PRAP and
Professional Standards
Professional standards sit at the centre of trust, confidence, and legitimacy in policing. This guide explains how the Police Race Action Plan (PRAP) interacts with professional standards processes, what has changed, what has not, and why confidence in fairness remains a critical issue for the workforce.
Trust Notice: Independent, plain-English analysis of published policing policy and workforce data.
Not affiliated with any police force, staff association, or government body.
Updated: 25 February 2026
Does PRAP Change Misconduct Rules?
No. The Police Race Action Plan does not change misconduct regulations, evidential thresholds, or legal safeguards. Misconduct processes remain governed by existing regulations. PRAP focuses on confidence, transparency, consistency, and learning within those established frameworks.
Why Professional Standards Matter
Professional standards processes are where organisational values are experienced most directly. Officers may accept adverse outcomes, but trust is lost when processes feel inconsistent, opaque, or unexplained.
Confidence
Confidence in fairness is as important as outcomes. Perceived inconsistency damages morale.
Trust
Lack of explanation fuels mistrust. Fear of escalation discourages early reporting.
PRAP identifies professional standards as a confidence system, not simply a disciplinary function.
The Confidence Gap Explained
The “confidence gap” refers to the difference between formal compliance with regulations and how fairness is experienced by those involved.
PRAP does not assume misconduct is unfair. It recognises that unexplained fairness still erodes trust.
Drivers of the Gap
- •
Inconsistent informal handling
- •
Limited feedback after decisions
- •
Poor explanation of rationale
- •
Perceived disparities across similar cases
Misconduct vs Learning: Not the Same
PRAP reinforces a clear distinction. PRAP seeks clarity about which pathway is being used and why, not the removal of accountability.
Misconduct
- Legal process
- Evidential threshold
- Sanctions possible
Learning / Performance
- Developmental focus
- Reflective practice
- Prevention of escalation
Informal Resolution and Its Risks
Informal resolution can resolve issues early, reduce unnecessary formalisation, and support learning and reflection. However, inconsistency in its use can undermine confidence, create perceptions of bias, and fuel mistrust across teams.
PRAP does not remove discretion. It emphasises consistency, transparency, and documentation.
The Role of PSD and Supervisors
PRAP does not reduce PSD authority or remove supervisory responsibility. It does increase focus on clear rationale for decisions, proportionality, communication with those affected, and learning outcomes where appropriate.
Trust is shaped as much by how decisions are communicated as by what decisions are made.
Why Race Matters in PSD Confidence
PRAP acknowledges that race can influence how processes are experienced, patterns matter more than isolated cases, and perception gaps can exist without intent.
This does not imply: Presumption of bias, automatic conclusions, or reduced standards. It reinforces the need for reflective institutional awareness.
The Role of Workforce Data
PRAP draws heavily on workforce survey findings, including confidence in PSD, reporting behaviour, and trust in leadership responses. Data informs system focus, not individual case decisions.
Explore Our Black Workforce Survey HubWhat Has Not Changed
PRAP has not altered:
This clarification must be unambiguous.