Research and analysis

National Fraud Squad (NFS) process evaluation - Annex B - Discussion guides

Published 5 February 2026

Discussion guides

National Fraud Squad evaluation: Discussion guide – senior staff

Introduction (5 minutes)

Section objectives

To understand the participant’s background, as well as their role and their team’s structure specifically related to the NFS.

Context note for interviewer

We’re speaking to the following 3 different types of participants - this guide is for senior stakeholders. Senior staff will likely have the job role of DCI or D/Supt. They will have insight into the design and planning of NFS, strategic implementation of the programme and perceived effect of the funding. As their role is strategic, rather than operational, they may not be able to speak to detail of day-to-day fraud investigation.

If during the introduction it sounds like they fit other roles, please switch guides. For reference, the other roles are operational managers who manage teams of fraud officers and can speak to the recruitment process, training and delivery and fraud investigative officers who are able to speak to the day-to-day fraud investigations perceived early effects of funding on cases.

The purpose of this first set of questions is to provide us with a more detailed understanding of your role and responsibilities, to contextualise the rest of the discussion we have with you.

1. Please could you briefly tell me about your role?

• what are your main responsibilities?

• what are your main responsibilities specifically in relation to the NFS?

• how long have you been in this role?

• can you talk me through your unit’s size and structure and how it fits in with the wider organisation?

• what are the key priorities for your unit?

NFS design and implementation

Section objectives

To explore their understanding of the aims of the centrally designed NFS, as well as their involvement and decision-making processes in designing how the NFS funding will be used within their own organisation.

Context note for interviewer

Please establish whether the participant understands the term National Fraud Squad – some many refer to it as FRP uplift. Please mirror the language of the participant.

Fraud Reform Programme is the vehicle used to implement the Fraud Strategy 2023. The programme is structured into 3 pillars:

• pursue fraudsters: Increase law enforcement capacity to pursue and disrupt fraudsters (where NFS sits)

• block fraud: working with industry to block fraud from reaching the public in the first place

• empower people: empowering the public to avoid fraud and respond appropriately to it where it does reach them

Organisations receiving NFS funding could use it to recruit police officers and police staff – either newly recruited to the police force or transferring from another police force/agency – to increase the capacity of their fraud investigation teams.

2. From your perspective, what do you think are the objectives of the National Fraud Squad otherwise known as the Fraud Reform Programme funded uplift?

• understanding of why NFS was developed, probe; gaps trying to address, that is, capacity/capabilities, connection to other national priorities/policies gaps in

• extent to which they were involved in the national level design, probe: what the process was, who did it involved and what worked well/less well

• what are the key barriers and enablers to achieving a whole system, end-to-end approach to pursuing fraudsters; how does NFS fit within this (probe in terms of to what extent and how the NFS creates a co-ordinated national LE response to fraud)?

3. Please can you talk me through the process of how your ROCU decided to use the NFS funding?

• prescriptive or flexible approach/guidance received CoLP/HO, probe: how guidance shared, discussed, opportunity for discussion

• assessment of gaps in capacity and capabilities within the ROCU

• alignment with regional strategic priorities and national priorities/policies for example, Serious and Organized Crime Strategy, Beating Crime Plan, Victims Strategy, National Cyber Strategy, Economic Crime Plan, Fraud Strategy and National Policing Strategy

• existing policies, priorities and resources considered, probe: data and insight used to help decision-making

• internal and external stakeholders’ involvement probe: staff in their team/organisation, other law enforcement agencies, Home Office, CoLP, NECC

• what worked less/less well in the process probe: resistance to change, difficulties in cross team working, conflicting priorities

4. How has the uplift funding been used in your ROCU?

• recruitment of specific roles and responsibilities

• training for new staff and existing staff

• proportion of newly recruited staff versus reassigned staff – reasons for this

• challenges in recruiting staff and reassigning staff – vetting process, police staff/non-police staff

• impact on originating teams and team dynamics

5. To what extent are you aware of how other ROCUs have used their uplift funding?

• if so, to what extent does implementation vary across the different regions?

• what factors do you think contribute to the differences in use of the NFS uplift funding?

6. What training needs were considered for NFS recruited staff?

• what are the skills gaps in fraud investigation related work?

• how does the current capability within their unit looks currently?

• has NFS training contributed to closing any existing capability gaps?

• what else capability wise can be improved?

7. What are the most significant challenges you face in retaining staff within the ROCU, particularly in relation to the NFS uplift roles?

• how does the retention rate for NFS-funded roles compare to the overall retention rate within the ROCU?

• are there particular job types or roles within the NFS that experience higher or lower retention rates? why?

• what do you perceive as the key push and pull factors influencing staff retention within the NFS-funded roles?

• what policies or initiatives are in place to support staff retention? how, if at all, is the being monitored?

• what factors have been most effective in enabling successful staff retention within the NFS team?

Delivery of fraud investigations (15 minutes)

Section objectives

To understand the current strategic approach of their organisation in investigating and disrupting fraud, as well as the perceived effects of the NFS in the fraud lifecycle and in partnership working/co-ordinating the national LE approach against fraud.

Where short on time – deprioritise this section.

Next, I’d like to discuss what delivery of fraud investigations look like and the role that the uplift played.

8. Can you describe the strategic approach your organisation takes to tackle fraud?

• how do intelligence and investigation staff/teams work together?

• what are the most significant opportunities for improvement in terms of disrupting and investigating fraud?

• how has this evolved since the introduction of the NFS uplift funding?

9. How does your organisation assess and allocate resources for fraud investigations?

• how has this process been impacted by the NFS uplift?

• to what extent are current resources appropriate for your organisation to deal with the threat level/case load?

• how do resource requirements for fraud intelligence gathering and investigations differ from those of other crime types? what factors contribute to these differences?

• what are the most common competing priorities that fraud investigative officers must balance when managing their caseloads?

10. How does proactive investigation work differ from reactive investigation within your organisation?

• what are the barriers and enablers to balancing both proactive and reactive fraud investigation within your region?

• to what extent do you think your organisation is able to meet the needs of both?

• how effective is the intelligence pipeline in supporting your teams to investigate and disrupt fraud?

• how has NFS funding been used to address both proactive and reactive investigations?

11. Which are the key stakeholders (internally and externally) you work with in order to tackle fraud?

• how has the uplift affected partnership working with other internal teams?

• how has the uplift affected partnership working with external stakeholders?

• how are these partnerships structured and managed to ensure collaboration and information sharing?

12. How has the NFS uplift impacted the development or strengthening of these partnerships?

• to what extent is the NFS operating as an interconnected network across ROCUs, CoLP, and NECC?

• what are the key barriers to partnership working?

• how can these barriers be overcome?

13. To the best of your knowledge, how do investigations different across regions and agencies?

• why are there differences and any impacts?

• any common challenges and solutions?

• extent to which there is partnership working with other regions and agencies?

• role NFS has played in coordinating a national law enforcement response to tackling fraud?

Perceived effect of uplift funding (15 minutes)

Section objectives

To understand the existing enablers and barriers for NFS to achieve its intended aims, as well as to explore their insights on potential improvements for implementing NFS within their organisation, as well as across the national LE network of pursuing fraud.

Where short on time – prioritise this section

Context note for interviewer

NFS is still in its early days of delivery so please frame these questions as initial perceptions and insights.

14. Overall, how has the NFS uplift funding specifically impacted your organisation’s ability to tackle fraud?

• what, if any, aspects of the process have changed as a result?

• what makes you think that?

• do you have any examples of where NFS funding has had an impact?

15. Do you think that the uplift funding is achieving its intended aims?

• what is working well/what changes needed?

• any emerging trends or challenges in fraud threat

• broader factors that impact ability to pursue fraud

• unexpected consequences to this work

16. What perceived effect, if any, do you think the NFS has had on how fraud investigative officers carry out their role?

• effect on staff capacity, skills and capabilities

• effect on how fraud cases are managed - partnership working internally and externally

• outcomes of fraud investigations

17. What do you think are the key enablers and barriers for NFS achieving its aims?

• at their organisation level and nationally or systematic level

• how can these be harnessed further?

18. Are there any emerging trends or challenges in the fraud landscape that could impact the future effectiveness of the uplift?

• what changes do you think need to be made to ensure sustained impact of the uplift funding?

19. What, if anything, could the Home Office, CoLP have done differently to support you in implementing and delivering the uplift funding?

• why/why not?

20. What, if any, improvements do you think are needed in continuing to ensure fraud is tackled effectively?

• at their organisation level and nationally or systematic level

Wrap up (5 minutes)

21. Is there any data/further information on any of the topics we just discussed that you could share with us in writing in a follow up to this interview?

22. Is there anything else that you would like to discuss that you feel is relevant to the evaluation?

To finish the interview, check through the list of activities below:

• request permission to re-contact interviewee to clarify information

• check consent to use the consultation to support the evaluation

• thank and close

National Fraud Squad evaluation: Discussion guide – ops manager

Introduction (5 minutes)

Section objectives

To understand what the participants role is and their background.

Context note for interviewer

We’re speaking to the following 3 different types of participants - this guide is for operational managers. An operational manager will manage day to day activity and has insight into the recruitment process, training and delivery. They are likely to manage a team so will be able to speak to this throughout – but the exact roles could vary so be sure to probe appropriately.

If during the introduction it sounds like they fit other roles, please switch guides. For reference, the other roles are senior managers who can speak to the overall response to fraud and the perceived early effects of the uplift funding and fraud investigative officers who are able to speak to the day to day operational delivery of fraud investigations.

The purpose of this first set of questions is to provide us with a more detailed understanding of your job role, and the team that you work in, to contextualise the rest of the discussion we have with you.

1. Please could you briefly introduce yourself?

• job title? probe whether police staff or officer

• what are your responsibilities? how is your role related to NFS funding?

• what does your day-to-day job look like?

• how long have you been in this role?

• if new to the role – what was previous role?

2. Please can you tell me about your team?

• how many people are in your team?

• what is the structure of your team and how does this link to wider ROCU structure?

• what are the different types of roles that exist in your team?

• how does the spilt between police staff and police officers influence the dynamics and capabilities of the team? prompt on skills, any skills gaps

• what is the split between those who were reassigned internally, versus those who are newly recruited? how does this split influence the dynamics and capabilities of the team? prompt on skills, any skills gaps

NFS design (5 minutes)

Section objectives

To understand their views on NFS design, contribution to it and how it translates in practice in their ROCU.

Context note for interviewer

Please establish whether the participant understands the term National Fraud Squad – some many refer to it as FRP uplift. Please mirror the language of the participant.

Fraud Reform Programme is the vehicle used to implement the Fraud Strategy 2023. The programme is structured into 3 pillars:

• pursue fraudsters: increase law enforcement capacity to pursue and disrupt fraudsters (where NFS sits)

• block fraud: working with industry to block fraud from reaching the public in the first place

• empower people: empowering the public to avoid fraud and respond appropriately to it where it does reach them

Organisations receiving NFS funding could use it to recruit police officers and police staff – either newly recruited to the police force or transferring from another police force/agency – to increase the capacity of their fraud investigation teams.

3.How familiar are you with the National Fraud Squad (otherwise known as the Fraud Reform Programme funded uplift)?

Note to interviewer – if participant is not familiar with NFS/FRP moved to next section (although we assume they would have insight)

• if aware, probe: what info/comms you received and what understanding is of what NFS is trying to achieve?

• what do you think the uplift funding will result in, probe: changes to operational practice/delivery

4. Were you involved or aware of opportunities to be involved in the design of the NFS/FRP?

• if involved probe: how did you get involved (for example, volunteered or were asked to); how was this first communicated to you; who you engage with for example, CoLP/NECC/Home Office; how were engaged you and your general experience of it; how the centrally designed NFS objectives did take shape in your own ROCU

• if not involved probe: how did you first hear about NFS or the FRP? how clear was this? was there anymore information you would have liked to have had?

5. How has your organisation used NFS funding to increase resources?

• how were decisions made on the types of roles to recruit?

• what role did you have in the decision-making process

6. How do the aims of NFS/FRP align with ROCU strategic objectives?

• please can you explain your regional approach to tackling fraud? probe – regional control strategy

• what do you see as the scale and nature of fraud regionally/nationally?

7. What other national plans, if any, are you aware of to tackle fraud?

• probe; how do these align with regional/policing objectives? any gaps in national approach to tackling fraud

NFS implementation (15 minutes)

Section objectives

To understand how the funding has been implemented, exploring the recruitment process itself, onboarding, training and retention.

Context note for interviewer

Organisations receiving NFS funding could use it to recruit police officers and police staff – either newly recruited to the police force or transferring from another police force/agency – to increase the capacity of their fraud investigation teams.

Thank you for talking me through your ways of working, it would be great to now discuss the implementation of the NFS programme and the recruitment and training of staff.

Recruitment and onboarding process

8. Can you describe how the recruitment and onboarding process has worked?

• what were the key activities or stages involved in the onboarding process? prompt: contracting, organisational onboarding such as orientation

• what worked well in the recruitment and onboarding process? probe: key enablers internally and externally for example, enough applicants, long processing times

• any challenges probe: vetting process, on delivery

• were there any differences in the onboarding process based on whether staff were police staff versus officers, or newly recruited versus reassigned?

• how does this compare to intended plan? probe: any challenges in filling certain roles/staff generally

• were there any aspects of the onboarding you felt was lacking or could be improved?

9. What training is provided to police staff/officers?

• what are the different types of training?

• how does the training vary? probe: specific training for, recruited or reassigned staff/officers, NFS-funded staff/officers

• do you have any feedback on the training probe: what worked/well less, improvements

10. How would you describe the staff retention within your current team?

• how does this compare to the retention rate you’ve observed in the ROCU generally, or in your previous role?

• what are the primary factors that encourage staff to stay in their roles?

• conversely, what are the main reasons why staff might consider leaving fraud investigation teams?

11. Are there any specific policies or initiatives in place that aim to retain staff who were recruited or upskilled using NFS funding?

• could you provide examples of any initiatives or activities focused on retaining NFS-funded staff?

12. How different has increasing capacity and capability through the uplift funding been compared to what was initially envisaged or planned?

• what have been the barriers and enablers to operationalising commitments made for the NFS funding? probe for capacity and capability/skills

• where did the plans change? probe for specifics on capacity and capability/skills

• were there any unexpected consequences to this work? probe: specific examples, impact of it

• length of time to get staff fully up to speed to their roles

Delivery of fraud investigations (15 minutes)

Section objectives

To understand the process of how fraud cases enter the system, are investigated/disrupted and the different outcomes. Probe on all variations related to fraud type and if uplift funding has made a difference.

Where short on time deprioritise this section.

Thank you for discussing the implementation of NFS – next I’d like to discuss what delivery of fraud investigations look like and the role that the uplift played to inform this process.

13. How does a fraud case come to the attention of your organisation and team?

• how are cases prioritised and triaged? any relevant thresholds/parameters, who makes these decisions? probe; intelligence/information sharing

• how standard is the process and if it varies, how so and why?

• what data is available at this stage?

• where does intelligence come from? probe: the flow of information, key stakeholders

• how does NFS affected or changed this?

14.Can you talk me through the types of investigations you work on?

• proactive or reactive investigation work

• any particular focus in the type of cases you work on? probe on severity (P-level) and complexity, type of fraud, international element, intelligence available.

15. If working on proactive investigations: Can you talk me through how proactive investigation work differs from reactive investigation work within your organisation?

• who works with on proactive and reactive investigation work?

• how is intelligence gathered and used for investigations?

• thresholds for a proactive investigation and how does that differ to a reactive investigation?

• what are the challenges to proactive investigations?

• how does the data available change based on whether it’s a proactive or reactive investigation?

16. What are the main challenges in investigating fraud cases?

• what are the internal factors? probe: capacity, resources, skills, ways of working

• what are the external factors? probe: case related factors, system and policing related factors

17. Which other agencies/organisations do you work with on fraud cases?

• within the ROCU, which other teams or departments do you frequently work with on fraud cases? robe: for intelligence gathering

• beyond the ROCU, what external agencies or organizations are typically involved in your fraud investigations? probe: this might include other ROCUs, local police forces, the City of London Police, the National Crime Agency (NCA) or the National Economic Crime Centre (NECC)

• how has the increase in resources through the uplift funding impacted your partnerships with other organisations involved in tackling fraud? probe for any examples, positive and negative and on Fraud Targeting Cell (FTC) if aware

• how is information shared and co-ordinated between these different teams and agencies during an investigation? are there formal mechanisms or channels for communication and collaboration?

• what are the biggest challenges you face in collaborating with these various stakeholders during fraud investigations?

• conversely, what factors contribute to successful partnerships and outcomes? prompt: by different stakeholder, lessons learnt and examples of best practice

Investigative outcomes

Context note for interviewer

Investigations could flow into different outcomes, outlined below:

• criminal justice outcomes that is, the offence progressing to court

• outcome does not progress to court but leads to an alternative action such as a charge for another offence (for example, money laundering), disruption activity, asset denial and international CJS outcome

• no further action (NFA)

Be sure to clearly outline to the participant what do we mean by criminal justice outcomes and alternative outcomes – what are the different types, so that we are all clear on what we are referring to.

18. In your experience, how long does it take for investigations to reach an outcome?

• what are the influencing factors?

• does it differ across the different types of outcomes? probe: disruptions, criminal justice outcomes or alternative outcomes

• if previously worked in fraud, probe: any changes over time in length of investigations and why/why not

• what effects do you think NFS has had length of cases? probe: if too early to say, views on likely effect and potential barriers

19. What sort of disruptions do you tend to focus on?

• major, minor and moderate

• what teams/organisations do you work with on disruptions? probe – CoLP specialist disruption team

• what data and metrics are used to monitor disruptions?

• what effects do you think the uplift has had on disruptions so far? probe: if too early to say, views on likely effect and potential barriers

20. Please can you explain the enablers and barriers to progressing to an investigative outcome?

Probe for all investigative outcomes including criminal justice outcome, alternative action and no further action

• enablers to investigative outcomes, probe: internal factors, case related factors and systematic factors

• barriers to investigative outcomes, probe: internal factors, case related factors and systematic factors

• data and metrics used to assess investigative outcomes

• perceived effects of NFS funding on investigative outcomes – probe: if too early to say, views on likely impact and potential barriers

Perceived effect of uplift funding (15 mins)

Section objectives

To understand perceived effect of the NFS funding uplift so far - individual role, the organisation as a whole and partnership working more generally.

Where short on time – prioritise this section.

Context note for interviewer

NFS is still in its early days of delivery so please frame these questions as initial perceptions and insights.

This section seeks to explore the perceived impact of the uplift funding.

21. What perceived effect, if any, do you think the uplift funding has had on your role and organisation in tackling fraud?

• effect on capacity, workload skills and capabilities probe: why/not why, how and any specific examples of impact

• effect on how fraud cases are managed - partnership working internally and externally

• outcomes of fraud investigations

22. What effects do you think the uplift funding will have on the investigation process?

• impact on workload, probe: why/not why, how and any specific examples of impact

• capability/skills to undertake fraud investigations, probe: why/not why, how and any specific examples of impact

• impact on disruptions

• impact on length of investigations

23. Do you think that the uplift funding is achieving its intended aims?

• what is working well/what changes needed?

• any emerging trends or challenges in fraud threat

• broader factors that impact ability to pursue fraud

• unexpected consequences to this work

24. What perceived effect, if any, do you think the NFS has had on how fraud investigative officers carry out their role?

• effect on staff capacity, skills and capabilities

• effect on how fraud cases are managed - partnership working internally and externally

• outcomes of fraud investigations

25. How has the uplift affected partnership working with other internal teams?

• what examples do you have of the impact of NFS?

• what has worked well/less well? prompt: lessons learnt and examples of best practice

26. How has the uplift affected partnership working with external stakeholders?

• what examples do you have of the impact of NFS?

• what has worked well/less well? prompt: lessons learnt and examples of best practice

27. Are there any emerging trends or challenges in the fraud landscape that could impact the future effectiveness of the uplift?

• what changes do you think need to be made to ensure sustained impact of the uplift funding?

28. What, if any, improvements do you think are needed in continuing to ensure fraud is tackled effectively?

• at your team/organisation level and nationally or systematic level

29. What, if anything, could the Home Office, CoLP have done differently to support you in implementing and delivering the uplift funding?

• why/why not?

Wrap up (5 minutes)

30. Is there anything else that you would like to discuss that you feel is relevant to the evaluation?

To finish the interview, check through the list of activities below:

• request permission to re-contact interviewee to clarify information

• check consent to use the consultation to support the evaluation

• thank and close

National Fraud Squad evaluation: Discussion guide – investigative officers

Introduction (5 minutes)

Section objectives

To understand what the participant’s background, as well as their role specifically related to the NFS.

Context note for interviewer

We’re speaking to the following 3 different types of participants - this guide is for Financial Investigators. Financial Investigators are operational staff, who undertake the day-to-day activities of fraud investigation.

If during the introduction it sounds like they fit other roles, please switch guides. For reference, the other roles are senior staff who can speak to the overall strategic aspects of NFS and response to fraud and the impact of the uplift funding and operational managers who are responsible for overseeing and managing the day-to-day activity of fraud investigations.

The purpose of this first set of questions is to provide us with a more detailed understanding of your job role, and the department that you work in, to contextualise the remainder of the interview.

1. Please could you briefly introduce yourself?

• job title? probe whether police staff or officer

• what are your responsibilities? How is your role related to NFS funding?

• what does your day-to-day job look like?

• how long have you been in this role?

• if new to the role – what was previous role?

2. Please can you tell me about your team?

• how many people are in your team?

• what is the structure of your team and how does this link to wider ROCU structure?

• what are the different types of roles that exist in your team?

• how does the spilt between police staff and police officers influence the dynamics and capabilities of the team? prompt on skills, any skills gaps

• what is the split between those who were reassigned internally, versus those who are newly recruited? how does this split influence the dynamics and capabilities of the team? prompt on skills, any skills gaps

Awareness of NFS/FRP (5 minutes)

Section objectives

To understand their level of awareness of NFS and the wider regional and national strategies it aligns with.

Context note for interviewer

Please establish whether the participant understands the term National Fraud Squad – some many refer to it as FRP uplift. Please mirror the language of the participant.

Fraud Reform Programme is the vehicle used to implement the Fraud Strategy 2023. The programme is structured into 3 pillars:

• pursue fraudsters: Increase law enforcement capacity to pursue and disrupt fraudsters (where NFS sits)

• block fraud: working with industry to block fraud from reaching the public in the first place

• empower people: empowering the public to avoid fraud and respond appropriately to it where it does reach them

3. How familiar are you with the National Fraud Squad (otherwise known as the Fraud Reform Programme funded uplift)?

Note to interviewer – if participant is not familiar with NFS/FRP moved to next section (although we assume they would have insight)

• if aware, probe: what info/comms you received and what understanding is of what NFS is trying to achieve?

4. What other national plans, if any, are you aware of to tackle fraud?

• probe; how do these align with regional/policing objectives? any gaps in national approach to tackling fraud

5. How do you think the NFS can help ROCUs achieve their strategic objectives?

• please can you explain your regional approach to tackling fraud? probe – regional control strategy

• what do you see as the scale and nature of fraud regionally/nationally?

• how does NFS fit into this?

6. How has your organisation used NFS funding to increase resources?

• how were decisions made on the types of roles to recruit?

• what role did you/your team play in the decision-making process

NFS implementation (15 minutes)

Section objectives

To understand how the funding has been implemented, exploring the recruitment process itself, onboarding, training and retention.

Context note for interviewer

Organisations receiving NFS funding could use it to recruit police officers and police staff – either newly recruited to the police force or transferring from another police force/agency – to increase the capacity of their fraud investigation teams.

Thank you for talking me through your ways of working, it would be great to now discuss the implementation of the NFS programme and the recruitment and training of staff.

Recruitment and onboarding process

7. Please can you tell me about how you came to this role?

• probe: applied for the role or reassigned?

• for those who had been reassigned, probe:

  • previous team and role

  • to what extent does your previous role/experience relate to your new role

  • what was the process of being reassigned like?

  • what were the key barriers to taking on this new role?

  • and what were the enablers that allowed you to take up the new role?

• for those who applied for the role:

  • what was the application and recruitment process like?

  • how did you hear about the role?

  • why did you decide to apply for the role?

  • what were the key barriers to taking on this new role?

  • and what were the enablers that allowed you to take up the new role?

• for all:

  • how does your new role relate to what you had been doing previously? prompt: where did you work before? what crime type, if any, did you work in previously?

8. Can you describe how the onboarding process has worked?

• what were the key activities or stages involved in the onboarding process? prompt: contracting, organisational onboarding such as orientation

• what worked well/less well for the onboarding process?

• were there any differences in the onboarding process based on whether staff were police staff versus officers, or newly recruited versus reassigned?

• were there any aspects of the onboarding you felt were lacking?

• what, if anything, could be improved?

9. Can you talk me through what training, if any, you received once you started your new role?

• was the training tailored to your specific role and responsibilities?

• did the type or content of training differ based on whether staff were police staff versus officers, or newly recruited versus reassigned?

• what did you find most valuable about the training?

• were there any aspects of the training you felt were lacking or could be improved?

• what additional training, if any, would you like to receive? probe: any perceived skill gaps in their capabilities

10. Overall, what has been your experience in your role so far?

• what are the competing priorities in your role?

• do you feel that you are currently fully up to speed in your role?

  • if yes, prompt on how long it took.

  • if no, probe further on understanding why (for example, training ss currently anticipated ‘operational’ duties) and what, if anything, could help speed up that process?

• how does the role compare to what you thought it would be? probe: overall satisfaction with their role, any key factors that provide satisfaction or key challenges that impact satisfaction

11. What have been the main challenges so far?

• are these challenges resolved or still existing? if still existing, probe on how they consider they can be worked through and how they might affect their future in their current role.

• how have these challenges impacted your ability to carry out your role?

• what support have you received from your team to overcome these challenges?

12. What has been the staff turnover in your team?

• how does this compare to previous teams you have been in?

• what do you think are the primary factors that encourage people to stay in their roles?

• conversely, what are the main reasons why people might consider leaving fraud investigation teams?

13. Are there any specific policies or initiatives in place that aim to retain staff who were recruited or upskilled using NFS funding?

• could you provide examples of any initiatives or activities focused on retaining NFS-funded staff?

Delivery of fraud investigations (15 minutes)

Section objectives

To understand the process of map of how fraud cases enter the system, are worked on and the different outcomes. Probe on all variations related to fraud type and how NFS made a difference if at all.

Where stretched for time – prioritise this section.

Thank you for discussing the recruitment, training and your experience on the job so far – next I’d like to discuss what delivery of fraud investigations look like and any early insights you might have on the role that the uplift played.

14.Can you talk me through the types of fraud investigations you work on?

• proactive or reactive investigation work

• any particular focus in the type of cases you work on? probe on severity (P-level) and complexity, type of fraud, international element, intelligence available.

15. How does a fraud case come to the attention of your organisation and team?

• how are cases prioritised and triaged? any relevant thresholds/parameters, who makes these decisions?

• how are you assigned to cases?

• how many cases do you have? different types, how long have you had them

16. If working on proactive investigations: can you talk me through how proactive investigation work differs from reactive investigation work within your organisation?

• who within your organisation/team works with on proactive and reactive investigation work

• how is intelligence gathered and used for proactive investigations

• what are the thresholds for a proactive investigation and how does that differ to a reactive investigation?

• what are the main challenges to proactive investigations?

17. What are some of the main challenges investigating fraud cases?

• internal and external barriers

• gaps in capacity, resources and skills if any

• how, if at all, can these challenges be overcome?

18. Which other agencies/organisations do you work with on fraud cases?

• within the ROCU, which other teams or departments do you frequently work with on fraud cases? probe: for intelligence gathering

• beyond the ROCU, what external agencies or organisations are typically involved in your fraud investigations? probe: other ROCUs, local police forces, the City of London Police, the National Crime Agency (NCA) or the National Economic Crime Centre (NECC)

• how has the increase in resources through the uplift funding impacted your partnerships with other organisations involved in tackling fraud? probe for any examples, positive and negative and on Fraud Targeting Cell (FTC) if aware

• how is information shared between different teams and agencies during an investigation? are there formal mechanisms or channels for communication and collaboration?

• what are the biggest challenges you face in collaborating with these various stakeholders during fraud investigations?

• conversely, what factors contribute to successful partnership working? prompt: by different stakeholder, lessons learnt and examples of best practice

Investigative outcomes

Context note for interviewer

Investigations could flow into different outcomes, outlined below:

• criminal justice outcomes that is, the offence progressing to court

• outcome does not progress to court but leads to an alternative action such as a charge for another offence (for example, money laundering), disruption activity, asset denial and international CJS outcome

• No further action (NFA)

Be sure to clearly outline to the participant what do we mean by criminal justice outcomes and alternative outcomes – what are the different types, so that we are all clear on what we are referring to.

19. In your experience, how long does it take for fraud investigations to reach an outcome?

By outcome we mean criminal justice outcomes, alternative actions such as a charge for another offence (for example, money laundering), disruption activity, asset denial and international CJS outcome or no further action.

• what are the influencing factors?

• does it differ across the different types of outcomes? probe: disruptions, criminal justice outcomes or alternative outcomes

• if previously worked in fraud, probe: any changes over time in length of investigations and why/why not

• ask all: what effects do you think the uplift has had on the length of cases? probe: if too early to say, views on likely effect and potential barriers

20. What types of fraud disruptions do you tend to focus on?

• probe: major, minor and moderate

• what teams/organisations do you work with on disruptions? probe – CoLP specialist disruption team

• what data and metrics are used to monitor disruptions?

• what effects do you think the uplift has had on disruptions so far? probe: if too early to say, views on likely effect and potential barriers

21. Please can you explain the enablers and barriers to progressing a fraud investigation to an investigative outcome?

• probe for all investigative outcomes including criminal justice outcome, alternative action and no further action

• what are the key enablers to investigative outcomes, probe: internal factors, case related factors and systematic factors

• what are the key barriers to investigative outcomes, probe as above

• what data and metrics are used to assess investigative outcomes?

• what effects do you think the uplift has had on investigative outcomes so far? probe if too early to say, views on likely impact and potential barriers

Perceived effect of uplift funding (15 minutes)

This section seeks to understand your perceptions of whether the staff uplift through NFS has made a difference to different types of outcomes.

Section objectives

To understand perceived effect of the NFS funding uplift so far - individual role, the organisation as a whole and partnership working more generally.

Where stretched for time – deprioritise this section.

Context note for interviewer

NFS is still in its early days of delivery so please frame these questions as initial perceptions and insights.

22. If not clear yet: what perceived effect, if any, do you think the uplift has had on how you carry out your role?

• effect on capacity, workload skills and capabilities probe: why/not why, how and examples of impact

• effect on how fraud cases are managed - partnership working internally and externally

• outcomes of fraud investigations

23. If not clear yet: what effects do you think the uplift funding will have on the fraud investigation process?

• impact on workload, probe: why/not why, how and any specific examples of impact

• capability/skills to undertake fraud investigations, probe: why/not why, how and any specific examples of impact

• impact on disruptions

• impact on length of investigations

24. If not clear yet: Do you think that the uplift funding is achieving its intended aims?

• what is working well/what changes needed

• any emerging trends or challenges in fraud threat

• broader factors that impact ability to pursue fraud

• unexpected consequences to this work

25. What, if any, improvements do you think are needed in continuing to ensure fraud is tackled effectively?

• at your team/organisation level and nationally or systematic level

Wrap up (5 minutes)

26. Is there anything else that you would like to discuss that you feel is relevant to the evaluation?

To finish the interview, check through the list of activities below:

• request permission to re-contact interviewee to clarify information

• check consent to use the consultation to support the evaluation

• thank and close