Is PRAP Working?
What the Data Shows
The Police Race Action Plan (PRAP) is designed to improve workforce experience, confidence, and retention. This guide examines what the available data shows so far — where progress appears to be occurring, where it has stalled, and where cultural risk remains unchanged.
Trust Notice: Independent, plain-English analysis of published workforce survey and policing data.
Not affiliated with any police force, staff association, or government body.
Updated: 25 February 2026
Is the Police Race Action Plan Working?
Available data suggests limited but uneven progress. Some indicators, such as immediate intent to leave, have stabilised slightly. However, deeper measures of belonging, trust in fairness, and cultural inclusion show little meaningful improvement. The evidence suggests PRAP may be slowing deterioration rather than delivering transformational change.
Defining “Working”
Before assessing PRAP, it is important to define what “working” means. PRAP was not designed to eliminate discrimination instantly.
PRAP Aims To:
- ✓ Improve confidence in systems
- ✓ Reduce long-term retention risk
- ✓ Address structural drivers of inequity
PRAP Cannot:
- ✕ Guarantee outcomes
- ✕ Deliver short-term transformation
- ✕ Eliminate all discrimination instantly
This guide assesses progress against aims, not idealised outcomes.
Evidence Base In This Analysis
OBWS Wave 1
2022
OBWS Wave 2
2023
OBWS Wave 3
2026
National Indicators
Workforce Data
This analysis reflects lived experience and perception, not adjudicated findings.
Retention Risk
Intent to Leave: A Partial Improvement
Across survey waves, high intent to leave has shown modest reduction. Wave 1 showed very high intent, with slight stabilisation in subsequent waves.
Interpretation
Fewer officers say they plan to leave immediately, but overall dissatisfaction remains high.
PRAP may be reducing immediate exit pressure, but not resolving underlying causes.
Belonging vs Pride
The Pride-Belonging Gap
Data consistently shows high pride in policing as a profession, but a much lower sense of belonging within organisations. This gap has remained largely static across waves.
Interpretation
PRAP has not yet delivered a measurable improvement in felt inclusion.
Belonging is a key predictor of long-term retention.
Discrimination & Exclusion
Overt vs Subtle Harm
Trends suggest a slight reduction in reported overt racist incidents, but a persistence of microaggressions and exclusion. Officers report increased concealment of identity and self-monitoring.
Interpretation
This indicates a shift in how harm is experienced, not its disappearance.
PRAP may be reducing overt incidents while failing to fully address everyday exclusion.
Professional Standards
Trust in Fairness
Confidence in professional standards remains low and uneven. Outcomes are accepted more readily than processes, and lack of explanation damages trust.
Interpretation
PRAP’s focus here is well-placed, but impact is not yet evident at scale.
Read PSD Analysis →Training & Early Service
Training Environments as Risk Points
Evidence continues to identify training and early service as vulnerability points, with heightened reluctance to challenge or report due to power imbalances.
Interpretation
PRAP’s emphasis on training is supported by the data, but results are not yet clearly visible.
Read Training Analysis →Progression & Opportunity
Perceived Meritocracy
Very low confidence in equal progression persists. High perception of “working harder for the same recognition” with limited improvement over time.
Interpretation
PRAP has not yet shifted confidence in career progression fairness.
What Has Improved
-
Immediate Exit Intent
Slight reduction
-
Reported Overt Incidents
Marginal reduction
-
Topic Visibility
Greater race-related discussion
Incremental, not transformational.
What Has Not Changed
-
Sense of Belonging
Little to no movement
-
Confidence in Fairness
Remains low
-
Subtle Exclusion
Persistent risk
Structural challenges remain.
Limits of the Data
This analysis assesses the direction of travel based on workforce perception. It does not attribute causation, assess individual force performance, or replace formal programmatic evaluation.