Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Arguments about police training and counseling

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Criminal Justice Banner Gray.png
Police hiring, training, and discipline
Criminal Justice Icon 200x200.png
• Police collective bargaining agreements (CBAs)
• Ballotpedia CBA dashboard
•Reform proposals
•CBA areas of inquiry and disagreement
•Arguments about police collective bargaining
• Index of articles about criminal justice policy
Click here for more analysis of police hiring, training, and disciplinary requirements by state and city on Ballotpedia


See also: Arguments related to policing and police collective bargaining agreements (CBAs)

This page tracks arguments about police training and counseling. Information about this topic areas in relation to police CBAs in the 50 states and 100 largest U.S. cities by population can be found on Ballotpedia's Police CBA Dashboard.

This page tracks the following arguments about police training and counseling:

Arguments supporting calls to increase or amend police officer training and counseling standards

Argument: Current police training models are ineffective at reducing crime and disorder

This argument states that current models and practices that are taught and used in everyday policing do not work to reduce crime and disorder in communities. The strategies that police officers are primarily trained in are ineffective and need to be improved.

  • Professors David Weisburd and John E. Eck wrote, “One of the most striking observations in our review is the relatively weak evidence there is in support of the standard model of policing—defined as low on both of our dimensions of innovation. While this approach remains in many police agencies the dominant model for combating crime and disorder, we find little empirical evidence for the position that generally applied tactics that are based primarily on the law enforcement powers of the police are effective. Whether the strategy examined was generalized preventive patrol, efforts to reduce response time to citizen calls, increases in numbers of police officers, or the introduction of generalized follow-up investigations or undifferentiated intensive enforcement activities, studies fail to show consistent or meaningful crime or disorder prevention benefits or evidence of reductions in citizen fear of crime.”[1]
  • Weisburd and Eck continued, “Police practice has been centered on standard strategies that rely primarily on the coercive powers of the police. There is little evidence to suggest that this standard model of policing will lead to communities that feel and are safer. While police agencies may support such approaches for other reasons, there is not consistent scientific evidence that such tactics lead to crime or disorder control or to reductions in fear. In contrast, research evidence does support continued investment in police innovations that call for greater focus and tailoring of police efforts and for the expansion of the toolbox of policing beyond simple law enforcement.”[1]

Argument: Police need more basic training to do their jobs effectively

This argument states that police officers do not receive enough basic training before entering the police force. Proponents of this argument posit that police officers need to log more hours of basic training in order to be adequately equipped for their role.

  • Professors Janne E. Gaub, Michael D. White, and Aili Malm wrote that police departments do not offer adequate training on body-worn cameras (BWCs) arguing, “While the research surrounding BWCs has grown exponentially in the past five years, there has been virtually no emphasis on training. This is a notable oversight given that effective training is imperative for a successful BWC program.”[2]
  • Professor Michael D. White wrote, “Rookie officers who leave the academy ill prepared for the realities of police work are at greater risk of performing poorly during the initial weeks and months on the street, even if under the guidance of a field training sergeant. Poor performance among new officers has potential negative implications for police-community relations, civil liability, and the department’s impact on crime. Alternatively, recruits who are better prepared for police work seem more likely to take initiative and engage in positive behavior, earning the respect of the community, coworkers and supervisors.”[3]
  • Scholars George Wood, Tom R. Tyler, and Andrew V. Papachristos argued, “This study demonstrates the viability of one such model based upon officer training. The results indicate that training changes actual police behavior in desired ways while officers are in the field. Our findings are bolstered by the three separate outcome measures, which include complaints against police officers, complaints that were sustained or resulted in a settlement payout, and mandatory use of force reports filed by officers. Training reduced complaints against police, reduced demonstrated violations of legal or procedural rules, and reduced the frequency with which officers resorted to the use of force during interactions with civilians.”[4]

Claim: Police receive inadequate training regarding stress management

This claim states that police officers do not receive proper training on how to manage a high-stress work environment and regulate their emotional responses.

  • Researchers George T. Patterson, Irene W. Chung, and Philip G. Swan argued for the importance of incorporating stress management interventions into law enforcement training and analyzed the effectiveness of different types of interventions. The authors wrote, “Because police officers are first responders to potentially stressful situations, their ability to successfully manage stress is critical not only to their own mental health but to the safety of society as a whole.”[5]
  • Scholars Daniel M. Blumberg, Michael D. Schlosser, Konstantinos Papazoglou, Sarah Creighton, and Chief Chuck Kaye argued, “Therefore, it is essential for recruits in the academy to learn how to regulate their emotions in the myriad situations that they are likely to encounter on the job and, more broadly, for the academy experience to increase recruits’ level of emotional intelligence. Integrally linked to this, law enforcement agencies must ensure that academy training teaches recruits evidence-based techniques to successfully manage routine and traumatic stressors.”[6]
  • Blumberg et al. continued, “[R]egardless of the possible health benefits and restorative effects of spiritual practices for police officers’ wellness, it also was found that ethical decision-making in the workplace is related to employee spirituality. Therefore, to facilitate the training of ethical police officers, academies should consider ways to bolster recruits’ spirituality.”[6]
  • The Council on Criminal Justice argued for the promotion of trauma-informed policing and wrote, “Officers who are trained to identify and address trauma in the community, and who have a heightened awareness of their own exposure to stress and trauma and seek help as needed, are better equipped to police in an equitable and respectful manner.”[7]

Claim: Police officers are not adequately trained to address situations involving mental illness

This claim states that current training to address encounters with civilians in mental health crises is inadequate. Proponents of this claim argue that more training would better equip officers to handle calls that concern individuals with mental illness instead of potentially utilizing unnecessary use-of-force.

  • Professors Judy Hails and Randy Borum wrote about police responses to people with mental illnesses (PwMI) arguing, “Police are frequently called to respond to situations involving PwMI in crisis. Police departments, therefore, are required to provide officers with adequate training and to develop reasonable policies and procedures to respond to these calls.” The authors continued, “What we do know, however, is the following: that the time allotted [to training for responding to individuals with mental illnesses] seems limited - falling considerably below the 16 hours recommended in the model curriculum recommended by the Police Executive Research Forum (Police Executive Research Forum, 1997); that some of the agencies responding to the query (14 agencies did not quantify training hours) provided little to no training on the topic; and that only a portion of that time in many instances is actually devoted to mental illness.”[8]
  • Professor John LM McDaniel argued, “Crucially, the prevailing attitudes towards mental health have resulted in the creation and maintenance of an inadequate training regime around mental health awareness and response.”[9]

Argument: Police do not need more training, but rather a better use of the time already spent in training

This argument states that police officers spend an appropriate amount of time in basic training; however, the content that makes up that training should be altered. This focuses less on police officers spending more or fewer hours in training and instead highlights how those hours should be reallocated to focus more on certain topics.

  • Professors John J. Sloan III and Eugene A. Paoline III argued, “[P]olice recruits do not appear to need more hours of basic training. We found that the overall length of pre-service training ranged from an average of roughly 653 hours or 16 weeks for state POST academies to 949 hours or 24 weeks for municipal police academies. These totals far exceed the 400-hour aspirations of the President’s Commission (1967) or the average of 633 contact hours reported by Frost and Seng (1984) for 28 academies. In this sense Vollmer’s (1936) calls to extensively train of police recruits have been both heard and answered.”[10]
  • Sloan and Paoline continued, “[W]e are not suggesting that topics such as patrol tactics and procedures, criminal investigations, and use of force should no longer be included in pre-service basic law enforcement training. However, when one assesses the proportion of time allocated to these traditional policing functions - compared to training hours in areas such as communication, cultural diversity, ethics and professionalism, and stress management - the scales clearly tip in the direction of the former… such glaring imbalance is not addressed simply by adding more hours to an already crowded curriculum. Instead, what is needed is adjusting the allocation of existing hours of training that prioritizes topics relating to guardian-style policing.”[10]
  • Blumberg et al. argued, “[T]he focus is on the ways in which police academies can infuse training with these psychological skills, which recruits need in order to meet the challenges faced by today’s police officers. For convenience and clarity, these skills will be separated into four groups: cognitive, emotional, social, and moral.”[6]

Claim: Police need basic training on legal matters and laws

This claim states that police officers will be better behaved and make more appropriate decisions if they receive education and training on the laws they are enforcing.

  • Law professor Yuri R. Linetsky argued, “[T]he legal training received by police officers is inadequate. An empirical analysis of training requirements in state police academies shows that the number of hours devoted to legal topics is, on average, surprisingly low: about 12% of total academy hours. Most academies devote many of those hours to the state’s statutory and traffic laws, rather than to teaching legal theory, application, and limitations of the law. An increase in the amount and quality of legal training will better equip law-enforcement officers to deal appropriately with the citizens they encounter and improve the state of American policing and police-community relations.”[11]
  • Professors Jon B. Gould and Stephen D. Mastrofski wrote, “Although case law defines the scope of rights to which citizens are entitled, both scholars and courts recognize that law on the books is not ‘what law is’ (Brigham, 1996:6), and that police are known to deviate from extant constitutional law while carrying out their jobs (Skolnik, 1994). These deviations portend serious consequences for citizens and officers alike. Representing a gap between what law promises in theory and what the state delivers in practice, police misbehavior undermines citizens’ confidence in the legal system and reduces their inclination to obey laws and support government authorities.”[12]

Argument: Current police department approaches to training officers are ineffective

This argument states that the current models and strategies used to train police officers are ineffective and should be changed. This focuses on the training methodologies utilized by departments and the overall mindset of recruit training. This argument also highlights ways that training could be improved to better equip police officers to do their jobs effectively.

  • Professor Michael L. Birzer wrote, “The theme of this discourse will present the notion that the majority of police subjects in the recruit and in-service training curriculum should be taught utilizing adult education methodologies rather than behavioral techniques which are currently utilized in a fair number of police academies.”[13]
  • Birzer continued, “It is beneficial to make the training of police officers as experiential, interactive and participatory as possible. For example, a fair amount of law enforcement training could include simulation exercises and problem-solving activities that help develop communication and language skills.”[13]
  • Blumberg et al. argued, “Police academies need to improve the way in which they develop recruits’ independent, critical thinking. To impart and strengthen the four cognitive skills, academies need to find a way to reduce the didactic, micromanagement of recruits (i.e., telling them exactly what to do at all times) and increase opportunities for recruits’ autonomous decision-making.”[6]
  • Blumberg et al. continued, “Recruits should be treated in ways in which police agencies expect their officers to interact with members of the community. To learn how to show sensitivity and concern for others, recruits need to experience how it feels to be treated with sensitivity and concern, which in no way detracts from learning how to maintain officer safety.”[6]
  • Professors Sandra M. Bucerius, Temitope B. Oriola, and Daniel J. Jones argued, “[W]e believe policing needs an even more substantial change by providing a public health lens to policing and crime. This would not only change the way police are trained and respond to incidents, but also avoid that George Floyd’s death will just be yet another incident that goes down in the annals of policing as a tragic misstep, without leading to sustained and drastic change.”[14]

Claim: Improved training and policies would prevent use of force incidents and fatal police encounters

This claim states that police departments need to incorporate new training methods and improve policies that focus on preventing use of force incidents and fatal police encounters. Proponents of this claim argue that many existing training programs and policies do not highlight best practices for eliminating these types of incidents.

  • Researchers Paul L. Taylor, Paul Sipe, and Lon Bartel argued, “If perception-response times have not been taken into consideration, officers could find themselves in positions in which they have no time to re-holster their firearms and/or transition to lesser levels of force. Human factors such as perception-response times should be taken into consideration as officers and departments develop and employ tactics that are more resilient to inevitable human fallibility (e.g., Taylor, 2020).”[15]
  • Scholars Robin S. Engel, Hannah D. McManus, and Gabrielle T. Isaza argued, “In post-Ferguson America, police departments are being challenged to implement evidence-based changes in policies and training to reduce fatal police-citizen encounters. Of the litany of recommendations believed to reduce police shootings, five have garnered widespread support: body-worn cameras, de-escalation training, implicit bias training, early intervention systems, and civilian oversight. These highly endorsed interventions, however, are not supported by a strong body of empirical evidence that demonstrates their effectiveness. Guided by the available research on evidence-based policing and informed by the firsthand experience of one of the authors in implementing departmental reforms that followed the fatal shooting of a civilian by an officer, this article highlights promising reform strategies and opportunities to build the evidence base for effective use-of-force reforms. We call upon police executives to engage in evidence-based policing by scientifically testing interventions, and we call on academics to engage in rapid research responses for critical issues in policing.”[16]
  • Professors Judith P. Anderson and Harri Gustafsberg argued, “Based on prior research, the current training method was developed specifically to improve police use of force decision making during critical incidents. This training method is called the ‘international performance resilience and efficiency program’ (iPREP). The iPREP method is based on empirical research detailing the psychological and physiological factors that are theorized to most strongly influence use of force outcomes. Specifically, the psychological perception and anticipation of threat, and the associated physiological SNS arousal that, if left unchecked, would result in sensory, motor, and cognitive deficits during critical incidents.”[17]
  • Anderson and Gustafsberg continued, “This finding highlights an important issue - officers may be inaccurately confident in their tactical skills to correctly manage a life or death situation, and rightly so; all participants in this study were shown to have high levels of equivalent tactical skills at baseline in low stress scenarios. However, when faced with a highly threatening realistic scenario, an individual may not account for the perceptual deterioration associated with high stress arousal, which negatively affects their ability to perform tactical maneuvers. These findings highlight the benefit of advancing police tactical training by incorporating principles of psychological and physiological control during stress.”[17]
  • When discussing the Human Factors Analysis and Classification Framework (HFACS) as a better method for investigating fatal police shootings, professors Paul McFarlane and Amaria Amin wrote: “The HFACS framework has been used successfully in many other high-risk industries. HFACS prevents human actions, human factors and human errors being considered in isolation. This approach is useful because critical human decision-making processes used by police officers are influenced by information, procedures and interactions at all levels of the policing system (Burrows, 2007). When attempting to understand the underlying contributory human factors and errors, it is essential to search across all system levels. This systematic approach is essential because (like aviation or medicine) policing is a complex system, where the underlying contextual factors must be considered in conjunction with surface-level decisions and errors to obtain a clear picture of how a failure occurred.”[18]
  • Professor Laurie O. Robinson argued, “Getting rank-and-file officers on board is key to implementing, and institutionalizing, reforms that can limit unnecessary police shootings. But while many police leaders across the country are embracing change, there has been resistance at the front lines. The years since Ferguson have been hard for police officers. They have taken a toll. A 2016 Pew Research Center survey of police in the United States found that in the post-Ferguson era, more than three-quarters felt more reluctant to use force when appropriate, and fully 93 percent were more concerned for their safety (Morin et al. 2017). And a recent set of focus groups with officers in Baltimore, where the department has been under a federal consent decree, reflects similar themes. Participants cited multiple factors contributing to low morale, including uncertainty about how to operate under new use-of-force rules. They also reported not feeling valued or listened to by leadership (Crime and Justice Institute 2019). That theme also emerged from a session held by the COPS Office with frontline officers several years ago to solicit reactions to the White House Task Force report. ‘If they had a rank-and-file meeting three years ago,’ one attendee asserted, ‘this report wouldn’t have been necessary’ (Copple and Erb 2016, 11). It is therefore important to find ways to engage with, and listen to, rank-and-file officers and police unions and to identify areas of mutual concern. Officer safety and wellness is one such area. Here Klinger’s (this volume) observations are relevant—that the ‘normal accident’ literature can be helpful in better understanding and reducing not just violence by officers, but also violence by citizens against the police.”[19]

Argument: Training police officers how to manage implicit bias will reduce stereotyping

This argument states that incorporating implicit bias training into the training that police officers receive will better equip them for making decisions on the job and will help them avoid the risk of stereotyping. Implicit bias training instructs individuals on how to identify personal biases and change their behavior accordingly.

  • In scholar Marvin Whitfield’s dissertation he argued, “Successfully training police officers how to manage implicit bias during the decision-making process will reduce the potential for stereotyping.” Whitfield continued, “The results of this study indicated that implicit-bias training provided participants with the ability to recognize their biases and modify their behavior before these biases negatively impacted their decision-making.”[20]
  • Scholars Katherine B. Spencer, Amanda K. Charbonneau, and Jack Glaser argued, “[F]or officers, intergroup contact occurring as part of training or other department-sanctioned requirements with the clear support of supervisors may be most effective at reducing racial bias. Intergroup contact opportunities could come through partnering arrangements as well as the promotion of community-oriented policing practices (Gill, Weisburd, Telep, Vitter, & Bennett, 2014) that encourage positive interactions with members of the community.”[21]

Argument: De-escalation training improves police-community relations and reduces use of force incidents

This argument states that training police officers on de-escalation techniques will decrease use of force incidents by providing police officers with alternative strategies for responding to calls where force may be used. Proponents of this argument also claim that the use of de-escalation strategies and a reduction in use of force incidents will improve relations between communities and the police.

  • Researchers Robin S. Engel, Hannah D. McManus, and Tamara D. Herold argued, “[A] general sentiment is emerging across the country that meaningful reforms in policing are desperately needed to protect both officers and the citizens they serve. One of the most prominent recommendations for police organizational reform is the incorporation of use of force de-escalation policies and training. With the possible exception of implicit bias training, no other training is more often demanded by policy makers, politicians, police executives, academics, civil rights activists, and citizens than de-escalation training for police.”[22]
  • Engel, McManus, and Herold continued, “As it stands, de-escalation training is a promising practice; that is, a well-intended police reform whose consequences are largely unknown. While there are value-based and theoretical reasons to support de-escalation training, these are not solid empirical reasons. Based on accumulating anecdotes, professional expertise, and the limited, though generally positive trends identified in this systematic review across disciplines, we are confident that de-escalation training offers another valuable tool for individuals responding to incidents of crisis, aggression, or violence. However, recommendations that de-escalation must be used as a primary tool should await additional evidence regarding its effectiveness and any unintended consequences that may impact officer and public safety.”[22]
  • Engel, McManus, and Herold continued, “Many law enforcement leaders supporting the adoption of de-escalation training espouse that slowing down situations, using time, distance and cover, along with other de-escalation techniques, can help resolve police-citizen encounters with less frequent and severe uses of force, and that the tactics increase officer safety. De-escalation techniques are now widely embraced by many police executives leading the nation’s largest policing agencies (Domanick, 2017; Jackman, 2017a; 2017b). Politicians, policy makers, academics, and concerned citizens often join the choir of support, demanding the adoption of de-escalation training within local police agencies, particularly after controversial police uses of force. … Despite widespread support, the adoption of de-escalation policies and training remains highly controversial in the vacuum of evidence concerning officer safety.”[22]

Argument: More training on technology, such as tasers, leads to fewer fatal incidents

This argument states using more technology in policing, such as conductive energy devices (stun guns or tasers), will lead to a decrease in fatal police encounters. Proponents of this argument posit that the implementation of conductive energy devices provides police officers with an alternative method of force that is less likely to cause injuries and fatalities.

  • Professors Geoffrey P. Alpert and Roger G. Dunham argued, “[T]he CED [conductive energy devices] can reduce injuries to officers and suspects. Furthermore, while any use of force has its potential problems, this one seems to be reasonable when used against certain suspects in many situations. When left uncontrolled, any use of force can be dangerous, but when managed in a system that includes strong policy, training, supervision and accountability, the use of a CED can be a great asset to the police and the community by more effectively reaching the goal of using the least amount of force necessary to control unruly suspects, while minimizing injuries to officers and suspects.”[23]

Arguments opposing calls to increase or amend police officer training and counseling standards

Argument: Implicit bias training does not have lasting effects on police behavior on its own; it is a useful step, but does not solve the whole problem of racial disparities in policing

This argument states that implicit bias training will not have a significant or lasting impact on police behavior when used alone. Proponents of this argument claim that police departments will see more promising results when implicit bias training is used as a step and is incorporated alongside other training models and policies dedicated to addressing the problem of racial disparities in policing.

  • Law professor Robert J. Smith wrote, “Implicit bias training is not a panacea. It is, however, a useful first step. To determine how useful, and to understand how much to expect from reforms that focus on reducing implicit biases, more research is needed. Even if implicit bias training does not significantly reduce implicit bias, or if reduced implicit biases do not translate into significant reductions in disparate outcomes, the trainings themselves are still valuable as a palatable entryway into discussing disparities and the need for reform. Indeed, the positive evaluations from officers who have undergone the training strongly suggest that implicit bias trainings are effective at illustrating that bias continues to flourish and that bias continues to produce negative outcomes. In a world where the discussion of racial disparities often feels difficult and counter-productive, implicit bias training is a promising way to ignite and sustain conversations about reducing racial disparities in policing.”[24]

Argument: Training police officers to use more technology does not improve police performance

This argument states that implementing more technology into police practices and training does not impact police performance. Proponents of this argument claim that this furthers the notion that technological advances in policing are an inadequate use of resources because they do not offer improvements to police work.

  • Professors James Byrne and Gary Marx argued, “Changes in both the hard and soft technology of policing appear to be transforming local, state, and federal policing departments in a number of fundamental ways; but some scholars have raised questions about how much has really changed (Manning, 2003). Two recent reviews (Hummer, 2007; Harris, 2007) of technology and the police describe this transformation process, review the evidence of its impact on police practices and outcomes, and discuss the implications of technological changes in policing for the public. Both Hummer (2007) and Harris (2007) reach similar conclusions: police technology has not been found to significantly improve police performance. Similar assessments of the limited measurable impact of police technology on police performance have been reached by others who have reviewed the available research on the impact of recent technological innovations on police performance.”[25]
  • Byrne and Marx continued, “Technological innovation has the potential to dramatically improve both the efficiency and the effectiveness of the criminal justice system; but it also has the potential to divert critical resources away from more traditional crime prevention and police strategies that may actually make us safer, without the negative side effects (e.g. erosion of personal freedom, increased public distrust, emphasis on coercive control, etc). Recent changes in the technology area generally – and in the area of information technology in particular – have been so dramatic and profound that they deserve special attention and critical review. As we demonstrate in this article, it is important to consider new technology developed to support crime prevention generally and crime control by police, because by focusing on innovations in only one area, we would likely miss the consequences – both intended and unintended – of our investment in police technology for individuals and groups interested in alternative crime prevention strategies.”[25]

Claim: BWCs lead to privacy concerns and officer burnout due to being in a state of constant surveillance

This claim states that BWCs are worrisome because they infringe on officers' privacy when on duty. Proponents of this claim argue that a lack of privacy can cause officers to feel burnt out because they are in a state of continuous surveillance, potentially resulting in anxiety and feeling mistrusted by their superiors.

  • Scholars Ian Adams and Sharon Mastracci argued, “Proliferation of BWCs may exacerbate burnout as police officers balance their accountability to the public, compliance with administrative oversight, and constant surveillance.”[26]
  • Professor Michael D. White documented perceived benefits and concerns of body-worn cameras in the report Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras: Assessing the Evidence and argued, “Police unions in several cities, most recently New York, have claimed that the cameras represent a change in working conditions that must be negotiated during contract talks (Schoenmann 2012; Celona 2013). There are also concerns that officers may be subjected to unsolicited fishing expeditions by supervisors (White 2013). Experiences from Phoenix and Rialto suggest that including line-level staff in the implementation process from the start, particularly with regard to policy development governing camera use, can alleviate many of these concerns. Nevertheless, everything an officer records is discoverable, even if the officer records events unintentionally (e.g., forgets to stop recording). The implications of the technology for officer privacy are not fully understood, and more research is needed. ”[27]

Claim: BWCs require too high of an investment for resources, training, and logistics

This claim states that BWCs require substantial resources (i.e. money, training, logistics) to be useful for law enforcement departments to implement.

  • White reported on perceived benefits and concerns with the use of body-worn cameras arguing, “Available research clearly demonstrates the importance of training and policy governing the deployment of body-worn cameras. Officers who wear cameras need to be trained in their use, from recording and downloading video to proper equipment maintenance. Departments must develop clear administrative policies that provide guidance to officers on a wide range of issues, such as when to record and when not to, whether to announce that the encounter is being recorded, and when supervisors can review video. The policies should also address video download procedures, video redaction procedures, preparation of video for prosecution, and data storage and management. ”[27]

Arguments about police officer training and counseling standards

Argument: Andragogy is a better training approach than pedagogy

This argument states that police training with an andragogy approach is more effective than the pedagogical approach that is often used. An andragogy learning approach is a method of teaching adult learners, as opposed to a pedagogical approach which is a method of teaching children. A pedagogical approach to policing emphasizes following commands, rules, and procedures, whereas an andragogy approach emphasizes critical thinking, individual experiences, and problem-solving.

  • Professors Michael L. Birzer and Ronald Tannehill argued, “Birzer (1999) asserted that in reality many police academies use methods similar to those used to teach children (pedagogy). Police academies that use pedagogical approaches foster an environment in which focus becomes the chain of command, rules, regulations, and policy and procedures. Andragogy is in contrast to pedagogy, and the learner’s experience becomes an important emphasis.”[28]
  • Birzer and Tannehill continued, “The advantages to the andragogical approach are several in that (1) it draws on the trainee’s past experiences, (2) it treats trainees as adults, (3) it adapts to diverse needs and expectations of participants, and (4) it develops critical thinking, judgment, and creativity in the learner.”[28]
  • Blumberg et al. argued, “Contemporary policing requires contemporary police training, which incorporates andrological teaching principles. When academies shift from an authoritarian, paramilitary style to an adult learning model, recruits can develop and strengthen important psychological skills that are essential for today’s effective police officers.”[6]

Argument: The most effective style of police training follows a community-oriented approach to create a ‘guardian’ mentality of policing

This argument states that the best method for training police officers is to implement a community-oriented approach. This approach highlights the importance of communication and behavioral skills and leads to the development of a ‘guardian’ mentality. Proponents of this argument claim that police officers who have the mentality of ‘guardians’ instead of ‘warriors’ are better suited to serve communities.

  • Law professor Seth Stoughton argued, “[L]aw enforcement training and tactics reflect the warrior concept, identifying aspects of modern policing that, if not addressed, will continue to prevent or undermine efforts to improve public perceptions of police legitimacy. I join a growing chorus of voices contending that it is the Guardian, not the Warrior, that offers the appropriate metaphor for modern officers.”[29]
  • Law enforcement official Sue Rahr and professor Stephen K. Rice argued, “[W]e are not advocating a reduction in tactical training or equipment. Officer safety is critical, and we must maintain vigorous instruction on physical control tactics and weapons. Those skills will always be necessary for dealing with individuals who refuse to comply and present an immediate threat. But we need to significantly increase the level of training and importance placed on communication skills and human behavioral science if we truly care about the safety of our officers.”[30]
  • Professor Laurie O. Robinson argued, “American policing in the future will be shaped by the men and women now coming into the police academies, yet at a time when there are calls for advancing a ‘guardian’ culture in policing, many training academies are still organized as military-style boot camps emphasizing a ‘warrior’ approach (Rahr and Rice 2015). A focus on social interaction—rather than solely tactical skills like shooting well—will better meet the needs of twenty-first-century policing (President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing 2015).”[19]

Argument: The most effective style of police training follows a paramilitary style to create a ‘warrior’ mentality of policing

This argument states that the best method for training police officers, and the method most commonly used, is a paramilitary training style. This training follows the same model as military boot camps and focuses on tactical training and physical control. Proponents of this argument claim that training programs that implement this model lead to the development of a ‘warrior’ mentality of policing, which is best suited for success as a police officer.

  • Rahr and Rice argued, “The current culture in some American law enforcement agencies tends toward the warrior mentality. The seeds of that culture are planted during recruit training, when some recruits are trained in an academy environment that is modeled after military boot camp, a model designed to produce a warrior ready for battle and ready to follow orders and rules without question.”[30]

Argument: There should be national standards for police basic training

This argument states that national criteria should be created when implementing basic training for police officers. Currently, a basic training curriculum is often created by either the local jurisdiction or through state mandates. By developing national standards for basic training, jurisdictions throughout the United States would have the same training which proponents of this argument posit would minimize discrepancies between different departments.

  • According to the Brookings-AEI Working Group on Criminal Justice Reform, “Police officers regardless of whether they live in Kentucky or Arizona need to have similar training. Among the roughly 18,000 law enforcement agencies across the country, there is wide variation in the amount of training that officers have to complete as well as what type of training they complete.”[31]
  • The Council on Criminal Justice argued that national training standards should be developed and wrote, “American police training is too short, uses ineffective teaching methods, and spends too little time on de-escalation, communication skills, problem solving, and scenarios officers are most likely to encounter in the community. National standards are needed to ensure that all officers receive a strong foundation in the skills and concepts required to police equitably and compassionately.”[7]
  • Scholar Owen Doherty argued that states should "enact a model decertification law. Much has been written on what that legislation would look like. This Note proposes a different solution—one which is a combination of previous ideas, but which would take further steps to strengthen accountability. Rather than allowing the states to enact minimum standards for officers, Congress should enact legislation that requires the Department of Justice to promulgate minimum standards for police officers. The Department of Justice should have the power to persuade, but not coerce, states to enact these minimum standards. The federal government, through the Department of Justice, should also create a database, similar to the one discussed above, that would store the employment data, reported by the states, of officers who have had their certification revoked or suspended. This type of legislation would be constructed similarly to the Clean Air Act: state agencies would be responsible for enacting and enforcing these standards on state and local police departments. The Department of Justice would only be involved when a state or local police department declines to enact or properly enforce the standards.”[32]

See also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, "What Can Police Do to Reduce Crime, Disorder, and Fear?" 2004
  2. ↑ Arizona State University Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety, "An Examination of the Type, Scope, and Duration of Body-Worn Camera Training," 2020
  3. ↑ Police Quarterly, "Identifying Good Cops Early: Predicting Recruit Performance in the Academy," 2008
  4. ↑ PNAS, "Procedural justice training reduces police use of force and complaints against officers," 2020
  5. ↑ Campbell Systematic Reviews, "The effects of stress management interventions among police officers and recruits," 2012
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, "New Directions in Police Academy Training: A Call to Action," 2019
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 The Council on Criminal Justice, "The Path to Progress: Five Priorities for Police Reform," 2021
  8. ↑ Mental Health Law & Policy Faculty Publications, "Police Training and Specialized Approaches for Responding to People with Mental Illnesses," 2003
  9. ↑ "The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, "Reconciling mental health, public policing and police accountability," 2019
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Police Quarterly, "'They Need More Training!' A National Level Analysis of Police Academy Basic Training Priorities," 2021
  11. ↑ New Mexico Law Review, "What the Police Don't Know May Hurt Us: An Argument for Enhanced Legal Training of Police Officers," 2018
  12. ↑ Criminology & Public Policy, "Suspect Searches: Assessing Police Behavior Under the U.S. Constitution," 2004
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, "The theory of andragogy applied to police training," 2003
  14. ↑ The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, "Policing with a public health lens - Moving towards an understanding of crime as a public health issue," 2021
  15. ↑ The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, "Lost in transition: The effects of transitioning between firearms and electronic control devices (ECDs) on perception-response times (PRTs)," 2021
  16. ↑ The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, "Moving beyond 'Best Practice': Experiences in Police Reform and a Call for Evidence to Reduce Officer-Involved Shootings," 2020
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 SAGE Open, "A Training Method to Improve Police Use of Force Decision Making: A Randomized Controlled Trial," 2016
  18. ↑ Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, "Investigating fatal police shootings using the human factors analysis and classification framework (HFACS)," 2021
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, "Five Years after Ferguson: Reflecting on Police Reform and What's Ahead," 2020
  20. ↑ Walden University, "Influence of Implicit-Bias Training on the Cultural Competency of Police Officers," 2019
  21. ↑ Social and Personality Psychology Compass, "Implicit Bias and Policing," 2016
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 The International Association of Chiefs of Police, "The Defeaning Demand for De-escalation Training: A Systematic Review and Call for Evidence in Police Use of Force Reform," 2019
  23. ↑ Police Quarterly, "Policy and Training Recommendations Related to Police Use of CEDs: Overview of Findings From a Comprehensive National Study," 2010
  24. ↑ University of Hawai'i Law Review, "Reducing Racially Disparate Policing Outcomes: Is Implicit Bias Training the Answer?" 2015
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Journal of Police Studies, "Technological Innovations in Crime Prevention and Policing. A Review of the Research on Implementation and Impact," 2011
  26. ↑ Police Quarterly, "Police Body-Worn Cameras: Effects on Officers’ Burnout and Perceived Organizational Support," 2018
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 U.S. Department of Justice, "Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras," 2014
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 Police Quarterly, "A More Effective Training Approach for Contemporary Policing," 2001
  29. ↑ Harvard Law Review Forum, "Law Enforcement's 'Warrior' Problem," 2015
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 National Institute of Justice, "From Warriors to Guardians: Recommitting American Police Culture to Democratic Ideals," 2015
  31. ↑ Brookings-AEI Working Group on Criminal Justice Reform, "A Better Path Forward for Criminal Justice," 2021
  32. ↑ Case Western Reserve Law Review, "A Reform to Police Department Hiring: Preventing the Tragedy of Police Misconduct," 2018
v • e
Police hiring, training, and disciplinary requirements by state and city
Main
By state
Collective Bargaining Agreements
Main arguments
Reform proposals
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Arguments_about_police_training_and_counseling&oldid=10379739"