I S " T a i i g n- e r v l c e r n n :

O u t s i d e L o o k i n g In

Randy Martin, Department of Criminology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania

This paper describes and explores prominent issues pertaining to in-service training of law enforcement personnel. The overall situation in in-service training is examined, with special coverage being given to state mandates, availability and expense, the nature of programs, and the potential role of non law enforcement personnel in providing in-service training. Some possible solutions to current problems are discussed and general conclusions are offered.

Introduction The issues germane to training police

officers became very prominent in the fate sixties and early seventies, wilh a great deal of attention being directed at in-service training, especially in nonprocedural areas such as human relations and cultural awareness. Then, general interest in the in- service area seemed to drop off, at least in the literature, and it was not until the early eighties that articles specifically addressing in-service training began to reappear with some frequency. But, regardless of the treatment in the literature, it is clear from

talking with peopEe in law enforcement that in-service has been and continues to be an area of great concern and consternation.

The original intent for this article was to provide a description of an in-service program developed by the author in nonaggressive behavior control, offering only a brief discussion of some relevant issues like the need for such programs and the role of non law enforcement personnel in filling that need. However, it soon became apparent that a more fruitful approach might be to present a fuller treatment of a wider array of issues. To a great extent, the discussion and conc]usions that follow are based on the observations of the author, which are those of a neophyte in the realm of in-service training, and on his interactions with a variety of law enforcement professionals.

Method and Format This project is primarily exploratory.

Arthough exploratory studies are typically thought to be applicable only when "breaking new ground", they are actual[y also usefu[ in examining more persistent

2! J o u r n a l or Pt~Jir and ( : r i m i n a l Psyctml~=~y, M a r c h [987, Vol. 3, No= I

I m

phenomena, as there always seem to be new insights which can be discovered on any topic (Babble, 1986). As this study is exploratory in nature, the methods and analyses are qualitative and descriptive. Qualitative approaches are appropriate when one is attempting to make sense out of ongoing processes (Babble, 1986; Bailey, 1982), and descriptive methods are useful if they "involve the description, recording, analysis and interpretation of conditions that exist" (Best, 1981: 25). Also, the issues addressed do not lend themselves readily to quantification.

Babbie (1986) states that exploratory studies are most often conducted for three purposes: (1) to satisfy curiosity and the desire for better understanding, (2) to asssess the feasibility of a more in-depth study, and (3) to develop methods to employ in such a study. This project was actually undertaken with all three purposes in mind.

The following presentation will focus on three general areas: mandates for in- service training; availability and expense of in-service programs; and, nature of programs and source of instruction. The information discussed in each section certainly is not exhaustive, but represents the major issues and concerns as perceived by the author.

M a n d a t e s Information in this area was very difficuft

to come by. A search of the literature yielded no published data on the frequency or nature of state mandates governing in- service training for law enforcement personnel. Fortunately, the state of Pennsy lvan ia ' s Mur~icipal Of f icers Education and Training Commission has recently completed a survey of all fifty states

addressing mandatory in service training. Of the forty-three states that responded, twenty-one have mandatory in-service training [See Appendix for listing] (B. Nardi, personal communication, Spetember 12, 1986). This lags far behind legislation addressing preservice training as forty-nine states have provisions of state-mandated minimum basic training (Das, 1984).

According to Bob Nardi (Personal communication, September 12, 1986), from the Municipal Officers Education and Training Commission of Pennsylvania, there is no real commonality among those states that do have mandatory in-service, either in the nature of the programs prescribed or in the format of the regulations, but lack of uniformity and clarity seem to be common afflictLons o1 police training in general (Das, 1984).

It is obvious from the Pennsylvania survey that, despite the rhetoric in the literature and elsewhere and although some states or jurisdictions have demonstrated a strong commitment, there has been insufficient effort to foster adequate in- service training for police. Part of the inadequacy may result from ttle facts thal there are no federal guideline (only recommendations) and that the funding at the federal level is a bit fickle, shifting with the hot issues leg_ Currently, monies are being funneled into drug related areas.] (B. Nardi, personal communication, September 12, 1986).

Availability and Expense In the above section, it was stated that

the Pennsylvania survey found no commonaJity among the states regarding regulations on in-service training. Actually, this is not quite lhe Iruth; there was one point of concurrence. All of the stales

In-~er ~'i~-~ Trainin~ 22

wanted more in-service training than is currently available to them (B. Nardi, personal communication, September 12, 1986). The needs in in-service are obvious to everyone involved, but the efficient implementation of such programs is fraught with problems of all kinds.

As one examines the variety of difficulties facing in-service training, there are two issues that surface repeatedly: funding and "manpower" shortages. In most cases, the bottom line becomes in-service training cannot be offered, or at least not at lhe level needed, because of insufficient funds and/or an inability to spare the officer- hours (Dunignan, 1981; B. Nardi, personat communication, September 12, 1986). The larger departments can work around these issues. They can afford to maintain a training staff and can more easily cover for off icers at training, but the larger departments do not necessarily represent most of the police officers in a given state or nationally. Pennsylvania serves as a very good example of this. It has a population of 11,000,000 people who are serviced by 1400 police departments, but of these 1400 departments, 730 consist of five members or less (B. Nardi, personal communication, September 12, 1986). Illinois is in a similar situation as 41 percent of the municipalities have departments of ten or fewer officers (Training Aids Digest, 1983). What are the smaller and mid-sized departments to do, not train their people?

A possible solution lies in the states taking the initiative, but the implementation and operation of comprehensive in service programs at 1he state level is quite expensive and extremely hard to administer. Also, this solution may not actuatly alleviate

the small and mid-sized departments' problems. Who is to cover the expense of

travel and room and board for officers to attend state run facilities? And, how do the departments cover for officers attending training for what may now be even longer time periods?

One reasonable alternative seems to be decentral ized or regional training with central ized control (Dunignan, 1981; Chilimidos, 1980; Training Aids Digest, 1983). Such a format would disperse the expense while reducing travel and down time. It also seems to constitute a reasonable compromise to the desire for training at the homesite, as expressed by 83.6% of the officers responding to a recent survey (Koleas, 1984). Another advantage of this approach is that it would provide the opportunity for attracting more and a wider variety of qualified training personnel.

Decentralization, however, is not a panacea. It creates a scenario in which it becomes very difficult 1o monitor quality, keep records, and maintain consistency in course offerings and presentations. It can be done though, as evidenced by the regional mobile training teams system operating in Illinois (Bennett, 1980; Training Aids Digest, 1983).

To compound the problem, the history of in-service training has been marred by sporadic funding, which greatly minimizes the posit ive effect of any program (Higginbotham, 1980). Consequently, when planning programs and allocating funds, one must look hard and long at the problems to be addressed and the training to be offered. Training may not be the answer to every problem, and it must be determined if the officer's down time and the funds invested are netting sufficient gains (Dunignan, 1981 ).

2 ] R~ndy Mart in

IIII

Nature of Programs and Sources o! instruction

The next big issues, once funding and and control have been addressed, are what types of programs should be offered and who should instruct them.

Content and Structure As has been the case in other

dimensions of law enforcement in-service training, here again one finds a state of general disarray and nonuniformity, both across and within states. Many states leave program development to the individual jurisdictions, while occasionally mandating select programs_ The structure and specific content of these mandated programs is most often poorly outlined or totally unspecified. Other states approve program proposals at the state level, but those approved are typically available only in the immediale area from whence the proposal comes.

D iso rgan ized and uncon t ro l l ed situations are ripe with problems. An example of such a problem was related by police oflicers in one mideastern state. It seems that one of the colleges in the state system became highly involved in the state's mandatory in-service training movement, but the programs offered turned out to be little more than a "weekend out with the gang". You pay your money, drink coffee, eat donuts, get a certificate which satisfies the state, and go home. Upon first assessment, it seemed that this was okay with the officers, but after furtl~er discussion, it turned out that they really did prefer a chance to make the time spent in in-service worthwhile. They had just come to expect very little from in-service programs.

So, it does seem that police officers for the most part share t;qe beliet often expressed in the literature that proper in-

service can increase their ability to do their jobs (Higginbotham, 1980). if this is the case, then it is imperative that a formal ongoing process be established (Dunignan, 1981). The current chaos which reigns in many states is counterproductive, and no one's real needs are being met.

This last point brings us to another essential element of any in-service program that is to be effective: periodic need assessment (Dunignan, 1981). Aside from the obvious value such assessments provide, they speak to another important area of concern. It has been observed that we may sometimes be too quick to train and that, in the rush to do something, we lose sight of the problem. Sample (1983) estimated tb.at 20% of performance probIems require training while the other 80% are the result of inadequate supervision. One may not agree with these estimates, but the point is well taken. There is no need to fix something that is no1 broken, especiaily when there are inevitably things that are in need of repair or maintenance and resources are very finite.

In terms of content, it seems feasible that the question of inadequate supervision may be particularly applicable to the more strictly procedural aspects of performance, even though training obviously plays an important role in updating laws and procedures. It appears less likely that supervision problems would account for nonprocedural performance deficits. More specifically, we are referring to areas such as a t t i tudes toward the publ ic, n o n a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o r con t ro l , interpersonal ski)Is, community relations, stress and crisis management, etc.

When one peruses the literature and talks with law enforcement personnel, these are the types of programs that seem to have

l .~e , ' v ice T,';dai.g 2.4

been severely neglected. In a recent article, i1 was reported, in reference to preservice training, that an average of only 26 hours are allocated nationally to "human relations" courses, in basic training programs which average 351.25 total hours. This amounts to a mere 7.7% of the total basic training required (Das, 1984). Starting from what certainly must be interpreted as a serious deficit, an officer would seem to require a considerable amount of support training to perform at adequate and efficient levels in "human relations" tasks. Currently, this support is not there. In the late sixties and early seventies, considerable effort was directed toward community retations type programs, but that effort has dwindled, to the detriment of law enforcement (Kusunoki and Rivera, 1985).

This is not to imply that no such programs exist and that no jurisdictions are involved in sufficient and quality "human relations" training, but these are the exception rather than the rule. There are many deficiencies in the current in-service situation, but this may very well constitute the most serious void.

Instruction: The role of Non Law Enforcement Personnel

Non law enforcement personnel have played a significant role n preservice training, especially since the move to community col leges in the t970 's (Seitzinger, 1980). In 1980 California had 27 academies in operation which were aff i l iated with 25 different colleges (Chilimidos, 1980), and in Pennsylvania's basic training guidelines, 21 schools are certified to offer courses (B. Nardi, personal communication, September 12, 1986). However, little has been done to develop the role of non law enforcement personnel in in-service training.

Higginbotham (1980) stated that a combination of in and out of house instructors is needed for effective in-service. Although he did not specify what was meant by out of house, it certainIy could include those outside of law enforcement. Tannehill (1980) argued that the essential role of im service is to reinforce and reestablish positive attitudes of the police through behavioral science type courses, and one could reasonably assume that these would (should) be taught by those trained in behavioral sciences.

An advocacy of the use of non taw enforcement personnel is not a call for the replacement of qualified law enforcement instructors but should be seen as an attempt to supplement such training. (We do not want to add to the situation created with the exodus to the community colleges, when departments failed to develop their own role in training.) There are many areas of training in which the instructor must be a police officer, but there are also areas, such as those discussed above and in the literature under "human relations" (see Kusunoki and Rivera, 1985; GeTter, 1985; Das, 1984; Professional New Capsules, 1986), that could be best presented by non law enforcement professionals.

Utilization of more non law enforcement personneJ may also help combat a concern expressed by many police officers and explicated by Sertzinger (1980), the poor quality of training sometimes offered by academy staffs and in-house training oificers. It is obviously true that these people can and do perform their instructional duties well overall, but when one gets too far outside of one's area of expertise or when individual officers are overexposed to the same instructors, the potential for less effective teaching and

2S Rand~ Marlin

II1�9 �9 II

learning increases. Another way in which the use of,

especially local, non law enforcement instructors can be beneficial is in defraying some o! the cost incurred for travel, down time, overtime, etc. It may even be the case that some of these people would be willing to offer their services free of charge or at least at very reasonable rates.

Non law enforcement people, especially academicians with research backgrounds, could also provide an invaluable service in the form of controlled evaluations of ongoing programs. Evaluation is a major issue with impl icat ions for needs assessment, funding, officer capabilities, and program effectiveness. Unfortunately, the literature is virtually barren of such efforts Long term studies employing diverse measures have rarely been done, but they are vital for proper in-service program development and implementation (Higginbotham, 1980).

Conclusions In-service training for law enforcement

personnel is an important and serious concern which entails a variety of issues and poses many questions. The current state of affairs is one of nonuniformity and mass confusion, and it is true that to make sense out of all of it and to establish efficient programs is a monumental task. It is likewise true that in-service is not the answer to every problem lacing law enforcement, but there is cons[derabIe evidence that performance can be improved through quality training (Higginbotham, 1980).

There currently exists a strong need for advanced and specialized training (Koleas, 1984), and when it is not availabJe, officers are forced to develop their own methods for

coping with problems on the job (Higginbotham, 1980). As Kusunoki and Rivera (1985) put it, there is a lot more than adherence to standard operating procedure to the motto "protect and serve". In the literature, there does seem to be a movement developing to expand the nature of officer training, especially in "human relations". One effective way to do this is through in-service training programs. In fact Higginbotham (1980) went so far so to say that in-service gives the training function its fullest meaning. But, no training supports itsetf and unsupported learning dies (Sample, 1983).

The bottom line remains that political officials are going to have to make a real commitme~t, which means providing the funding and otlqer means of support necessary to establish and maintain qua]ity programs. Jhis commitment must start at the state level as many jurisdictions cannot shoulder lhe burden alone, no matter how much ttley might want it. The states will have to work, possibly together, to develop effective ways to administer and monitor the programs in the most cost effective manner possible, so as to avoid the budget axe when it falls. In order to accomplish this, a wider range of resources must be drawn upon than has historically been the case. In particular, much effort must be devoted to expanding the role of nor~ law enforcement personnel~ We must also strive to foster an attitude of acceptance and cooperation among law enforcement personnel at all levels. Forced compliance with in-service mandates is not feasible or desirable, and fortunately, it seems that the time is ripe, as the attitudes encountered by the author were for the most part quite favorable toward and supportive of rneaningtul in- service training.

Jn-s,..r~'i~e 's 26

I I

if in-service training problems are not corrected, il is not just the officers themselves and their families who will pay the price. There has been a rash of

litigation concerning failure to train police adequately, and when the keepers of the peace are not afforded some peace of mind, society as a whole suffers.

APPENDIX Twenty-one states reported having mandatory in-service training in a recent survey

conducted by the Pennsylvania Municipal Officer Education and Training Commission:

Arizona Minnesota California New Mexico Conneticut North Dakota Georgia Tennessee Florida Vermont Illinois Utah Kansas Virginia Kentucky West Virgi nia Maine Wisconsin Maryland Wyoming Massachu settes

(B. Nardi, personal communication, September 12, 1986)

Author Notes I would like to thank all of the police officers who shared their thoughts and feelings with me.

Special thanks go to Fred Wegener for his valuabTe input, and to Mr. Bob Nardi from the Penn- sylvania Municipal Officers Education and Training Commission. He provided information that I could have gotten no where else. AJso, thanks to my graduate assistant Christina Bruno for her library work and typing.

Z7 Raady Martin

References

Babble, E. (1986). The Practice of Social Research: fourth edition. Belmont, California: Wadsworlh Publishing Company.

Bailey, K.D. (1982). Methods of SocialResearch. second edition. New York: The Free Press. Bennett, J.W. (1980). "Regional in service training". Police Chief. 47:7, 30-31_ Best, J.W. (1981) Research in Education. Englewood cliffs, New Jersey': Prentice-Half. Chilimido$, R. [1980). "Regional training: A concept worthy of consideration" Police Chief

47:12, 38-41. Das, D.K. (1984). "Some issues in state-mandaled police human relations training".Joumal

of Police Science and Administration, 12:4, 412-424. Dunignan, J.F. (1981). "Decentralized in service training wilhin large departments". Police

Chief, 48: 7, 39-41. Golfer, W. (1985) "Fifteen shooting reduction techniques: Controfling the use of d~ad]y force

by and against police". Police Chief, 52:8, 56-58. Higgirtbotham, C. (1980)_ "In-service training". Police Chief, 47:9, 16p19. Ko]eas, J.W. (1984). "High risk incident management: implications tot police training".

Police Chzef, 51:10, 38-40 Kusunoki, G.I. and Rivera, H.H. (1985). "The need for human relations training in law enforce-

ment". Police Chief, 52:7, 32-36. Staff. (1983, June). "illinois establishes state wide mobile in-service ~,raining teams for local

police agencies" Training Aids Digest. Staff. (1986, January). "Public/private cooperative efforl provides emergency management

training". Professional News Copsutes. Sample, J.A. (1983). "Police performance problems: Are they training or supervision issues?"

Police Chief. 50:10, 56-58. Seitzinger, J. (1980). "Police training increasing productivity in 1he 80's." Police Chiel, 47:9,

20-21. Tannehill, R. L. (1980). "Continuing educalion a means for police to develop and retain positive

and tolerant attitudes toward people". Police Chief, 47:11,46-47.

[n~,rx'ice Tralnin~ 28