The Police Service of Northern Ireland’s Strategic Community Engagement Team (SCET) hosted a Reference, Engagement and Listening (REaL) event at the University of Ulster, on 5th November 2024 with representatives from diverse ethnic communities from across Northern Ireland.
The event centred on focus group discussions, linked to each of the five pillars contained within the ‘Here for You’ Engagement Vision, namely attraction and recruitment, engagement, neighbourhood policing, procedural fairness and local accountability.
The Organisations in attendance included, Belfast Intercultural Romanian Network, Artseka, Gems NI, Beyond Skin, CAJ Ireland, Indian Community Centre, Belfast Islamic Centre, Afro-Caribbean Community, British Red Cross, Belfast City of Sanctuary, Department of Justice, Chinese Welfare Association, ACSONI, NIMCA, CANS- Counselling All Nations, Rainbow Refugees, Mirant Centre NI, Ards and North Down Inter- Cultural Forum, Victim Support NI, Timorese Association Inclusive Support, Inclusive Histories Dept. Museums NI, Black and Minority Ethnic Women’s Network, Muslim Mothers, StepNI, Progressive Jewish Link NI, African Women NI, Belfast Multi-Cultural Association (BMCA), Foyle Racial Equality Forum, Horn of Africa People Aid Northern Ireland, Equality NI, Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking NI, Image Nation.
David McKee from the NIPB spoke about the NI Policing Plan. PSNI HR representative spoke around attraction and recruitment. ACC Singleton led the plenary session allowing for feedback on all issues.
This summary document is intended to capture some of the important highlights and potential solutions discussed across the focus groups and plenary session.
Attraction and Recruitment
Attendees advised that policing is widely perceived as dangerous, and this perception of personal risk is deterrent. Concerns were also raised regarding suitability and access, in particular, the mandatory fitness test for frontline officers raises questions about inclusion of people with disabilities and there was limited awareness that there are two broad types of roles (officer and staff) with different requirements. Recruitment messaging needs to honestly address safety and risk, clearly explain role types and fitness requirements, and set out how people with disabilities can contribute and be supported.
Attendees highlighted that diverse ethnic candidates face additional structural barriers- Visa restrictions for international students who wish to stay and work in policing. Citizenship and immigration issues can become late‑stage blockers if not surfaced early. Attendees welcomed robust vetting but need clarity on process and timelines.
Career progression is highly valued, and clear structures for promotion and lateral development are an attraction if communicated well. Fast‑track schemes and the breadth of roles (specialist posts, lateral development) are not widely known. Representation at all levels is critical as Diverse Ethnic officers across ranks are seen as essential, not just at entry level, to signal real opportunity and future leadership that reflects communities.
Attendees outlined that prospective applicants are strongly influenced by stories and experiences of current officers and staff regarding racism and ignorance. Attendees were concerned that perceptions that victims of hate crime are not always fully supported or that police response sometimes lacks vigour would impact on recruitment for their communities.
There was concern about whether new recruits from Diverse Ethnic backgrounds will be genuinely protected from racism in the organisation. Participants stress the need for “wrap‑around” support systems for Diverse Ethnic recruits and staff and visible commitment to challenging racism internally and externally. Attendees also advised that improving recruitment depends on visible improvements in service quality, follow‑up with victims, and honest communication about performance.
In terms of data, attendees felt it was beneficial to have information on where Diverse Ethnic applicants fall away in the recruitment process (stage‑by‑stage breakdown)
Attendees suggested multiple practical measures for outreach and engagement including an approach to community centres, including Diverse Ethnic community centres, to host recruitment information evenings, leverage community leaders who are willing to promote events and encourage applications. Use PCSPs more proactively, hold station visits, “try‑it‑out” days and open days to demystify policing and showcase diversity and go into youth clubs and schools (especially those serving under‑represented communities).
In terms of messaging, attendees encouraged the use of more Diverse Ethnic representation in imagery across posters, social media, and videos and to showcase officers from different races and backgrounds during station visits and in promotional materials. The use of adverts and promotional videos for social media campaigns that can be widely shared by community representatives was suggested, as well as the provision of positive case studies and “good examples” of Diverse Ethnic officers’ careers.
Attendees expressed a willingness to help PSNI build confidence and share recruitment information through their networks, to collaborate on events and use their contacts across Northern Ireland. There was an expectation that engagement will be two‑way, with feedback loops and evidence that concerns are being addressed, not just requests for support with recruitment.
RACE & ETHNICITY ACTION PLAN
Attendees advised that the accountability section is viewed as weak and under‑specified. Participants preferred clearer performance and accountability mechanisms. There was a call for a “matrix of measurements” and sharper evaluation: who is responsible, what success looks like, and what happens if targets are not met. Without concrete measures and enforcement, the plan risks becoming “another document” with no practical impact. At the same time, people caution against becoming “lost in the data”. Measurement is essential, but must remain focused on improving service and outcomes, not just counting figures.
Attendees raised the point of resourcing the plan and felt the plan does not clearly address how actions will be funded or staffed. Many activities appear to be “add‑ons” to existing roles in a context of a much stretched budget, high demand and officer abstraction from neighbourhood duties. There was concern about ambition versus realism: whether the plan is deliverable in the current financial and operational climate. Further, a two‑year plan is considered too short for structural change; most similar strategies are five‑year - race and ethnicity work as a long‑term commitment, not a short programme.
Attendees highlighted that there are multiple overlapping strands (e.g. race, hate crime, VAWG, neighbourhood policing) without clear alignment. Further, the plan was perceived as heavily outward facing; participant’s stress it must also be inward facing as change must address internal culture, not just external service delivery.
Attendees raised concerns about victim experience particularly in relation to little or no feedback or follow‑through. Some officers are perceived as not fully pursuing lines of investigation or “fighting for the victim”. This leads to under‑reporting: people feel “what’s the point?” if nothing changes. It was felt that Race/Hate Crime Advocacy services exist but are not well promoted and victim contact and updates are critical to rebuilding trust.
Participants asked what will practically change for people experiencing hate crime and racist incidents. How will this plan improve prevention, response, communication and outcomes?
Attendees raised that stable, visible Neighbourhood Policing Teams (NPTs) are vital and that high movement and abstraction of NPT officers undermine continuity and local relationships. Communities want consistent local officers who are known and visible.
Community representatives wanted a “welcome voice at the table” to ensure lived experiences shape actions. Participants advised that they value consultation events like this and want them to continue and broaden. Specific communities (e.g. the Jewish community) want explicit recognition as ethnic minorities within the plan.
Those in attendance felt that feedback from officers in the Ethnic Minority Police Association (EMPA) is critical and the plan should reflect the experiences of Diverse Ethnic officers and staff, not only external stakeholders.
The draft booklet was seen as potentially confusing in layout (history first, then commitments with limited detail). It must be accessible and understandable for all those affected, including people with limited English. Communities also asked how they will know the plan is being implemented and what progress looks like - regular, clear communication about actions and outcomes is essential as people need to see what is changing in their communities to have confidence in the plan.
Training was recognised as important but viewed as needing development: attendees suggested that district training could be used more to involve community groups and experts and could include dealing with people from different communities, including use of interpreters and cultural norms. Culturally focused learning tools (e.g. podcasts, expert speakers) to build everyday cultural competence were suggested.
Participants wanted to know how PSNI will monitor and tackle anti‑racist or discriminatory behaviour by officers. Existing mechanisms (PONI, Code of Ethics) are noted, but there was concern about practical enforcement and early “small missed steps” that damage trust.
Attendees raised the need for consistent access to interpreters for those who do not have English as a first language, as previous experiences where language needs were not properly addressed contribute to mistrust. Attendees also advised that people from other countries often arrive with pre‑existing fear of police based on their home context and that negative day‑to‑day interactions can reinforce this fear rather than challenge it.
SUMMER DISORDER
Many participants felt PSNI performed well in a very fast‑moving and volatile situation. There was relief at the subsequent arrests and successful prosecutions, including publication of mugshots (widely supported and seen as a strong signal of accountability).
Others had mixed or negative experiences. There was a perceived lack of visible preparation and early intervention and there was confusion when officers appeared absent during initial incidents, not realising that some police activity was focused on evidence gathering.
Fear remains in Diverse Ethnic communities despite the end of the immediate disorder with people still taking precautions in daily life. Experiences of individuals being stopped, questioned about religion (e.g. “Are you Muslim?”), and targeted because of perceived identity reinforce anxiety. There was also a perception amongst some attendees that protection efforts were focused mainly on Muslim communities, leaving some other Diverse Ethnic groups feeling less visible or supported.
Some participants believed there was insufficient anticipation of disorder, especially in known tension areas (e.g. South Belfast) with an expectation that police should have acted earlier to prevent fires and damage. There were observations of “very little police personnel” on the ground at peak times and a sense that Land Rovers sometimes deployed without officers engaging. There was acknowledgement that PSNI is resource‑constrained and that multiple incidents were occurring simultaneously.
The use of technology was seen as positive - particularly drones and cameras, but there were questions about whether more could be done with drones/CCTV for early identification and deterrence.
Attendees highlighted that accountability for rioters is seen as essential. There was strong support for arrests, convictions and public release of offenders’ images (“do it for everyone”). Prosecutions are viewed as important for deterrence and community reassurance. However many community members were unaware of the full extent of enforcement outcomes. There was a call for PSNI to more actively communicate arrests, charges and convictions. Participants believe better awareness of successful prosecutions would encourage reporting of offences. Some frustration was directed at the wider justice system’s speed, not just at police.
Attendees advised that communities want clearer information before and during heightened tensions. Ethnic minority communities in high‑risk areas would value advance warning where possible (within legal and operational limits) and direct conversations with known Neighbourhood Policing Team (NPT) officers are seen as essential.
In terms of multi‑agency responsibilities there was confusion about which agency is responsible for actions such as removing hate posters and “local housing for local people” signage. Participants feel PSNI should work with other agencies and communicate clearly “who does what” to the public.
Media coverage was perceived as often unhelpful. Traditional media “didn’t do PSNI any favours” in some accounts, under‑reporting positive policing actions. Social media was widely recognised as a driver of mobilisation (“messages of encouragement for participation in the riots” were common knowledge). Participants suggested that, where possible, there should be more active monitoring and counter‑messaging to challenge misinformation and incitement. Communities feel the “good work” of PSNI needs more visibility through both formal media and direct communication channels.
There was strong support for post‑incident debriefs involving community representatives to understand what happened and what can be improved. Outreach events after disorder to repair damage and rebuild trust were suggested. Participants highlighted positive experiences with NPTs and Community Planning Officers (CPOs) in dealing with hate crime and local tensions. Communities want reassurance that learning from these events will inform future planning and operations. They stressed that prevention is a shared responsibility of police, other agencies, and the public.
Attendees outlined that hate crime and hostility did not begin or end with the disorder- that hate incidents continue in daily life and fear of reprisals can deter reporting. When people do report, experiences with NPT and CPO officers are often positive, but this is not universal. Communities want continued visible reassurance patrols, especially near places of worship, regular updates on hate‑crime trends and successes (e.g. convictions, disruption) and clear routes for safe, confidential reporting.
Closing
Thank you to everyone who took part in these discussions and shared their experiences, insights and challenges so openly. Your contributions provide an honest and nuanced picture of the issues and will be critical in shaping any future approach to building trust