[1]

Recognizing Risk: The Attitudes of Police Supervisors to the Risk Assessment Process in Missing Person Investigations

Introduction

Missing person investigations are widely regarded as a demanding challenge for the police service. It is estimated that in 2012/2013 306,000 missing person incidents were recorded in England and Wales (National Crime Agency, 2014). Shalev Greene & Pakes (2012) estimate that a medium risk, medium term missing person investigation costs £1,325.44 - £2,415.8 and that the annual cost of missing person investigations will equate to 19,188 Police Constables working full time or to 14% of the total number of full time police officers across the UK. Thus, missing person investigations are exceptionally resource intensive. Instances of missing are frequently repetitious, in terms of both the individual involved and/or the location from which they go missing (Shalev Greene and Hayden, 2014).

A missing person is defined as “Anyone whose whereabouts cannot be established and where the circumstances are out of character or the context suggests the person may be subject of crime or at risk of harm to themselves or another” (ACPO, 2013, pg. 5). ACPO (2010) consider risk assessment as follows: “any missing person investigation may become a critical incident…The management of risk requires that a supervisor reviews the risk assessment as soon as practicable [and instigates] further enquiries…to validate the initial risk assessment” (ACPO, 2010 p.26-27)”. It is the responsibility of first line supervisors (Sergeants and Inspectors) to make decisions as to the risk posed to the individual and the risk that they may present to the wider community whilst they are missing. This process is complex and has recently been under scrutiny (Shalev Greene & Hayden, 2014). The allocation of investigative resources is determined once the level of risk has been decided.

This assessment of risk by first line supervisors in a missing person investigation will lead to one of three outcomes – high, medium or low – defined by ACPO (2010, p.24) as:

High Risk – “The risk posed is immediate and there are substantial grounds for believing that the subject is in danger through their own vulnerability; or [as a] victim of serious crime; or…the public is in danger”.

Medium Risk – “The risk posed is likely to place the subject in danger or they are a threat to themselves or others”.

Low Risk – “There is no apparent threat of danger to either the subject or the public. [those] under 18 should not be included in this classification”.

The empirical study presented within this paper does not review the risk assessment process itself. This article is concerned with the attitudes toward the risk assessment responsibilities that supervisors have to discharge during the initial stages of a missing person investigation.

[2]

‘Absent’ is a new classification aligned to the missing person risk assessment protocols, introduced nationally by ACPO in April 2013. ‘Absent’ is defined as “a person not at a place where they are expected or required to be” (ACPO, 2013, p5). Where an individual is deemed to be absent, the police response will be significantly reduced (or possibly non existent) with an action plan being tasked to the reporting party in an effort to return the individual to where they should be. In terms of risk, ‘absent’ is deemed to be at the lowest end of the risk continuum, presenting even less threat to the person concerned (or the wider community) than the ‘low’ risk rating.

Previous research (Biehal, Mitchell & Wade, 2003; Hayden & Goodship, 2013; Parr & Fyfe, 2012) has identified some of the risks involved with going missing. These vary between children and adults who go missing. The risks associated with children going missing include becoming a victim of crime and becoming involved with criminal activity through the commission of ‘survival’ crimes. Risks associated more with adults are being homeless, and coming to harm through injury, an accident or self-harm.

The concept of risk assessment extends far beyond the realms of missing person investigations; it is prevalent within many areas of police activity and indeed in wider society. However, the assessment of risk, in the early stages of a missing person investigation, is used as a catalyst for the investigative activity that follows. An incident that is deemed to be high risk will attract significant resources, intrusive supervision and substantial oversight from senior officers. Incidents carrying lower risk will not receive the same levels of attention.

The appropriate determination of risk, at the earliest possible stage, is therefore essential for the successful outcome of the investigation. Assess the risk as being too low and significant harm may befall a missing person due to a lack of resources being allocated. Assess the risk as too high and a disproportionate number of resources may be committed to the investigation which keeps resources from more pressing policing matters.

Despite risk assessment being a crucial facet within a missing person investigation Hayden & Goodship (2013) found that the capacity to respond and meaningfully risk assess every case of missing children was hampered by high volume of reports and out of hours activity when few professionals are available.

Michalsen (2003) suggests that there is subjectivity to the process of risk assessment. This would appear to have considerable relevance for the police service, when dealing with missing person enquiries. For example, a number of subjective terms are used within the risk assessment definitions stated above: “immediate”, “substantial grounds”, “vulnerability”. These terms invite subjective opinion to be applied when making risk assessment decisions which may present challenges for the police service. Police officers deal with facts, evidence and

[3]

reasoned judgement, so the need to look beyond subjectivity is necessary to make effective decisions, as recognised by the National Decision Model (ACPO, 2013).

Given the complexity of the risk assessment process and the specific demands and challenges faced by police officers investigating missing person cases, this paper considers the attitudes of police supervisors to the risk assessment process in missing person investigations. These officers (Sergeants and Inspectors) are the first level of supervision during the early stages of an investigation. Information may still be scarce, family members will have high expectations and resources are limited. Therefore, this article explores attitudes toward a number of key concepts, including: training, national guidance, support from senior leaders and the appropriateness of existing practices. This study aims to understand police officers’ views of this risk assessment process, as it is such a fundamental part of a missing person enquiry.

This paper is structured as follows; firstly a description of the method used to conduct the research, secondly a thematic review of the findings presented in tandem with a discussion of the key learning points that this offers and finally a number of conclusions are presented. These conclusions are intended to provide a catalyst for reflection and action within the police service to ensure that first line supervisors are in the best possible position to identify risk and mitigate accordingly.

This paper offers a new perspective on risk assessment of missing person investigations. Instead of considering the practicalities of risk assessment and the model that leads to risk ratings being determined, this article considers the attitudes of those responsible for making these decisions and how they view their contribution to the process.

MethodPreliminary research, in partnership with a large, urban English police force (Force A), was conducted in June 2013 (Smith & Shalev Greene, 2013). Responsibilities of operational officers within this force include critical issues such as responding to homicides, road traffic collisions and scenes of domestic violence – as well as high visibility reassurance patrols through neighbourhood policing teams.

The sample force (A) had not (at the time of the research) implemented the new classification of ‘absent’; preferring to observe implementation elsewhere in England and Wales, to capture learning and benefit from the experiences of other forces, prior to implementation in 2014. Therefore, this preliminary study referred to ‘missing’ cases only.

An online survey was used via Survey Monkey. The web link to the survey was shared with all uniformed police sergeants within the force. Access to this sample population was via email, with the permission of the lead ACPO officer for missing

[4]

person activity. The online survey was opened 16 th July and closed on 26th July 2013.

A combination of open and closed questions was identified as being appropriate. Closed questions (dealt with through a ‘radio button’ response) were used to generate the quantifiable data that was sought. Open questions (that invite unstructured narrative from the respondent) were included to ensure that an appropriate depth of qualitative data was also collected.

A total of 27 questions were presented to the respondents. None of them were mandatory and the explanation was given that any of the questions could be skipped if required. There were a total of 12 completely closed questions (radio button response), 13 questions that were closed, but allowed for a supplementary narrative response and 2 completely open questions inviting free narrative. Following publication of a practitioner focussed report (Smith and Shalev Greene, 2014) the opportunity was taken to engage with two further forces to replicate the study, one in England and one in Wales.

This replication was desirable to i) expand the size of the respondent population and ii) reflect a wider diversity of experiences, from a national perspective. The same method was used to capture data from these two forces during June / July 2014. Force B was a rural Welsh force and Force C was a rural / urban English force.

Results and DiscussionIn total, 334 police supervisors responded to the survey, 215 from force A; 57 from force B; and 62 from force C. Participants had significant experience, in policing in general – and in a supervisory role. The demographic background of officers from the three forces was fairly similar. Almost all participants were officers for over 5 years, and over 55% of officers were in service for more than 16 years. Overall, over 70% of officers in this sample were male, and over 50% were aged 31-45. Over 85% of officers had been a supervisor for at least 2 years.

Guidance DocumentsDocumentation is produced by ACPO and by the forces to inform decision making in relation to the management of missing person investigations. Participants were asked if they had read these documents:

Table 1 inserted here Table 2 inserted here

The national publication provided by ACPO is supported by documentation produced locally by the forces concerned, to offer guidance at force level to ensure that supervisors are able to discharge their responsibilities. The results presented in

[5]

tables 1 and 2 suggest that there are significant challenges in Force A in terms of this dissemination of information into and through the organisation – with 50% of respondents not engaging with this literature. Whilst the responses from forces B and C were not as damning, there are still significant numbers of officers who have not read this key information. The variations in uptake of guidance between the three forces suggest differing approaches to the dissemination of this information. The qualitative narrative provided in response to these questions highlighted a belief that the individual is not responsible for their own learning and development and that it is for the organisation to put in place adequate measures for the dissemination of such guidance. It is argued that, in reality, there is a tri-partite responsibility: upon the individual, upon the line-management and (more broadly) upon the organisation – perhaps through ‘policy brokers’ – to establish effective internal communication channels to share this essential information. The ‘personal responsibility’ perspective presents some significant challenges, particularly in force A. It is suggested that this may be symptomatic of cultural issues concerning the organisation / employee relationship and the importance that the first line supervisors surveyed place on their own personal development, particularly where the force may not be taking steps to actively ensure that this development takes place. Where these issues do exist, it would appear entirely appropriate to ensure that ‘policy brokers’ or ‘change agents’ are put in place with a specific brief to identify where there have been blockages to internal communications and take necessary steps to ensure mission critical guidance documents are communicated more readily through the organisation.

It is apparent that knowledge is gained, perhaps, through more informal means – tacitly, and without reference to formal documentation. The unique nature of the policing profession is such that many parts of the job are learnt in this way, but clearly the organisation would be open to challenge when key decisions (such as assessing risk) are not based on solid foundations. It could be suggested that these organisations appear content that training responsibilities have been discharged by producing documentation, with few checks and balances that ensure such documentation is digested and acted upon.

The challenge of establishing and delivering an effective internal communications strategy is identified as a challenging task. Kitchen and Daly (2002) highlight difficulties associated with moving information through the levels of an organisational hierarchy, ensuring that those who need information are provided with it – at the right time and in the right format. They cite Pearson and Thomas (1997) as identifying that organisations ought to consider their communications in terms of what employees must know, should know and could know. It is apparent that furnishing an employee with all of this information would be problematic and that doing so would dilute impact on the employee. Daly, Teague and Kitchen (2003) draw conclusions from an empirical study in Northern Ireland that found internal communications can be considered as something that both frustrates and facilitates effective organisational behaviour. This suggests something of a balancing act that needs to be achieved, in support of the Pearson and Thomas’ argument above. So a conclusion starts to

[6]

emerge that corporate communications are not simply about pumping all available information through the structure of an organisation. The challenge would appear to be one of editing and filtering to ensure that practitioners (i.e. police sergeants and inspectors) are provided with the right information at the right time to make the decisions that are expected of them, in their capacity as assessors of risk in missing person investigations.

Knowledge of risk definitions Participants were asked if they were aware of the High / Medium / Low definitions which are the product of the risk assessment decisions that they are making:

Table 3 inserted here

As shown in table 3, the vast majority of respondents in all 3 forces stated they were aware of the definitions of the three categories of risk. When looking beyond this quantifiable data to the qualitative responses that were invited, there is further insightful information that suggests an awareness of the definition, in general terms, but not necessarily a full understanding of the terminology or where it came from. For example, one officer from force A stated; “I have a general understanding…but never seen them in these terms”. Another force A participant stated; “never explained to me. However they are common sense and I’m confident my own approach reflects the definitions anyway. An officer from force C said; “I didn’t think there was a low risk classification anymore – I thought it had been replaced by absent”.

These narrative responses reinforce that a sense of experiential knowledge sometimes pervades, rather than presenting an informed position drawn from specific learning or training. The particular reference to some confusion in relation to the ‘Absent’ definition clearly presents some challenges to the force concerned. This does not simply mean in relation to what the term ‘absent’ means – but also the nature of the process that lies behind this concept.

It is clear from these findings that precise knowledge of the guidance is lacking for many officers, despite the confidence shown in the quantifiable findings. The degree to which this lack of knowledge impacts on the quality of delivery is a point that raises much debate. Munro’s (2010, cited by Hayden and Goodship 2013) comments on this very issue – identifying that the police service will often work to produce protocols for every possible scenario, but that this only serves to prove corporate due diligence, rather than genuinely enhancing the knowledge of staff. The quality of delivery that lies behind the performance expectation is the key point of contention that was being raised in this article. Where the ‘quality’ aspect refers to making sound decisions in relation to a missing person enquiry there is clearly the

[7]

potential for reputational damage for the force involved if decision making does not meet the required standard.

Reflections on AbsentAs previously discussed, the use of ‘absent’ is a relatively new process for dealing with those who are “not at a place where they are expected or required to be” (ACPO, 2013 p.5) – without conducting a full missing persons investigation. Participants in force B and C were asked to comment on the effectiveness of this new process (force A had not implemented an ‘absent process’ at the time of the research).

“By definition you don’t know where they are, could be getting up to anything and putting themselves in danger” (force C)

“It still needs a full risk assessment completing or we would fail in the care of these individuals” (force C)

“It has pros and cons. I do not believe it is managed well by the police as we still accept responsibility for absent cases in a way…by continually reviewing them and checking if they are still missing until they are found. I think we should be making it clear to the callers / responsible person that we are only recording the absent for admin purposes as without the element of risk then this is, by definition, is not a police matter” (force C)

“Sometimes it is a battle to get ‘absent’ accepted, when clearly this should be the case (force B)

“Starting to recognise the difference, but err on the side of missing usually” (force B)

The comments provided above appear to suggest that there is, at the very least, some challenges in terms of the successful implementation of the ‘absent’ categorisation of what were, hitherto, deemed to be ‘missing’ people. The foundation of these issues seems to be the concern that there is still an element of risk, however small, that will need to be managed by police and that accountability will lie with the police service where outcomes are unfavourable. This reputational risk for the police service concerned is also recognised by Shalev Greene and Pakes (2013) and highlighted as a matter for monitoring and review. Whilst the ‘absent’ category is presented as an opportunity to make more efficient use of police resources, the potential for harm is still present and thus the police force may be called to account if an ‘absent’ party comes to (or causes others) harm.

TrainingThe survey explored the confidence that officers had in the training they had received, by asking if it allowed them to make informed decisions about risk

Table 4 inserted here

[8]

The data presented in table 4 supports the earlier findings in relation to knowledge of the key guidance documents that are intended to underpin missing person investigations. The narrative responses provide further insight into the strength of feeling on this matter.

The following examples articulate this perspective: “What training”…(force A) “I have not received any training on how to supervise a missing person

investigation or assess risk”… (force A) “To date not had any training” (force C)

More than 60 additional narrative responses were provided across the 3 forces, the majority of which presented views in keeping with the comments shown above. Thus, it is fair to say that many officers in this sample appeared to be dissatisfied or even frustrated, at the lack of training that had been received. As discussed in relation to Tables 1 and 2, the feeling was very much one of the participants believing that the lack of training provision was an organisational / line management issue and not something that shows a lack of personal responsibility on behalf of the individual involved.

Tacit knowledge is not substitute for a clear and consistent corporate position on how supervisors should deal with the risk assessment of a missing person investigation. Whilst the experiential development of police officers, as they progress through the ranks, is seen as a great strength of police training, there is (as shown by this data) scope for key areas of learning to be missed. As British policing embraces new development pathways through the service, including direct entry to senior ranks (Loveday, 2013 & Travis, 2013) the need to furnish officers with knowledge that they have not had the chance to experience in an operational capacity will become more important. This is likely to include case studies that explore previous examples of where a risk rating for a missing person investigation has been deemed, with hindsight, to be appropriate (or otherwise) and the kind of investigative approach that followed. Actively identifying the pathway between risk assessment, resource allocation, investigation strategy and outcome, through this kind of ‘hands on’ training, may be of value to increase competence. Whilst this kind of development work could be delivered through formal training provision, it is suggested that more active learning may take place through peer support and active de-briefing of investigations as they happen, to capture learning.

Timely Supervision and Assessment of RiskACPO guidance states that initial supervision of a missing person investigation (and the determination of a risk rating) should be conducted as soon as practicable. In high-risk cases, this supervision should be immediate (ACPO, 2010). Participants were asked if they adhere to these expectations.

[9]

Table 5 inserted here

The overwhelming conclusion from this data is that participants recognised the need to conduct timely supervision, but that the demands of the operational role meant that this was not always possible to achieve.

Insightful data was also provided in the free text responses provided: “It is done as soon as possible, depending on other commitments” (force A) “Demand negates this…and lack of staff” (force A) “I am not always in a position to supervise a medium risk misper within the

expected 2 hour time frame. This is likewise for high risk” (force A) “At times it is not practical, but will be completed ASAP” (force C) “We try, but don’t always succeed” (force C)

Whether there are process changes within forces that may be introduced to allow more prompt execution of supervisory responsibilities is something that could be explored. Beyond meeting the expectations prescribed in national guidance, there are very clear investigative benefits when this oversight is discharged as quickly as possible. The “golden hour” is widely recognised as a key contributor to an effective investigation, seizing early evidential opportunities before they are lost (Cole and Brown, 2014). Within the context of both effective investigative practice and the broader priority of ensuring that organisational reputation is protected; there is significant reliance upon first line supervisors to make decisions around risk and resource allocation in a timely fashion.

Support from Line ManagersParticipants were asked if their line manager had taken steps to develop their knowledge and understanding of risk assessment decisions (table 6):

Table 6 inserted here

Across the three forces, just over half of respondents state that they have not had any developmental input from their line managers to assist with their knowledge and understanding of risk assessment decisions. Examples from the narrative officers provided:

“I’ve never received feedback on decisions or risk assessment” (force C) “Our force training is non-existent” (force C) “I have requested training in the COMPACT [missing person software] system

at an Inspector level, and I have been informed that there is no such training to be had” (force B)

“I have more experience than my line manager” (force A) “Never had any development from any line manager” (force A)

[10]

When this data is considered alongside that presented within table 4 (confidence in training) and tables 1 and 2 (reading of guidance documents) a theme begins to emerge that there is a significant gap in formal knowledge / understanding. This presents significant risks to the organisations concerned.

Senior Officer EngagementParticipants were asked if they felt able to consult with senior officers to gain assistance in making risk assessment decisions:

Table 7 inserted here

As discussed above; a considerable number of officers have not read the national ACPO guidance, or their forces own guidance and a majority have little faith in the training they have received. If consultation with a senior officer can be thought of as a governance arrangement to quality assure this process, this data shows (see table 7) that opportunities are being missed; with (apart from force C) significant numbers of officers not looking higher up the command chain to receive assistance in managing risk.

The accompanying free text responses presented concerns around accessibility of senior leaders and a perceived lack of experience and/or ability around tactical decision making. Examples include:

“I never consult senior managers…they are remote from the teams and have often not had front line experience for many years” (force A)

“I can't recall the last time I had consultation with a senior manager regarding a misper. It is almost always Inspector rank” (force B).

It is, therefore, recommended that senior managers would benefit from consulting with operational officers more widely on issues such as this; requesting regular feedback from staff about the force’s practices and areas for improvement. The lack of consultation with senior officers could be viewed as a negative commentary toward those in the sergeant / inspector rank. In reality, this report suggests that there is a shared responsibility between both the senior officers and the operational supervisors to open a more constructive dialogue. Senior officers should take steps to involve themselves more proactively in this vital risk assessment work Those in the sergeant / inspector rank should display a greater willingness to ‘brief upwards’ and consult senior leaders on risk assessment decisions. It is suggested that this more effective two-way communication will identify gaps in knowledge, increase professional competence and build more supportive working relationships – up and down the hierarchy.

ConclusionThe aim of this study was to examine police officers’ views of the risk assessment process in a missing person investigation. This study used an online survey.

[11]

Responses were provided by 334 officers, from three different police forces. The officers were experienced people in their field, adding weight to their views and increasing the validity of the research.

The results show that half of the respondents, in this sample, had never read the national missing persons guidance provided by the Association of Chief Police Officers. Half of the respondents had never read their force’s internal guidance document. One third of the respondents believed that their training was inadequate and half of the respondents believed their line manager had not taken any steps to develop their knowledge of risk assessing missing person investigations.

Of equal significance is the data that shows the majority of participants were nevertheless confident in their ability to identify risk and act accordingly.

The same officers who have articulated such dis-engagement with corporate procedures that are in place to educate, train and guide are confident to articulate their thorough understanding of how the risk assessment of missing person investigations works, particularly in the free text responses to the survey. The challenge for senior managers within the forces is to gain an understanding of how police supervisors think they should be doing their job and realign this with corporate requirements of what they should actually be doing. The nature of the work involved – assessing risk to determine if significant harm may befall a missing person (or member of the public) – is such that reliance on anything other than formal training would be inappropriate. Experiential knowledge only goes so far. It is, therefore, recommended that a skills audit / needs assessment be undertaken for every officer who is promoted into a supervisory role and training then delivered accordingly.

Whist the methodology chosen is justified, from the perspective of widening the participant population as efficiently as possible; the use of an online survey remains an impersonal means of data collection. To improve the richness of the data set and allow for deeper understanding of the issues involved, focus groups and/or interviews within the sample forces (or more widely) would be of benefit for further replication of this study in the future.

This article also provides initial insight into the effectiveness of the new ‘absent’ definition that has been introduced by ACPO. Since the survey was carried out, Force A has embedded its own processes for working with this new classification of ‘missing’ people. It will be necessary to consider how successful, nationally, this new process has been once initial learning has been captured by the forces and amendments made to their systems and procedures. A significant research opportunity also exists to consider how those who report someone as ‘absent’ or ‘missing’ believe that their case was dealt with by the police force concerned. Maintaining public confidence will be a key requirement of this new process and something that will need to be reviewed.

[12]

Tables

Table 1: ACPO Guidance: Table 2: Force Guidance:

Force Yes No Not Sure Force Yes No

A 36% 51% 13% A 51% 49%

B 63% 31% 6% B 74% 26%

C 46% 39% 15% C 83% 17%

Table 3: Risk Definitions

Force % aware of risk definitions

A 86%

B 98%

C 98%

Table 4: Confidence in Training provided in relation to assessing risk.

Force % who agree that training allows informed decision making

A 32%

B 24%

C 53%

[13]

Table 5: Timeliness of Supervision

Force% who adhere to ACPO

requirements re timeliness of supervision

A 69%

B 88%

C 89%

Table 6: Line Manager input into competence and knowledge

Force% who felt their line manager

had assisted with development

A 48%

B 41%

C 59%

Table 7: Engagement with senior officers

Force % who feel able to consult with senior officers

A 43%

B 65%

C 91%

References

ACPO (2010). Guidance on the Management, Recording and Investigation of Missing Persons. London. ACPO.

ACPO (2013) Interim Guidance on the Management, Recording and Investigation of Missing Persons.

[14]

ACPO (2013). The National Decision Making Model. London. ACPO

Biehal, N., Mitchell, F., & Wade, J. (2003). Lost from View: Missing Persons in the UK, Bristol, Policy Press.

Cole, T. and Brown, J. (2014). Behavioural Investigative Advice: Assistance to Investigative Decision Making in Difficult-to-detect Murder. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. Vol. 11 191 – 220

Daly, F., Teague, P. & Kitchen, P. (2003). Exploring the Role of Internal Communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal. 8(3) 153 – 162.

Hayden, C., & Goodship, J. (2013). Children Reported ‘Missing’ to the Police: Is It Possible to ‘Risk Assess’ Every Incident? British Journal of Social Work. Doi:10.1093/bjsw/bet150

Kitchen, P. and Daly, F. (2002). Internal communication during change management. Corporate Communications: An International Journal. 7(1) 46 – 53.

Loveday, B. (2013). Commentary: Direct Entry into the Police Service. The Police Journal, 86. 1 – 6. DOI: 10.1350/pojo.2013.86.1.609

Michalsen, A. (2003). Risk Assessment & Perception. International Journal of Injury Control & Safety Promotion. 10(4) 201-204 doi: 10.1076/icsp.10.4.201.16782

Parr, H., & Fyfe, N. (2012) 'Missing Geographies' in Progress in Human Geography. Accessible via Online First at doi: 10.1177/0309132512465919

Shalev-Greene, K. and Hayden, C. (2014). Repeat reports to the police of missing people: locations and characteristics. Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth

Shalev Greene, K., & Pakes, F. (2012). Establishing the cost of missing person investigations. Report submitted to West Mercia Police and Warwickshire Police.

Shalev Greene, K., & Pakes, F. (2013). Absent: An exploration of common police procedures for safeguarding practices in cases of missing children and adults. Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth

Smith, R. and Shalev-Greene, K. (2014). High Risk? Attitudes to the risk assessment process in missing person investigations. Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth.

National Crime Agency (2014). Missing Persons: Data and Analysis 2012/2013. UK Missing Persons Bureau.

Travis, A. (2013). Theresa May proposes fast track promotion for young police officers. The Guardian. Retrieved from: www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/30/may-proposes-fast-track-policepromotion