training that the BCP has given to 250 retail workers. Analysis showed that seasonal retail staff were particularly at risk from assaults that can occur when staff challenge shoplifters. Given that about 60 percent of retail employees are female, the service linked this training to its wider strategies to tackle violence against women and girls.

But we found the service didn’t make effective use of specific antisocial behaviour legislation to tackle retail crime. The service told us this was because the process to apply such legislation was difficult. So, rather than using the wide range of legislation available, the service chooses to treat incidents as criminal offences. For instance, the service told us that to tackle frequent shoplifters, retailers banned suspects and offenders from entering their premises. If an offender breaches the ban by entering a store, the police arrest them for burglary. While we were told this approach was used to good effect, the service should assure itself that it isn’t displacing the issue to other locations.

The service needs to improve its commitment to neighbourhood policing by introducing a sustainable neighbourhood policing model

Senior leaders value the importance of neighbourhood policing. But the continued budget shortfall means they have insufficient resources to provide sustainable neighbourhood policing.

The number of officers in neighbourhood policing roles continues to fall. At its peak, the service had 952 neighbourhood officers. At the time of our inspection, there were 558 – a reduction of 394. This means the service can’t maintain its commitment to providing 16-hours-a-day neighbourhood policing coverage. And it has had to merge certain neighbourhoods, leaving the remaining neighbourhood officers covering larger areas.

Neighbourhood officers continue to face high levels of abstraction from their core roles. This is because, in the face of a large budget shortfall, the service has made difficult resourcing decisions. Police officer numbers have fallen to the lowest level since the service was formed. As a result, neighbourhood officers often cover other duties in response policing, custody and front offices. In one case, an officer showed us they were rostered to work only 2 out of the next 20 days in their neighbourhood role.

If the recent levels of abstraction in neighbourhood policing continue, neighbourhood policing teams won’t be able to provide:

• long-term positive solutions to community problems;
• support to partnership agency activity; and
• regular contact with communities to build trust and confidence.

The service told us it was developing an application for officers to record when they aren’t carrying out their neighbourhood work. If this information is regularly updated, it could allow the service to better understand both the frequency and the impact of these abstractions.

The service is committed to problem-solving

The service has shown its commitment to problem-oriented policing. It has appointed a senior leader for problem-solving and prevention, although they have additional responsibilities and a large area of command. However, the service doesn’t have a problem-solving or prevention governance board and there isn’t a defined chief officer lead for problem-solving across the service.

In the past year, it has trained 250 problem-solving champions at constable, sergeant and inspector level. Following a two-day course, the service expects these champions to apply the principles of problem-oriented policing servicewide. Every neighbourhood team has problem-solving champions available in person or via a central mailbox to provide advice about problem-solving plans.

The service has also:

• created a centralised problem-solving team to provide support when needed;
• created an intranet page, which provides a wide range of information and guidance on problem-solving practice;
• developed a central store of previous problem-solving plans that officers can use to inform current problem-solving activity; and
• recognised the importance of providing senior leaders with problem-solving training, in line with College of Policing

Neighbourhood officers understand how to apply problem-solving methodology and routinely use a variety of techniques to solve problems.

It was pleasing to find the service using problem-solving more broadly as well. For example, it is used by the reducing offender unit, youth engagement officers and the roads policing unit. And, as part of an engagement plan to make policing more personable – called the person behind the helmet – the service provided problem-solving training to tactical support unit officers.

We reviewed some problem-solving plans and found officers used the SARA problem‑solving model. Generally, it was used to good effect. However, we found that they didn’t always carry out the last part of this model (assessment), which considers if the problem-solving activity has worked as intended. Until the service routinely assesses the outcome of problem-solving activity, its ability to decide if problems still persist and to learn lessons will be limited.

The service works with partner agencies to solve problems

The service is committed to working with partner agencies to prevent harm and reduce demand by ensuring a common approach to problem-solving activity. Where resources allow, neighbourhood teams work well with strategic partners from the public, private and voluntary sectors. They work together to solve problems affecting local communities through various joint meetings.

The strategic partnerships and prevention team ran problem-oriented policing awareness sessions for police community safety partnership members, council antisocial behaviour staff and neighbourhood police officers. These sessions improved the understanding of each agency’s role in problem-solving and helped partners and police to talk a common language when working together.

The service has regular meetings with partners, particularly when it identifies problems that would benefit from a joined-up approach. For example, senior neighbourhood policing representatives meet monthly with partner agencies at police community safety partnership meetings. Here they set joint priorities and work on problem-solving related to antisocial behaviour. Other examples include Operation Squallery, where the service worked with partners to tackle antisocial behaviour and prevent serious disorder. And an operation with the Irish Football Association aimed to divert young people from criminality and improve involvement with communities.

The Belfast neighbourhood policing team received a problem-solving award for its work with partners in the Holyland area. This work involved identifying community problems and working with a local university, the council and private landlords to jointly resolve them.

The service should do more to evaluate the effectiveness of problem-solving

Officers use Niche, the service’s crime management system, to record problem‑solving activity. They can use either a problem-on-a-page (POP) document or open a problem-solving folder to record long-term problems. Both approaches follow the SARA problem-solving model.

The service told us that the POP was an easier document to use, so was preferred to the lengthier problem-solving folder. In one district, we found only one open problem-solving folder. The service told us this was because officers were abstracted so often that they were reluctant to create folders they wouldn’t have time to address.

Adopting a problem-solving approach can be time-consuming. So, problem-solving efforts should focus on recurring issues that cause harm to communities and where a targeted police approach can have a positive outcome. The community, harm, expectation, events, recurring and similarity assessment was developed to assess whether a problem is suitable for SARA problem-solving. However, the service told us it didn’t effectively use the assessment when deciding whether to open a problem‑solving file.

The service doesn’t have quality assurance processes for problem-solving plans. This means it isn’t monitoring the risk officers are managing in those plans. It also means there is no assurance that officers are completing actions to address that risk.

The service told us it planned to introduce performance monitoring for problem‑solving; it showed us a portal called tried and tested problem-solving. It told us the portal would soon be available for officers to submit problem-solving folders to the strategic partnerships and prevention team for quality assurance. This team is working with two local universities to evaluate this project. The project will provide the service with a tool to understand whether officers are using problem-solving files when necessary, and that files are of sufficient quality and align with national good practice for problem-solving.

Tackling antisocial behaviour is a priority for the service

Antisocial behaviour can affect entire communities. When targeted at individual people, who may be vulnerable, it can have a lasting effect on their lives. Often, victims live in fear behind their front doors while neighbours or gangs intimidate and harass them. The police must understand how antisocial behaviour affects victims. When behaviour becomes criminal, the police should intervene, help those victims experiencing abuse and bring offenders to justice.

In our 2023/24 inspection of crime data integrity, we examined how well the service recorded crimes from reports of antisocial behaviour incidents deliberately targeting an individual. This is known as antisocial behaviour personal. It occurs when an incident causes concern or stress and may adversely affect an individual’s quality of life by, for example, intimidation or harassment. We examined 50 incidents that the service had closed under the category of antisocial behaviour personal to check that all crimes reported had been recorded correctly. We found that 20 crimes should have been recorded, of which 15 had been correctly recorded.

Tackling antisocial behaviour is a strategic priority for the service. It has a senior officer lead who is responsible for antisocial behaviour, and district commanders are held to account for, and required to report each month on, the levels of antisocial behaviour in their area.

During this inspection, officers told us antisocial behaviour had been decreasing since 2006/07, and so senior leaders were less concerned with understanding the data. However, each day the service still receives around 120 reports of antisocial behaviour, so it would be beneficial for senior leaders to understand why it is decreasing. This would help it to identify good practice to inform future activity.

The service is good at identifying antisocial behaviour trends and using police powers to prevent escalation

Senior leaders use antisocial behaviour data to identify trends and hold neighbourhood policing teams to account for their performance. This leads to action at operational levels.

The service has trained neighbourhood supervisors to access antisocial behaviour data through Pulse. They are expected to cascade this training to their officers, so they can understand antisocial behaviour occurring in their areas. The service told us that some officers used Pulse more effectively than others and that it had introduced webinars to improve officers’ knowledge and use of the system.

During our inspection, we found several good examples of the service’s problem‑solving approach. A policing operation at Belfast’s Broadway roundabout is one such example. Since August 2023, tensions in the area have been high, leading to a significant rise in antisocial behaviour and other criminality. Neighbourhood teams in Belfast worked with a range of partner agencies to prevent violent crime and antisocial behaviour. The operation prevented local youths becoming involved in criminality by encouraging their participation in a club football programme. This work has changed perceptions about policing and improved public confidence.

The service uses hotspot policing, identifying areas with high levels of antisocial behaviour and assigning patrols to attend those areas at specific times.

The service is good at using police powers to prevent escalation. But it doesn’t always use the most appropriate legislation. It told us neighbourhood teams didn’t use available legislation, such as antisocial behaviour orders or closure orders, to tackle antisocial behaviour. Interviewees said this was because:

• application processes were bureaucratic;
• the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) was unlikely to support the application; and
• the service didn’t have enough resources to carry out enforcement action after successful applications.

The service identifies repeat incidents of antisocial behaviour

The service’s processes to identify repeat victims of antisocial behaviour are effective. When the service receives a report of antisocial behaviour, a sergeant in the contact management centre identifies if the caller is a repeat victim. They also use ControlWorks, the service’s incident management system, to see if the incident involves a repeat suspect or location. An officer in the contact management centre provides this information to the attending officer.

Generally, response officers deal with antisocial behaviour when it is first reported. This is because the service knows that if it doesn’t manage antisocial behaviour effectively, it can quickly escalate. Threats can lead to significant harm. This isn’t just devastating for victims and their families; it is also resource intensive for police to deal with. And where the service identifies incidents involving repeat victims, offenders or locations, it refers the incidents to neighbourhood officers to consider problem-solving activity.

Senior leaders have introduced measures to make sure that repeat victims of antisocial behaviour are recognised, supported and protected. This is achieved through daily management meetings that focus on repeat victims and identifying vulnerability. The service produces data on repeat victimisation, which is scrutinised by senior leaders at district tactical tasking and co-ordination group meetings.

Repeat demand, such as demand resulting from repeat victims, repeat incidents, repeat offenders or repeat callers, is discussed at district performance and repeat demand meetings. This makes sure issues are gripped quickly and there is good oversight. Cases involving increased risk, such as mental health or vulnerability, are passed to a multi-agency support hub for review and then allocated to other teams for follow-up investigations. There is a multi-agency support hub in each district. Generally, each hub consists of one inspector, one sergeant and two constables. The hubs work with partners to provide a co-ordinated response to reports of antisocial behaviour.

The service works with communities in a variety of ways

The service operates in a particularly complex social and political environment. Different communities in Northern Ireland have varying degrees of trust and confidence in the service. This may mean that some people are still unwilling to communicate with the service for fear of reprisals. This can make it difficult for the service to build a positive relationship with some communities and presents challenges for neighbourhood policing. In this context, neighbourhood policing comparisons can’t easily be drawn with England and Wales. But the service and its neighbourhood policing teams have made remarkable progress in the way they work with their communities.

The service told us local models had adapted to meet local needs. Some districts have antisocial behaviour forums. Others have street pastors and council wardens. Each policing district has a police community safety partnership. Although we found the service’s overall approach to antisocial behaviour lacked consistency, the way it has adapted to respond to local needs seems to make sure that this approach is working.

As part of our inspection, we asked the service to provide us with many documents, which our team reviewed. Some of this information showed the service’s commitment to working with its communities. For instance, the 2024 document ‘Communities in Transition Showcase: Insights and Innovation in Community Practice (PDF document)’ gives examples of neighbourhood policing teams working with partners to transform the views of some communities that previously wouldn’t have worked with police and partners. One such example is the Safer Areas For Everyone (SAFE) project. This community safety and policing project aims to support the community in dealing with issues of community safety, crime and antisocial behaviour. It provides early intervention and support for young people it identifies as being at risk of becoming involved in crime. And it provides additional support and services to reduce vulnerability, including mental health first aid and restorative practice.

SAFE volunteers have reflected positively on the way the service has worked to improve relationships with communities. We too were impressed by the service’s determination to work with all its communities.

The service listens to its communities

The service recognises that communities are a critical part in the provision of effective policing in Northern Ireland. Introduced in 2022, the Here for You engagement strategy provides a framework for community engagement activities. The strategy emphasises the importance of effective communication to improve understanding with different groups, with the service using Reference, Engagement and Listening (REaL) events to connect with its communities.

During our inspection, we observed a REaL event in Belfast, hosted by the service’s strategic community engagement team and facilitated by a senior leader. The event asked for views from diverse communities to:

• improve police recruitment;
• shape the 2025–27 policing plan;
• add value to the race and ethnicity action plan; and
• learn lessons from the disorder in Northern Ireland in the summer of 2024.

Over 60 guests from a broad range of backgrounds attended. A facilitator from the service was on every table and, after each presentation, generated discussion. In closing the event, the service made a commitment to act on the feedback it received. Throughout the event, we saw that officers across the service recognised the importance of building positive relationships with communities in Northern Ireland.

The partnership and prevention team has been working to give young people a voice as part of the independent advisory reference group. As well as the service, this consists of the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Members and advocates of the group wanted to work with young people to understand their views on relevant matters. The group has drafted terms of reference, and it expects the first youth representatives will attend the next group meeting, scheduled for early 2025. This means that young people can share their views at relevant strategic meetings with the service.

The service is developing an application that will allow officers to record all community engagement activities. Officers should be able to access the application on their devices and use it to post information on social media about activities in their neighbourhood.

The service works well with communities, which helps it identify and address priorities effectively

Information about neighbourhood teams is available on the service’s website. The service has an engagement strategy. The neighbourhood inspector in each district manages the implementation of the strategy using an engagement plan. This is specific to their district, and takes account of seldom-heard communities.

The service has a good understanding of the communities that are harder to reach. It told us that the Catholic, Nationalist, Republican and Travelling communities were among the hardest to reach in some parts of Northern Ireland.

We found the service was committed to developing relationships with people who may traditionally interact less often with police or have lower levels of trust and confidence in policing. The service told us of a neighbourhood team starting a relationship-building process with a group of foreign nationals working in a local factory. The team produced leaflets in multiple languages to improve the group’s understanding of road safety, hate crime legislation and general personal safety.

All this demonstrates the service’s commitment to improving relationships with its communities.

Managing offenders and suspects

The PSNI requires improvement at managing offenders and suspects.

Main findings

The service has multi-agency arrangements for managing sex offenders and violent offenders

In England, Wales and Scotland there are statutory arrangements to manage the risk posed by certain offenders in the community. These are known as multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA). In Northern Ireland, similar arrangements were established in 2008. These are known as the public protection arrangements in Northern Ireland (PPANI). Both MAPPA and PPANI involve agencies working together and sharing information to protect the public. While each agency has its own statutory responsibilities relating to public protection, the arrangements ensure greater co-operation between agencies.

Our inspection found that personnel were familiar with PPANI and often worked with other agencies in accordance with the document ‘Guidance to agencies on public protection arrangements (PPANI) Article 50, Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008’. The service told us that it managed offenders with the probation service, the prison service, health and social care trusts, the housing executive and charities.

A multi-agency public protection team manages the highest-risk offenders

The service has a public protection team, co-located with healthcare and probation personnel. Its aim is to provide consistent risk management for offenders in the community who present the greatest risk of serious harm. The public protection team visits offenders and shares information from these visits with other agencies. Police officers in the team are all trained and accredited investigators.

The service has an offender investigation unit (OIU), which manages the risk posed by registered sex offenders and violent offenders. The OIU teams are geographically aligned to health trusts, which helps good collaboration.

The service doesn’t always use ViSOR in line with national standards

The College of Policing’s authorised professional practice sets out details of ViSOR. Its effectiveness depends on the quality and timeliness of information and intelligence recorded in it. Its use must comply with published national standards.

The standards outline that a risk management plan for each offender should be contained in the risk management section of their record. We audited ten ViSOR records and found that risk management information wasn’t in the correct place. We could find it in meeting minutes, but this isn’t an obvious place for ViSOR-trained individuals in other police forces or organisations to look for it. This practice contravenes national standards. It means if a sex offender moved from Northern Ireland to another police area in England or Wales, the risk management information wouldn’t be apparent to the receiving force. However, the service told us that it did complete risk management plans for all categories of offenders.

The service is also contravening national standards concerning the actions tab in ViSOR. This tab is for forces to record actions or tasks relating to offenders. Our audit found the service wasn’t using it. This means any actions the service records in the body of the risk assessments can’t be monitored for completion.

Offenders managed under PPANI should be risk assessed into one of three categories:

• category 1 – no requirement for multi-agency intervention
• category 2 – local multi-agency intervention
• category 3 – intense or focused multi-agency intervention.

For category 2 offenders, risk management plans are set during local area public protection panel review meetings. These meetings are chaired by the probation service and set actions to reduce the risk posed by offenders. If the probation service is chosen as the lead agency for a case, it shares its risk assessments with PSNI offender managers. The PPANI administrative team then updates ViSOR with the information provided. We found the team wasn’t drawing out relevant risk information and actions and wasn’t populating the correct sections of ViSOR. This means the information isn’t easily accessible.

We found the supervisory reviews on ViSOR were neither meaningful nor specific. Supervisors should review visits to offenders to update risk assessments and risk management plans and set any further actions. They should also check that officers have completed previous actions. This is to make sure the offender manager is managing the offender appropriately and reducing the risk of reoffending. However, on many records, supervisory oversight was delayed or generic or lacked information.

The service needs to plan for vacancies in critical roles in the management of violent and sex offenders

ViSOR standards set out the role of the central point of contact (CPC). Each agency that uses ViSOR, including the police, must have a CPC but can have only one. The CPC is responsible for:

• creating ViSOR records following receipt of information about a caution, conviction or other relevant matter;
• authorising user access to ViSOR;
• assuring the quality of contributions to ViSOR records;
• monitoring ViSOR use;
• managing ViSOR user profiles; and
• producing appropriate statistical information.

This role is critical to the effective management of violent and sex offenders. It should make sure records are maintained to ViSOR standards.

However, the service told us the CPC position would become vacant shortly after our inspection. By the time our inspection had ended the service hadn’t identified anyone to fill it.

Since our inspection, the service has told us this role has been filled. This is a critical role and cover must be available if the post holder is absent for an extended period.

There is a backlog of work in the ViSOR management unit

ViSOR standards set out the importance of creating records on receipt of relevant information. The service told us there was a backlog of work in the ViSOR management unit and records weren’t being updated quickly enough. Some offenders are staying on the register longer than required while other offenders with convictions haven’t yet had records created. This means the service isn’t effectively managing the risk posed by individuals.

Investigations involving indecent images of children are delayed due to a backlog of work

Electronic device examination is an essential part of offender management. It can help identify an increase in the risk posed by offenders or potential breaches of orders. During this inspection, and our crime investigations thematic inspection in June 2024, the service consistently told us about backlogs of at least 12 months for digital downloading from electronic devices. And once downloads are complete, it can take a further 12 months to report on the findings.

The victim identification and image grading (VIIG) team has high workloads. In August 2024, the team had 261 cases awaiting action. By November 2024, this had increased to 284 cases. The service told us this equates to a ten-month delay in investigations. Once the team has graded an image as indecent, it should upload it to the child abuse image database. The service told us there were 300 images awaiting upload. The VIIG team isn’t adequately staffed to manage the volume of investigations. This means the service isn’t safeguarding children and vulnerable people as effectively as it should.

Triage of electronic devices needs to improve

The service has trained OIU officers to use software to examine electronic devices. But some lack the confidence to apply the training, so choose to wait for specialist officers to complete the examinations. This means offenders who pose a risk aren’t identified quickly enough.

The service has a device to examine internet routers but, again, officers reported they were either not trained or lacked the confidence to use it. This means opportunities to detect offences are being missed.

The service has 20 licences to use specialist software to monitor the online activity of offenders. But the service told us that not all licences were used. And officers were only using the software when an offender consented. Again, this means the service is missing opportunities to prevent and detect offences.

A Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) can be imposed against an offender with a history of internet offending. This gives the police power to inspect their electronic devices. The service identified 267 offenders who are subject to such an order. It told us senior leaders were now reviewing performance information to establish whether offender managers were using this power effectively to inspect offenders’ electronic devices.

The service monitors and records breaches of orders

The service uses performance data to monitor SOPO breaches and reoffending rates. We found officers appropriately recorded breaches of orders and notification requirements on Niche, the service’s crime management system, and submitted crime reports. This information is also recorded on ViSOR. The service must refer all such breaches to the PPS to make a prosecution decision. The service told us most SOPO breaches progressed to a court hearing. The service can deal with some lower‑level breaches, such as failing to comply with notification requirements, with a police caution.

Offender managers work closely with neighbourhood officers to improve their knowledge of sex offenders

The service has begun an operation to improve the knowledge of neighbourhood officers about sex offenders living in its communities. The service makes information and intelligence about sex offenders available to district commanders and neighbourhood officers. And it has trained neighbourhood inspectors and strategic leads in how to access the information. This helps them to focus operational activity on the highest risk in their communities and prevent harm.

Collaboration has improved between the OIU and neighbourhood teams. Joint visits to sex offenders take place within days of notification that an offender has been placed on the sex offender register. At the time of our inspection, 266 visits had taken place, with 50 percent resulting in an officer being able to speak to the offender. As a result, the service has seen an increase in intelligence about offenders it manages.

Information sharing between frontline officers and the OIU has also improved. The OIU provides servicewide briefings about its work and training, and has developed a briefing page on its intranet with information about sex offenders living in neighbourhoods. Days of action take place during which OIU officers work with neighbourhood officers to improve their collective knowledge of sex offenders living in specific areas. This working arrangement has led to good results. For instance, the OIU provided information for a briefing about a male committing a public sex offence. A neighbourhood officer who had previously carried out a joint visit recognised the male, leading to his arrest.

The service isn’t effectively managing the risk posed to the public by registered sex offenders

We found personnel in the OIU were enthusiastic about their roles and committed to protecting the public from harm. But repeatedly we heard that demand across teams was too high, and personnel were overwhelmed. There are officer shortages across all trusts, which means officers can’t carry out their roles effectively. On managing the risk posed to the public by registered sex offenders, the service told us officers in the unit were “holding and not managing the risk”.

OIU officers work one weekend every four weeks. But rather than concentrating on their own workload, they often need to carry out wider public protection duties. They told us this meant they were neglecting their work of managing sex offenders.

In October 2024, we carried out an audit of the service’s use of ViSOR. We found there were 630 outstanding visits to sex offenders and violent offenders. This is a high number of visits that the service hasn’t completed. We raised our concerns about this with the service. In response, it developed an operation, with supporting command structure, to address the backlog. At the end of January 2025, there were still 474 outstanding visits. So, the service needs to do more work to effectively manage this risk and complete the outstanding work to the required standards.

The service has access to good performance data that it could use more effectively to manage offenders and suspects

During this inspection, we found the service used its Pulse system to provide data to the workforce about suspects or wanted persons. This data includes risk gradings, which identify the highest-harm perpetrators and can be used to inform decisions about prioritisation. But we found different areas in the service were managing suspects in different ways. And not everyone uses the performance data available to them on Pulse.

Performance data on managing suspects, offenders and wanted persons isn’t routinely scrutinised at a servicewide level. Senior leaders no longer discuss it at the service performance board, so the service lacks strategic oversight of all wanted persons. This means it may not immediately identify trends where numbers are rising.

While the service has access to good performance data it should use it more effectively. It should improve its governance arrangements for wanted persons through senior leader oversight that tracks progress through a servicewide performance board.

The service is good at identifying suspects and making arrests

The service has a service instruction for wanted persons. (A service instruction is a practical guide to help officers make decisions in line with the service’s policies.) This explains to officers how they should manage wanted people. Each week, the co‑ordination and tasking centre produces a list of wanted people, which it prioritises by threat, risk and harm. The centre sends the list to the district chief inspector, who is responsible for making sure officers pursue wanted people.

During our inspection we found good management and scrutiny of outstanding suspects and offenders at an operational level. Generally, targeted interventions and arrests are happening promptly. Officers follow a wanted person risk matrix, which helps to prioritise action. And supervisors carry out regular reviews to make sure their officers are progressing investigations.

Where possible, local supervisors assign officers to arresting priority outstanding suspects and offenders, focusing on the weekly priority list. Often, supervisors assign officers specific duties dedicated to finding and arresting those who present the highest risk. This helps to make sure the service safeguards victims as soon as possible.

In our victim service assessment, as part of our 2023 inspection, we found that arrests were made at the earliest opportunity in all 42 relevant cases we reviewed.

The service recognises that bail is an effective tool to protect vulnerable victims

Bail is a tool used by police to protect vulnerable people and locations by imposing conditions on suspects or offenders. We found that officers across the service appreciated the use of bail to safeguard victims and they understood the service’s preference for using bail when appropriate.

The service should do more to make sure suspects managed by the child internet protection team are complying with their bail conditions

We found that the service usually had a sound rationale for its decisions about whether to grant bail to people suspected of accessing indecent images of children, and what conditions to place on them. These decisions consider both the risk to potential victims and the safeguarding of suspects themselves.

But we found that the child internet protection team was unable to monitor pre-charge bail and deal with any breaches, due to its high workload. And, more widely, the service doesn’t routinely monitor compliance with the conditions of pre-charge bail for those suspects. Details of the suspects and their conditions aren’t routinely recorded on Niche, the service’s crime management system. This limits how much other officers can know about the risk these suspects pose or the specific restrictions they are under, if they encounter them at other incidents. The service should make sure it has oversight of non-compliance with bail conditions.

There is no servicewide monitoring and scrutiny of pre-charge bail use

The service has a good service instruction for the use of pre-charge bail, which includes a bail management matrix for setting review dates. But most officers we spoke to weren’t aware of this service instruction.

The service lacks management information and quality assurance processes for pre‑charge bail. So, it doesn’t monitor performance in this area well enough. This means the service can’t:

• identify where pre-charge bail is used well (or not so well);
• understand what might be stopping its effective use;
• assure itself that risks are effectively managed; and
• identify issues and make improvements.

Without servicewide monitoring and support, we found personnel were trying to fill the gaps by using various methods to effectively manage pre-charge bail locally. Mainly this approach is helping, but it isn’t an efficient long-term plan.

We found local supervisors had good knowledge of their teams’ cases involving suspects on pre-charge bail, kept review records updated and discussed bail with officers during one-to-one meetings.

The service has dedicated pre-charge bail management sergeants who check that officers correctly update bail statuses, send early prompts to officers when bail dates are approaching and make sure procedures for people returning on bail are correctly applied.

There is a lack of governance of voluntary attendance interviews

The service has a service instruction for voluntary attendance but none of the personnel we spoke to knew about it. During our inspection, it was clear there was a lack of governance and strategic oversight of voluntary attendance interviews.

Voluntary attendance can be used to interview a suspect when the necessary criteria for arrest aren’t met. It isn’t to be used simply for geographical or convenience reasons.

Supervisors review individual cases to make sure their officers are progressing investigations in which they have used voluntary attendance. But there is no quality assurance at a servicewide level. So the service can’t assure itself that the use of voluntary attendance is always appropriate.

We heard of examples where the decision to use voluntary attendance was based on the distance officers would have to travel if they made an arrest rather than whether it was the right thing to do. Officers told us they often considered voluntary interviews as an easier option and, on occasion, they were using the practice inappropriately. This could result in missed opportunities to recover evidence of an offence.

The lack of oversight and governance and the limited data on voluntary attendance use means the service can’t assure itself that officers are using it appropriately.

During our inspection, the service told us the voluntary attendance policy was under review. As part of this review, we would encourage the service to collect, and make effective use of, data on voluntary attendance as part of its governance processes. This will help it to identify issues and make improvements.

The service can’t serve all summonses within court timescales

The PPS is the principal prosecuting authority in Northern Ireland. The PSNI sends case files to the PPS to consider if there is enough evidence to prosecute. If the PPS decides to prosecute, the case can begin, with a charge sheet or summons. In the case of a summons, the PPS issues the paperwork and tries to serve it on the defendant. If it can’t serve the summons, it sends it to the service, which allocates a police officer to serve it. If the officer can’t serve the summons within the required timescale, it is returned to the court to be reissued.

During our fieldwork, we found a box of about 400 unserved summonses waiting to be returned to the court. About another 100 were in officers’ trays, having been allocated but not yet served, and another 50 were waiting to be allocated to officers. The summonses related to criminal and other offences. The service told us the volume of summonses it received was unmanageable. The number of unserved summonses we found suggests this process is placing significant demand on the service, which it can’t meet.

The failure to meet this demand has consequences. Court cases will be delayed or, in many cases, discontinued. Defendants aren’t being brought to justice quickly enough and could commit further offences during the delay. Victims are being let down.

After our inspection, the service told us that the draft programme for government 2024–2027 outlined proposals for change in Northern Ireland. They include a ‘speeding up justice’ programme to reform the way cases are handled. This programme would be assisted by investment in digital capabilities to support transformation across criminal justice organisations including the PSNI, the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service, and the PPS.

Any changes that would make the serving of summonses more efficient could allow the service to focus on matters that require police powers.

Back to publication

The Police Service of Northern Ireland: An inspection of police effectiveness and efficiency