Accountability
Policing by consent requires more than consultation. It requires communities to have the ability to establish expectations, gather evidence, assess performance and require public answers.
Our accountability work is designed to build that capacity.
01
Accountability in one sentence
Community-led assemblies establish the mandate; charters define the standards; monitoring groups build the evidence; independent scrutiny requires public answers; and national coordination turns local experience into systemic accountability.
02
The Policing Accountability Framework
The APA Policing Accountability Framework, or PAF, is a practical model for independent and democratic community scrutiny of policing.
It was developed from wider civil society work on independent community oversight and adapted by the APA into a replicable framework that communities can use in their own areas.
The PAF does not replace the Independent Office for Police Conduct, His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, courts, professional standards processes, elected policing governance or other statutory bodies. It addresses a different gap: the absence of durable community-led infrastructure that allows people most affected by policing to set standards, organise evidence and maintain scrutiny over time.
The fourth pillar
We describe independent community oversight as a fourth pillar of policing accountability.
Existing systems provide governmental and political accountability, professional and internal governance, and inspection, complaints and legal accountability. These functions are necessary, but none gives affected communities a continuous democratic role in setting standards and judging whether reform is working.
The fourth pillar adds that missing community dimension.
03
How the model works
01
Popular Assemblies
Popular Assemblies provide a structured space for communities to consider lived experience, local history, rights, evidence and official data, then establish collective priorities and a democratic mandate.
02
Black Policing Charters
Within the APA's programme, those priorities are translated into locally developed Black Policing Charters. Each Charter defines community expectations, standards, evidence questions, institutional commitments and routes for review and escalation.
Explore Black Policing Charters03
Community Police Monitoring Groups
Community Police Monitoring Groups provide continuity between assemblies. They gather and analyse evidence, monitor progress against Charter priorities, prepare scrutiny questions, record institutional commitments and support public reporting.
04
Structured institutional engagement
Community accountability requires institutions to respond. Local processes are therefore designed to create structured engagement with policing bodies, local government, elected policing governance and other relevant public institutions while protecting community independence.
05
National learning
Local work should also inform national reform. By comparing evidence across places, the APA can identify recurring patterns, support shared learning and carry locally grounded evidence into national policy discussions.
04
Birmingham Black Policing Charter
Birmingham is the first live implementation of the APA's place-based accountability model.
The Birmingham Black Policing Charter process was launched in 2026 and is being developed with the Birmingham Race Impact Group as a local partner.
The purpose is not to impose a national template on Birmingham. The APA provides the framework, support and quality standards, while Birmingham communities determine the content and priorities of their own Charter.
The programme gives us an opportunity to test the PAF in practice, document what works, improve the model and build an evidence base for future local implementation.
Visit the Birmingham Charter page05
Where next
Our strategy is to build the base before expanding the reach.
As funding, capacity and local readiness allow, we intend to use the learning from Birmingham to support further place-based work in London, Cardiff and Manchester.
London is likely to require a borough-based approach because of the size and diversity of the city. Cardiff will require adaptation to the Welsh governance context. Manchester offers an opportunity to examine community accountability within an increasingly devolved regional system.
In every place, local legitimacy comes first. We will not treat communities as delivery sites for a centrally owned programme.
06
Paid participation
Effective scrutiny takes time, expertise and emotional labour. We do not believe communities should be expected to undertake serious accountability work for free while the institutions being scrutinised are supported by salaried staff, analysts, lawyers and communications teams.
Paid participation is therefore a core principle of our accountability model. Where resources allow, our programmes should recognise community time, support access needs and reduce the burden placed on a small number of unpaid community advocates.