RPRP:
Reflective Practice Review Process

RPRP at a Glance

Checked against the revised text of the regulations on legislation.gov.uk on 3 October 2026. Part 6 has not been amended since it came into force; the definition of practice requiring improvement was moved into regulation 2(7) and (8) on 7 May 2024, and the referral rules in regulations 14 and 42 were amended on 28 May 2025.

1. What Is Reflective Practice Review?

RPRP is the Reflective Practice Review Process set out in Part 6 (regulations 65 to 71) of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, which came into force on 1 February 2020. It is the route for handling what the regulations call practice requiring improvement. You will also see it described simply as "reflective practice".

Regulation 2(7) defines practice requiring improvement as underperformance or conduct not amounting to misconduct or gross misconduct, which falls short of the expectations of the public and the police service. When deciding whether something meets that definition, regulation 2(8) requires the person assessing it to have regard to the College of Policing Code of Ethics. Both paragraphs were inserted on 7 May 2024 by SI 2024/521, regulation 6, which replaced the original definition in regulation 2(1). The Home Office guidance, written in 2020, still quotes the older wording, which tied the expectations to the Code of Ethics directly.

In practice it is a structured, non-adversarial discussion between the officer (the "participating officer") and a "reviewer", usually their line manager. It has a fact-finding stage, a discussion stage, and ends in a written development report. Home Office guidance describes the aim as accountability and learning for both the officer and the organisation, without the adversarial feel of formal disciplinary proceedings.

2. RPRP vs Informal Reflective Practice

Officers often hear "RP", "little RP" and "RPRP" used as if they were the same thing. They are not, and the difference matters because the legal protections in regulation 66 belong to the formal process. The IOPC's December 2022 review found forces had varying levels of understanding of what RPRP was and how to record it, and its updated Focus guidance (March 2026) separates the terms like this:

The IOPC is clear that, inside or outside Part 6, none of these discussions is disciplinary action or leads to a disciplinary outcome. The practical differences are elsewhere: only the formal process carries the statutory 5-day account step, the statutory report, the PDR requirement, the promotion protection in regulation 66(3) and the inadmissibility rule in regulation 66(4). If you are not sure which one you are in, ask whether a referral has been made by the appropriate authority and whether you have received written notice under regulation 14(7) or a similar provision.

The IOPC also notes that a referral to RPRP is not an available outcome for a death or serious injury investigation unless it becomes a conduct matter or a complaint is recorded, and that a complaint can only lead to RPRP if it is recorded and handled under Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002.

3. Why Was RPRP Introduced?

• Reduce overuse of formal misconduct
• Encourage learning culture
• Distinguish mistakes from misconduct
• Prevent career damage for minor errors

It separates performance and practice requiring improvement from misconduct.

The Home Office guidance explains the thinking. Before the 2020 reforms, lower-level matters were often run through formal investigations and disciplinary proceedings and ended in management advice or no further action. Under the reformed system, disciplinary proceedings are meant to be reserved for serious breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour where a formal sanction, at a minimum a written warning, is justified. Everything below that line is meant to be handled locally, with a focus on reflection and learning.

The guidance (paragraph 13.12) also sets out the bargain the process relies on: officers should be able to trust that unintentional mistakes and shortcomings will be handled constructively, and that admitting them will not be to their detriment or result in punishment. That is why the regulations protect what you say (regulation 66(4)) and your promotion prospects (regulation 66(3)).

4. What Triggers RPRP?

Nobody can simply decide to "put you on RPRP". A matter enters Part 6 through specific referral points. The most common is the severity assessment in regulation 14: when a conduct matter is recorded, the appropriate authority assesses whether the conduct, if proved, would amount to misconduct, gross misconduct, or neither. If it is neither, the appropriate authority then assesses whether it amounts to practice requiring improvement, and if so it must refer the matter to RPRP (regulation 14(4)).

Because the legal test is "practice requiring improvement" and not a list of behaviours, the examples below are illustrative only. The actual decision is made case by case by the appropriate authority, after consulting your line manager.

The IOPC's March 2026 guidance gives anonymised case types where RPRP was used, which show the kind of matter that sits below the misconduct line. They include an officer who used a work system to look up why a family member had been arrested, admitted it the next day and had significant personal mitigation; officers who missed grounds to arrest and failed to risk-assess in a long-running neighbour dispute because of a knowledge gap; probationers who had only received discriminatory messages in a group chat (the senders were dismissed); and an off-duty officer who mentioned being a police officer in a heated consumer dispute, where the investigator recorded that a written warning would not have been likely at a misconduct meeting. Common threads are a low level of seriousness, a clear learning point and, in several of the examples, early admissions by the officer.

The Home Office guidance separately notes that line managers who spot a clearly low-level issue should not need to send it to professional standards for a severity assessment. They can handle it locally as part of normal line management, using reflective practice principles and recording the meeting and learning points on the officer's Personal Development Record. That informal route sits outside Part 6, so the formal protections in regulations 66 to 71 do not apply to it in the same way. If a line manager thinks something may be misconduct, the guidance says it should go to professional standards for a severity assessment.

Not sure where a particular behaviour sits? The indicator further down this page gives a rough steer, but it is not a substitute for the appropriate authority's assessment. See also the Standards of Professional Behaviour.

5. Practice Requiring Improvement vs Misconduct vs Performance

RPRP only makes sense once you see the lines either side of it. The regulations use four different thresholds, each with its own route and possible result:

How the appropriate authority decides

1. It first assesses whether the conduct, if proved, would be misconduct, gross misconduct or neither (regulation 14(1)). If it is misconduct or gross misconduct, the matter must be investigated (regulation 14(5)).
2. If it is neither, it must decide between four options: practice requiring improvement, a referral under the Police (Vetting) Regulations 2025, a referral under the Performance Regulations, or no further action (regulation 14(2)). The vetting option was added on 28 May 2025 by SI 2025/558.
3. Before choosing practice requiring improvement, vetting or performance, it must consult your line manager (regulation 14(3)). The guidance says the line manager may know of earlier similar issues or reflective discussions that make RPRP more or less suitable.
4. If it assesses practice requiring improvement, the referral to RPRP is mandatory (regulation 14(4)), and you must be told in writing as soon as practicable (regulation 14(7)).

Two practical tests come out of the guidance. First, the line between RPRP and misconduct is whether a formal sanction, at least a written warning, would be justified (paragraph 13.3). Second, the line between RPRP and unsatisfactory performance is usually about pattern: the guidance says unsatisfactory performance procedures are more likely where there is a series of failings and earlier management steps have not worked, while RPRP is more appropriate for one-off issues or where there have been limited previous attempts to address emerging concerns (paragraphs 13.21 and 13.22). The IOPC adds that where there are repeated similar instances or a clear pattern, RPRP may not be appropriate.

For the formal side of these lines, see police misconduct explained, gross misconduct explained and unsatisfactory performance and gross incompetence.

6. How the Process Works: the 6 Steps

Home Office guidance stresses the process should be run swiftly so that learning is not diluted by delay, but there is no statutory end date for the fact-finding and discussion stages.

7. The Full Timeline, With Regulation References

The six steps above sit inside a longer sequence that starts before the reviewer is involved. Every stage below is taken from the regulations or, where marked, the Home Office guidance. "Working day" excludes weekends, Christmas Day, Good Friday and bank holidays in England and Wales (regulation 2(1)).

8. What You Can and Cannot Do

RPRP is meant to be done with you, not to you. These are the practical levers you have, and the limits, drawn from Part 6, the Home Office guidance and the IOPC's guidance.

A referral can be stressful even when it is not disciplinary, particularly if it follows a long investigation. Confidential support is listed in the police mental health support directory, and your rights during any earlier investigation are covered in police officer under investigation: your rights.

9. What Is a Reflective Review Development Report?

The Reflective Review Development Report is the written output of an RPRP. Regulation 70(2) says it must contain:

• a summary of the issue and any relevant background circumstances;
• a summary of the reflective practice review discussion;
• key actions to be undertaken within a specified time period;
• any lessons identified for the participating officer;
• any lessons identified for the line management or police force concerned; and
• a specified period of time for reviewing the report and the actions taken.

Home Office guidance lists the kinds of actions that might be agreed: training, mentoring or shadowing, mediation, more regular management conversations or closer supervision, restorative steps such as an apology, and welfare or support referrals where personal difficulties contributed. It also says the officer should have the opportunity to engage and give input at every stage, including in agreeing the wording of the report.

The reviewer sends a copy to the appropriate authority, which must act on any lessons for the wider force (regulation 70(3) and (4)). A copy of the report and a note of the review of actions must be retained (regulation 70(5)). Where the matter began as a public complaint, the complainant is also told what has happened and what learning has been identified, although the report itself is not necessarily shared in full.

The guidance (paragraph 13.76) says the appropriate authority should not intervene in the outcomes of the report but should oversee the process overall. Where more than one officer was involved in the same matter, a joint discussion can be held, but each officer must get their own individual report (regulation 66(2)).

10. RPRP vs Misconduct Meeting, Hearing and UPP

The clearest way to see the difference is side by side. RPRP sits below the disciplinary line: the definition of "disciplinary proceedings" in regulation 2(1) covers misconduct proceedings under Part 4, accelerated hearings under Part 5 and appeals from them, but not Part 6, and the Home Office guidance describes Part 6 as excluded from that definition. It is also separate from the unsatisfactory performance procedures (UPP) under the Police (Performance) Regulations 2020.

Written warnings stay in force for 18 months and final written warnings for 2 years (extendable to a maximum of 5 years), under regulation 42(9) and (10). RPRP has no equivalent "live" period. For the formal routes, see our guides to misconduct meetings vs hearings, misconduct sanctions, gross misconduct and the misconduct appeal process. The pay progression row reflects the conditions in Annex F to the Police Regulations 2003 as summarised in our sanctions guide.

12. Is It Recorded on Your Misconduct Record?

• Retention. Regulation 70(5) requires a copy of the report and a note of the review of actions to be retained. Home Office guidance says these are retained on the participating officer's record and discussed in the performance and development review during the 12 months after the report is agreed.
• Outcome of the underlying matter. According to the IOPC, RPRP is recorded as the outcome of a complaint handled otherwise than by investigation or by investigation, and of a recordable conduct matter that has been investigated. So the fact of the referral is logged against the original case even though it is not a disciplinary finding.
• Case-system labels. The IOPC's March 2026 guidance tells forces to record a Part 6 referral on their case management system against the individual officer as "Referral to RPRP", and informal reflective practice used to handle a complaint as "Learning from reflection". For both, there should be a written record of the matter and the discussion, including your responses, the learning and next steps.
• Repeat issues. The IOPC says good record-keeping lets supervisors spot repeat issues, and that a supervisor deciding how to handle a new matter should look at earlier reflective practice and how the officer engaged with it.
• Informal reflective practice. Where a line manager handles something informally outside Part 6, the guidance says a written record should be made on the officer's Personal Development Record.

What we could not verify: we have not found an official source that says how long forces keep RPRP reports beyond the 12-month performance review requirement, or whether and when they are disclosed in references or on transfer. Retention and disclosure practice is set by individual force policy, so check yours.

13. Confidentiality: Who Sees What

RPRP is not confidential in the sense of being secret, but the regulations and guidance limit how what you say can be used and who gets the full report.

If you disclose something that suggests possible misconduct or criminality beyond the referred matter, the guidance says the process should be paused and the issue referred to the appropriate authority, and you should be told (paragraph 13.33). In any later investigation a fresh account would be needed, and nobody previously involved in the matter should investigate it (paragraphs 13.34 and 13.37).

14. Does RPRP Affect Promotion?

It should not, and the regulations say so. Regulation 66(3) provides that a participating officer must not be prevented from applying for or obtaining a promotion by reason of their participation in the reflective practice review process. The IOPC also describes RPRP as not affecting an officer's potential for progression or promotion, and Home Office guidance says the process should not be seen as punitive.

Two practical points. First, RPRP is not a misconduct finding, so it is treated very differently from a live written warning, which some forces treat as a restriction on promotion during the live period: see can I be promoted with a misconduct finding and promotion and misconduct implications. Second, the report is discussed in your performance and development review, and forces run their own promotion processes, so evidence of genuinely engaging with the learning is worth having ready. A pattern of repeated issues after RPRP can lead to other procedures (see escalation below), which is a separate matter from promotion eligibility.

The protection is about promotion. Regulation 66(3) does not mention transfers or specialist posts. For moving forces, see transferring with live misconduct.

15. Does RPRP Affect Vetting?

RPRP is not a vetting outcome. Vetting is a separate regime, and since 28 May 2025 regulation 14(2)(aa) has let an appropriate authority consider whether a low-level matter should instead be referred under the Police (Vetting) Regulations 2025. That is an alternative route to RPRP, not a consequence of it.

Since 13 July 2026, a vetting authority must review an officer's clearance where the officer has been subject to misconduct proceedings or an accelerated misconduct hearing and has not been dismissed (Police (Vetting) Regulations 2025, regulation 5A(3)). An RPRP referred after a severity assessment or an investigation does not involve misconduct proceedings, so that duty is not triggered by the RPRP itself. Where RPRP is directed at the end of a misconduct meeting or hearing that found no misconduct, the officer has been subject to misconduct proceedings, so on its wording the review duty would apply to those proceedings. We have not found guidance confirming how forces handle that case.

What we could not verify: we found no official source setting out how a completed RPRP is weighed in later vetting reviews. The IOPC does note that when someone transfers forces mid-RPRP, the forces may want to talk to each other from a vetting point of view. Treat any claim that RPRP "never" or "always" affects vetting with caution. If you are concerned about your own situation, see our guide to failing police vetting as a serving officer and speak to your Federation representative.

16. Federation Support, Appeals and Challenge

Can I bring my Federation rep or police friend?

You can get their advice, but you do not have a right to be represented. A police friend is a police officer, a police staff member or a person nominated by your staff association (such as the Police Federation), who is not otherwise involved in the matter (regulation 7(1)). Regulation 7(2) lists what a police friend may do, including representing you and accompanying you to meetings, but regulation 66(1) says regulation 7(2)(b) to (d) does not apply to matters dealt with under Part 6. Home Office guidance puts it plainly: you can seek the advice, not the representation, of a police friend, because the discussion is treated as a normal line-management conversation. If you want support in the room, ask the reviewer in advance. What the Federation offers more generally is covered in Federation representation and legal support.

Can I appeal or challenge an RPRP?

There is no formal right of appeal because Part 6 is not disciplinary proceedings. If you are unhappy with how your line manager handled it, the guidance says you can raise that with the appropriate authority, who may take action if necessary. In practice, the strongest safeguard is engagement: you get to give your account, comment on the conclusions and agree the actions in the report. Where the matter began as a public complaint, the complainant may have a right of review of the decision to refer to RPRP, but that is their right, not yours.

Can what I say be used against me?

Regulation 66(4) protects your account and anything said in the reflective practice review discussion from being admitted in later disciplinary proceedings, other than an admission about a matter that was not referred to RPRP. Home Office guidance adds that if you disclose potential misconduct or criminality the process would need to be paused so the appropriate authority can consider it, and any later investigation would need a fresh account. The protection is a reason to be open, but it is not unlimited, so take advice if anything you say might go beyond the referred matter.

17. Can RPRP Escalate?

Yes, in defined ways. RPRP itself cannot become a sanction, but the matter can be reassessed:

• New evidence. If substantial evidence emerges during fact-finding that the appropriate authority did not have when it referred the matter, the reviewer must refer it back for a further assessment under regulation 14. Unless that assessment is that the conduct, if proved, would still amount only to practice requiring improvement, RPRP must not continue (regulation 68(3) and (4)). A formal investigation would then follow if it is assessed as misconduct.
• Failure to engage. If the reviewer considers you are failing to engage, they may refer that failure to the appropriate authority for assessment (regulation 71). Guidance says the outcome could include handling under the Performance Regulations. The IOPC's guidance expects the supervisor to work hard at engagement first, for example by asking how a member of the public might have felt, and treats referral as a step for exceptional cases.
• Recurrence. The guidance says that if a performance issue recurs after RPRP it could be escalated to the formal unsatisfactory performance procedures, mirroring escalation to a misconduct investigation if potential misconduct is repeated.

After a misconduct meeting or hearing, RPRP can also come after a finding of no misconduct (regulation 42(1A)). Where that happens following disciplinary proceedings, the guidance says it is very unlikely the case can be re-investigated and re-heard unless genuinely fresh information comes to light.

18. How Often Is It Used? The Official Numbers

The Home Office's police misconduct statistics for the year ending 31 March 2025 (published 22 January 2026, the latest edition we found) do not count RPRP on its own. They group it with learning from reflection and other reflective practice as "learning outcomes". With that caveat:

The IOPC's 2022 review of RPRP (based on a letter to local policing bodies and structured discussions with nine forces and the Home Office) found mixed practice: forces used RPRP more in conduct cases than in complaints, a small number of officers did not engage and there was no real pathway for getting them to, and the line between RPRP and informal learning from reflection was unclear. Forces that did well treated reflective practice as a development tool and had Federation support. For wider outcome figures, see misconduct outcomes and statistics.

19. Common Myths About RPRP

20. Questions to Ask Your Representative

General information only. Your Federation representative or a solicitor can apply these to your own case:

• Which referral route was used, and was my line manager consulted first as regulation 14(3) or 27(3) requires?
• Do I need longer than 5 working days for my account, and should I ask for that now?
• Has this already been investigated, so fact-finding should be limited to the investigation report and my account?
• What should my written account cover, and is there anything I should keep out of it because it goes beyond the referred matter?
• Are there welfare, workload or training factors I should raise in the discussion?
• Is the draft wording of the report fair, and are the actions and time periods realistic?
• If this started as a complaint, has the complainant asked for a review, and what happens if it is upheld?
• How does my force keep and use RPRP reports after the 12-month PDR window, and what would move with me on transfer?

What We Could Not Verify

• How long forces keep RPRP reports beyond the 12-month PDR requirement, and whether and when they are disclosed in references or on transfer. This is set by force policy and we found no national rule.
• How a completed RPRP is weighed in later vetting reviews. We found no official source.
• Whether the vetting review duty in regulation 5A(3) of the Police (Vetting) Regulations 2025 is applied where a misconduct meeting or hearing finds no misconduct and directs RPRP. On its wording it covers anyone subject to misconduct proceedings who was not dismissed, but we found no guidance confirming how forces apply it in that situation.
• A national count of RPRP referrals on their own. The Home Office statistics group RPRP with learning from reflection and other reflective practice as 'learning outcomes'.
• Whether the Home Office will update its 2020 statutory guidance. On 3 October 2026 the gov.uk page still showed version 1.0 from 5 February 2020, which uses the pre-2024 wording of the definition.
• Whether you can bring a supporter into the discussion. No rule gives you that right or bars it; it is local practice.
• How police staff are treated. The IOPC points to force staff discipline policies and the Police Staff Council Handbook, which we did not read.
• The College of Policing's reflective practice templates on the Knowledge Hub, which the IOPC recommends. They sit behind a login and we did not read them.