POLICE PERSONNEL ISSUES
"If everyone is a policeman, then no one is a policeman" (Karl Marx)

    The whole area of police selection, which includes recruitment, screening, and training, is rife with a number of controversies. Gaines & Kappeler (2003) have attempted a theory of police selection based on the concepts of "screening-out" mechanisms and "screening-in" mechanisms. Another possible theoretical distinction can be made between the concepts of "standards" and "tests", and there are even more distinctions that can be made between the concepts of "talents" and "skills" which I think can even be related to the "education" versus "training" debate.  Let's start by looking at the terms:

    Although some are examples of both sides of the above table, most of the selection standards are examples of one kind or the other. Let's take a look at some:

• Citizenship -- this is essentially a remnant of old loyalty oath that used to be required (and still is) for various positions related to national security. Although a small number of departments are experimenting with the hiring of immigrants and resident aliens, there still exists a prejudice (I would call it) against police applicants who are not native-born American citizens. (Click here if you would like to learn about the U.S. immigration visa system)
• Residency -- this is another remnant (as your book says) of the political spoils system. It requires applicants to be from (and live in) the same town as which they are applying for a job. It's a ridiculously old requirement that goes back to when political party officials used to dole out police jobs to the constitutencies in their neighborhoods.
• Age -- 21 is the average minimum age, but there are lot of departments with lower minimums, as low as 18 or 19 in some cases. Departments also have upper age limits (age 37, 45, 50, or 57 are the most common). You may wonder why this isn't age discrimination (click here if you want to learn about age discrimination) and the answer is that when Congress passed the 1967 Age Discrimination Act, they made a public safety exception for police agencies. There's some evidence to suggest that hiring young people results in hiring more "shooters", but there's also strong opinion to preserve the "twenty years and out" early retirement pattern of a police career. The upper age limit is also phasing out (except for the feds who maintain a rigid 57 cutoff) as more and more departments make allowances for being in the military, college, or previous experience.
• Height -- Until 1900, it was 6 foot tall, a remnant of Peel's idea that police ought to be omnipresent. The courts have struck down most of the requirements in this area, but there's still some controversy over women in policing and the height requirement (5'6" is common), so many departments use the phrase "height proportional to weight" with charts that go up to 240 pounds, but you'd have to be a pretty tall woman to qualify at this weight. Short, overweight females have little chance to become police officers.
• Vision -- There's strong opinion that only 20/20 (uncorrected) need apply, but some departments have a 20/40 (correctable) standard and still others a 20/45 (correctable). Contact lenses are usually looked down on despite evidence that dislodging is so infrequent to not be a concern. Depth perception, color and night blindness are more important concerns.
• Education -- We'll talk about this in class or in later lectures, but the essential concept here is the idea of bona fide occupational qualification which requires showing if something is job-related or not.
• Medical exam -- Some departments still discriminate on account of having VD or other neurological defects or diseases. Disabled people can apply and the department must make "reasonable accomodations" if they can, but only a select group of disabilities merit exclusive protection via the ADA of 1990 (epilepsy, cancer, diabetes, speech & hearing impairments).
• Fitness - There's different standards for women and the traditional agility tests are starting to be supplemented by normative health tests (% body fat, e.g.) Please read and look at this document -- it has a table you should pay special attention to.
• Drug history -- Most departments (about 75%) have a "zero tolerance" policy where it isn't even safe to have inhaled. Others have a "relatively free" policy, a "not recent" policy (3 years is common), and still others have a "as a juvenile only" policy.
• Psychological exam -- this is a practice that came to replace IQ testing (the change came about when the IQ standard was 80). Current exams include the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic), the CPI (California), the TJTA (Taylor-Johnson Temperament), and IPI (Inwald), and the issue is whether or not the test has any "predictive validity" as an alpha coefficient of 69% is expected for tests of this kind.
• Written exam -- these are proficiency exams sometimes used to establish eligibility lists and more often found as promotional tests. They are the kinds of things you might use an Arco study guide to prepare for.
• Criminal History -- an initial check is probably done early on, but a full check, including a background check and credit history, would be one of the final hurdles.

    So, what is it we want in police officers? The President's Commission (LEAA-LEEP) and others like the National Advisory Commission on Standards and Goals have most extensively studied this question. Here's some recurring themes:

• sensitivity -- a trait or presumably a teachable skill to not be bigoted or prejudiced at least, certainly not to trample inconsiderately on what people different from you might consider to be of value or important. Sensitivity training programs are difficult to teach.
• honesty -- a rigorous adherence to truth, no "white lies", no dishonesty for all the right reasons. Ethics training is difficult to accomplish.
• judgment -- good judgment, quick decision-making skills. Police training actually accomplishes this somewhat well due to models such as the "shoot, don't shoot" scenario.
• initiative -- a tendency to do things on your own without thought of receiving credit, praise, or because it's required; going beyond what is minimally required.
• persuasiveness -- a command voice, the ability to move people around and get them to do things with the sound of your voice and the words you use.
• reliability -- showing up for work on time and every day.

RETIREMENT

    Police retirement is an important personnel issue.  By the year 2010, somewhere around 30% of the law enforcement profession are expected to retire, and the ranks are not being filled fast enough to replace these officers.  Retirement is difficult for police officers because they retire in middle age.  Some officers leave after 20-25 years of service to find new opportunities; others because of job stress, dissatisfaction, administrative problems, or discipline. Then there are those who stay because they like police work and cannot envision themselves doing anything else, while others stay because of financial burdens, comfort and security, fear of starting over, or because they have nothing else to do.

    The transition from public servant to private citizen can be difficult. Most retirement plans provide at least a 50-percent pay plan for any significant number of years of service.  However, during retirement, income can be scarce.  Few have carefully planned their retirement in terms of income.  About 25% enter some kind of private security work after retirement.  It would be helpful if they pursued some kind of higher education while they were working to prepare for a future career.  To further understand how a police retirement system works, we shall examine the California Public Employee's Retirement System, also known as the 3% @ 50 rule, which is a perfect example of a modern system.  The average police officer in California retires at age 50 with 18 years of service, but it is possible to retire with more or less years of service.  The basic formula is as follows, and comes from the chart:

18 years of service x 3% = 54% of salary

INTERNET RESOURCES
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Restricted Political Activities of Police Officers

PRINTED RESOURCES
Cordner, G. & D. Kenney. (1996). Managing Police Personnel. Cincinnati: Anderson.
Gaines, L. & V. Kappeler. (2003). Policing in America. Cincinnati: Anderson.

Last updated: 05/06/04
Syllabus for JUS 205
Instructor Home Page