Here's a radical idea: the best way to get better local services is to empower professionals to do what works. Whether at the care home, crime scene, or classroom, we should use research on what works to help professionals transform services for the better.

Impossible? Frontline staff just don't have the time or inclination to deal with research.  It may be fine for GPs or engineers, but not for the rest of us who are constrained by regulation, paperwork and the whims of our political masters.

But is that really true?  There is a tremendous amount that is being devolved and delegated to practitioners.

A new report Evidence for the Frontline showcases the work of people like Chief Superintendent Alex Murray. He Is currently suffering a crime wave but he is taking the lead in applying research in day-to-day crime reduction for West Midlands Police.

He is not the only one to have shown there is professional leeway to engage with research.

According to a recent report from HMIC (Policing in Austerity: Rising to the Challenge, July 2013) some forces have adopted approaches to help them predict future crime patterns in an area.

This allows force control rooms to allocate police resources more effectively, which is much needed after the many recent cuts to public funding.

Another example is schools in England.  They are entering a period of professional freedom as a direct result of decentralisation in the education system.

This gives the myriad of academies, free schools and local authority networks an opportunity to innovate and engage with latest research on what works best in the classroom.

But is ‘evidence' really there to help us? Research is not always clear, concise or conclusive and it can feel a world away from everyday practice.

To take the schools example, John Hattie, professor of education and director of the Melbourne Education Research Institute at the University of Melbourne in Australia has conducted research into performance indicators and evaluation in education.

He has analysed over 800 systematic reviews of research over 15 years into improving pupil attainment.

With teachers lacking time to wade through that body of knowledge, the charities Sutton Trust and Education Endowment Foundation developed an online toolkit to give practitioners access to the best of education research relating to the attainment of disadvantaged pupils, which has proven incredibly popular.

Despite this, the evidence is still not being applied enough in practice. 

Too many schools are not planning on spending  their pupil premium, a massive £1.875bn for 2013-14, in areas that work.

For example, only 4% of schools, according to a Sutton Trust poll, would spend the money on improving feedback between teachers and pupils.

Research has found this is a simple and relatively inexpensive measure that helps pupils' learning, but it is still rarely used. It's clearly going to be a tough job persuading teachers, and other sector practitioners, to act on evidence.

Our report stresses that we can't rely on researchers to make the case alone.  It must come from within the professions.  How can this be done?

Firstly we need their professional bodies to take this seriously.

A few weeks ago the Alliance for Useful Evidenceorganised a Professions Summit on ‘Evidence-informed Practice' that drew in grand professional bodies such as the Royal Town Planning Institute, Association of Chief Police Officers, Royal Institute of British Architects and thirty others.

It was clear from the summit that working with membership and professional bodies will be key to ‘selling' the value of evidence to practitioners.

The professional bodies can help foster a culture where their members feel at ease engaging with research– or, just as importantly, confident to refute evidence.

There is another trend that is going to make life easier for those fired up to use evidence: the ‘What Works' centres in social policy, recently launched by the by Cabinet Office.

The six-strong What Works network covers areas such as policing, teaching, and early intervention.

While the evidence centres will assist local practitioners and commissioners to access research, we still need to foster the demand from professionals in the first place.

How should that be done? The demand for evidence must, according to our report, come at arms-length from government.

We should try to avoid forcing anything on professions as there will only be resistance.

We should reward and celebrate good evidence-based practice, but not using bureaucratic straight-jackets to force use of research.

Training and on-going professional development is needed to equip professionals with the skills to understand, find, share and use research.

It is great to see professional networks growing from the ranks - such as the Society for Evidence-Based Policing, an inspirational group of coppers who have teamed up with researchers to make evidence part of everyday policing.

Above all we need a culture change. Evidence must feel like something in the core DNA of professionals; something from within that cannot be obtained via external pressures from Whitehall or Ivory Towers.

We must unleash the professionals through a culture of research and reflection, to innovate and excel.

We expect medics to be up to speed with research. It should not seem a radical idea for the rest of us.