TheFederalistWeasel
member
From http://officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=16&id=36095
Answer: The good ones are going somewhere else
Hiring: the toughest and most important job that management has on its plate. Unfortunately, many (if not most) agencies are failing to attract the people who would make the best cops.
Why? We cling to doing things the way we've always done them. The world has changed. The old approach just isn't working anymore.
The Old Model
Let's look at the hiring process just a scant few years ago. Annually, an ad would go in area newspapers announcing that our department would be testing for cop jobs. The goal was to hire new recruits who would become cops.
There was a multitude of applicants--far more than there were openings. The stereotypical candidate was a male, 25 years old, maybe with military experience. He was in excellent shape, with a muscular physique and could outrun a gazelle.
His home life was ideal: he was raised in a nuclear family with two parents who stayed married. They taught him right from wrong at an early age. He respected the law and was certainly drug averse.
He was competitive, having been an athlete in school. His brawn closely equaled his brain in relative ability and power.
The screening process was intense. The slightest hint of a flaw in character or background ended the process instantly.
Because most of those performing the background checks and reviews had been the same kind of applicant when he or she signed on, the process tended to be self-perpetuating, retaining only those candidates who were similar in nature.
The World Has Changed
Over the years, it seems that many social problems that were previously "worked out" between peers now land in front of a judge. Ours has become a very litigious society.
The brawny nature of cops led to the citizenry filing an unprecedented number of excessive force complaints. Those flames were fanned by social activists, i.e. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and others.
Cops were being watched, recorded, and photographed at every turn. Uncomplimentary video bites were aired without end on CNN and news outlets around the country.
It's become so bad that elected and appointed officials in government service are often forced into decisions and actions simply to avoid potential liability, rather than being based on what actually makes sense in the situation at the time.
But wait, there's more
I am part of the Baby Boom generation. Throughout my life, I have witnessed our generation change perceptions and notions about what it means to be a kid, a teenager, middle-aged, and now preparing for our "senior" years. It has been akin to watching a snake digest a swallowed rodent as the 'bulge' moved along its body.
The reality is there are fewer young folks today. Growing up, a visit to McDonalds guaranteed that the counter person taking my order would be of high school or maybe college age. But, no more.
Look at the age of the folks who greet you at Wal-Mart, Target, or K-Mart. Kids? Hardly. There just aren't enough kids to go around.
Though we may all picture the stereotypical police recruit, the fact is there aren't enough of them to go around.
That has forced agencies to hire older recruits in many instances. And, those agencies were pleasantly surprised. How, you ask? Their equipment lasts longer, there are fewer citizen complaints, excessive force problems tend to evaporate, and the "real" job of cleaning up a neighborhood or community is accomplished with more precision skill and less overall pain.
It's A New Society
The war on terror and other global factors have siphoned many top candidates away from coppery. There's the military, an explosive growth in federal law enforcement jobs, and private enterprise that seeks candidates from the same group. Our competitors have great benefits and envious rates of pay.
Over the years, local law enforcement has endeavored to improve the "brain power" of recruits by requiring some level of college education. Improved actual intelligence remains a goal that is largely unmet. In some instances, "ideal" candidates were turned away. In others, the force ended up filled with "eggheads" who lacked even a molecule of street smarts and/or people skills.
In general, employees are now demanding (and getting) satisfaction in their careers. Seldom do today's employees stay in the same job with the same organization from the beginning to the end of their work career. They are now able to pick and choose where to work, based upon their individual preferences. I believe current statistics show that the average person has four to five different employers over a lifetime. Young people entering the workforce today are expected to have 13 or more jobs.
Terminally stupid people who test well and become supervisors in many cop shops (we know who they are) tend to drive away the good talent to places where they're paid and treated better. \Employees insist on having a job that they want to go to each day.
But, "that's the way we've ALWAYS done it!!"
Are You Stuck In The Last Century?
I recently had an experience with a lieutenant in Gillette, Wyoming. It was quite interesting to observe.
The application package (more than 100 pages) was submitted by the candidate along with supporting background details.
The lieutenant handling the background investigation combed through it as though he was searching the car of a known drug dealer--looking for a single shard of information upon which the applicant might be rejected.
He found one sentence that didn't suit him from an incident report written years earlier, and the process came to an abrupt end, without any recognition of the overwhelming positive references, awards, and other material that was presented.
The process was long. It was difficult to gain any sense of progress along the way. There was virtually no feedback, interaction, or opportunity to provide anything in the form of a remedy.
Thirty years ago, agencies could get away with that. Today, those who insist on such archaic practices end up with the candidates who couldn't land a job with more progressive departments.
I can only imagine how frustrated the recruiter in Gillette must be with this situation.
It's the 21st Century
At the other end of the spectrum from Gillette is Madison, Wisconsin.
Theirs is a fresh and aggressive recruiting campaign, largely the brainchild of Sgt. Mike Koval. The department sends ambassadors around the region to hold frequent recruiting meetings.
They make very clear what kind of candidate they seek and what the most important skills are for success in Madison. They encourage candidates from mid-life who have real-life experiences to bring to the job.
Rather than look for a single speck of trouble which might cause disqualification, Madison judges their candidates on the preponderance of information available. Madison might not get the "perfect" candidate, but they are most likely to get those who will, in fact, make good cops.
Madison PD employs a communication system that keeps a candidate aware of the status of their application. They encourage applicants along the way with mailings, e-mails, phone calls, and other forms of communication.
For those who don't make the grade, Madison PD promises each applicant a full disclosure of what problems exist. If corrected, the applicant is invited to reapply.
What Do We Do To Catch Up?
If your agency is caught in the last century, there are some steps that you can take that will bring you up to date.
Assess the talent pool upon which you can draw. Measure it geographically, demographically, and by quantity of potential applicants. Are there enough possibilities, or do you need to change your criteria?
From the available pool, identify the characteristics of the candidates that you want to attract. Of course, stay within federal laws relating to discrimination. But be able to articulate your vision of the "perfect" candidate, from the standpoint of education, experience, physical ability, etc.
Confirm that the traits you've identified for the ideal candidate are really needed in today's cop job. Example: I wrote a column recently about physical fitness suggesting that the institutionalized timed 1.0--1.5 mile run bears no relationship to what a street cop does today.
Don't do things "because we've always done them that way." Do them because they are relevant to coppery now. Enlist the aid of the grunt-level cops in your department to develop and test the list of desired traits and skills. You may be surprised at just how insightful those grunt cops can be.
Determine if the market conditions and your resources will allow you to attract the candidates you want. If the Feds are routinely in your backyard, offering entry level law enforcement jobs at $50,000, you won't get far if your starting salary is $25,000. Figure out who your competition is. Be better than your competition is in a way that's important to your ideal candidates.
Recognize social change
Technology has radically affected most areas of life from the patrol car to the way we buy airplane tickets.
One of the most technologically advanced agencies in the country, as related to the recruiting process, is Peoria, AZ. I made application there and completed the background information on line, keeping a printed copy for my files.
They have sent me monthly mailings announcing tests. I receive bi-weekly e-mails with department news. The local chamber of commerce sent a fantastic color book showing how they will help me and my family acclimate to their community if I come to work there.
The Peoria experience has been the most advanced and adapted to the current world that I've seen.
If all your department gets in its new recruits are misfits, morons, and malcontents, it's time to wake up and smell the coffee. It's 2007, in case you missed it.
Answer: The good ones are going somewhere else
Hiring: the toughest and most important job that management has on its plate. Unfortunately, many (if not most) agencies are failing to attract the people who would make the best cops.
Why? We cling to doing things the way we've always done them. The world has changed. The old approach just isn't working anymore.
The Old Model
Let's look at the hiring process just a scant few years ago. Annually, an ad would go in area newspapers announcing that our department would be testing for cop jobs. The goal was to hire new recruits who would become cops.
There was a multitude of applicants--far more than there were openings. The stereotypical candidate was a male, 25 years old, maybe with military experience. He was in excellent shape, with a muscular physique and could outrun a gazelle.
His home life was ideal: he was raised in a nuclear family with two parents who stayed married. They taught him right from wrong at an early age. He respected the law and was certainly drug averse.
He was competitive, having been an athlete in school. His brawn closely equaled his brain in relative ability and power.
The screening process was intense. The slightest hint of a flaw in character or background ended the process instantly.
Because most of those performing the background checks and reviews had been the same kind of applicant when he or she signed on, the process tended to be self-perpetuating, retaining only those candidates who were similar in nature.
The World Has Changed
Over the years, it seems that many social problems that were previously "worked out" between peers now land in front of a judge. Ours has become a very litigious society.
The brawny nature of cops led to the citizenry filing an unprecedented number of excessive force complaints. Those flames were fanned by social activists, i.e. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and others.
Cops were being watched, recorded, and photographed at every turn. Uncomplimentary video bites were aired without end on CNN and news outlets around the country.
It's become so bad that elected and appointed officials in government service are often forced into decisions and actions simply to avoid potential liability, rather than being based on what actually makes sense in the situation at the time.
But wait, there's more
I am part of the Baby Boom generation. Throughout my life, I have witnessed our generation change perceptions and notions about what it means to be a kid, a teenager, middle-aged, and now preparing for our "senior" years. It has been akin to watching a snake digest a swallowed rodent as the 'bulge' moved along its body.
The reality is there are fewer young folks today. Growing up, a visit to McDonalds guaranteed that the counter person taking my order would be of high school or maybe college age. But, no more.
Look at the age of the folks who greet you at Wal-Mart, Target, or K-Mart. Kids? Hardly. There just aren't enough kids to go around.
Though we may all picture the stereotypical police recruit, the fact is there aren't enough of them to go around.
That has forced agencies to hire older recruits in many instances. And, those agencies were pleasantly surprised. How, you ask? Their equipment lasts longer, there are fewer citizen complaints, excessive force problems tend to evaporate, and the "real" job of cleaning up a neighborhood or community is accomplished with more precision skill and less overall pain.
It's A New Society
The war on terror and other global factors have siphoned many top candidates away from coppery. There's the military, an explosive growth in federal law enforcement jobs, and private enterprise that seeks candidates from the same group. Our competitors have great benefits and envious rates of pay.
Over the years, local law enforcement has endeavored to improve the "brain power" of recruits by requiring some level of college education. Improved actual intelligence remains a goal that is largely unmet. In some instances, "ideal" candidates were turned away. In others, the force ended up filled with "eggheads" who lacked even a molecule of street smarts and/or people skills.
In general, employees are now demanding (and getting) satisfaction in their careers. Seldom do today's employees stay in the same job with the same organization from the beginning to the end of their work career. They are now able to pick and choose where to work, based upon their individual preferences. I believe current statistics show that the average person has four to five different employers over a lifetime. Young people entering the workforce today are expected to have 13 or more jobs.
Terminally stupid people who test well and become supervisors in many cop shops (we know who they are) tend to drive away the good talent to places where they're paid and treated better. \Employees insist on having a job that they want to go to each day.
But, "that's the way we've ALWAYS done it!!"
Are You Stuck In The Last Century?
I recently had an experience with a lieutenant in Gillette, Wyoming. It was quite interesting to observe.
The application package (more than 100 pages) was submitted by the candidate along with supporting background details.
The lieutenant handling the background investigation combed through it as though he was searching the car of a known drug dealer--looking for a single shard of information upon which the applicant might be rejected.
He found one sentence that didn't suit him from an incident report written years earlier, and the process came to an abrupt end, without any recognition of the overwhelming positive references, awards, and other material that was presented.
The process was long. It was difficult to gain any sense of progress along the way. There was virtually no feedback, interaction, or opportunity to provide anything in the form of a remedy.
Thirty years ago, agencies could get away with that. Today, those who insist on such archaic practices end up with the candidates who couldn't land a job with more progressive departments.
I can only imagine how frustrated the recruiter in Gillette must be with this situation.
It's the 21st Century
At the other end of the spectrum from Gillette is Madison, Wisconsin.
Theirs is a fresh and aggressive recruiting campaign, largely the brainchild of Sgt. Mike Koval. The department sends ambassadors around the region to hold frequent recruiting meetings.
They make very clear what kind of candidate they seek and what the most important skills are for success in Madison. They encourage candidates from mid-life who have real-life experiences to bring to the job.
Rather than look for a single speck of trouble which might cause disqualification, Madison judges their candidates on the preponderance of information available. Madison might not get the "perfect" candidate, but they are most likely to get those who will, in fact, make good cops.
Madison PD employs a communication system that keeps a candidate aware of the status of their application. They encourage applicants along the way with mailings, e-mails, phone calls, and other forms of communication.
For those who don't make the grade, Madison PD promises each applicant a full disclosure of what problems exist. If corrected, the applicant is invited to reapply.
What Do We Do To Catch Up?
If your agency is caught in the last century, there are some steps that you can take that will bring you up to date.
Assess the talent pool upon which you can draw. Measure it geographically, demographically, and by quantity of potential applicants. Are there enough possibilities, or do you need to change your criteria?
From the available pool, identify the characteristics of the candidates that you want to attract. Of course, stay within federal laws relating to discrimination. But be able to articulate your vision of the "perfect" candidate, from the standpoint of education, experience, physical ability, etc.
Confirm that the traits you've identified for the ideal candidate are really needed in today's cop job. Example: I wrote a column recently about physical fitness suggesting that the institutionalized timed 1.0--1.5 mile run bears no relationship to what a street cop does today.
Don't do things "because we've always done them that way." Do them because they are relevant to coppery now. Enlist the aid of the grunt-level cops in your department to develop and test the list of desired traits and skills. You may be surprised at just how insightful those grunt cops can be.
Determine if the market conditions and your resources will allow you to attract the candidates you want. If the Feds are routinely in your backyard, offering entry level law enforcement jobs at $50,000, you won't get far if your starting salary is $25,000. Figure out who your competition is. Be better than your competition is in a way that's important to your ideal candidates.
Recognize social change
Technology has radically affected most areas of life from the patrol car to the way we buy airplane tickets.
One of the most technologically advanced agencies in the country, as related to the recruiting process, is Peoria, AZ. I made application there and completed the background information on line, keeping a printed copy for my files.
They have sent me monthly mailings announcing tests. I receive bi-weekly e-mails with department news. The local chamber of commerce sent a fantastic color book showing how they will help me and my family acclimate to their community if I come to work there.
The Peoria experience has been the most advanced and adapted to the current world that I've seen.
If all your department gets in its new recruits are misfits, morons, and malcontents, it's time to wake up and smell the coffee. It's 2007, in case you missed it.
Last edited by a moderator:
