A PROPOSED MODEL PROMOTEDNAL PROCEDURE ‘90 BE UHUZED IN THE SELECTIBN '0?" MUNECIPAL POLICE SERGEANTS AINE LIEiJTENANTS Thesis for the Degrée of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UgNIVERStTY CLIFFORD (1 RYAN I 1968. A PROPOSED MODEL PROMOTIONAL PROCEDURE TO BE UTILIZED IN THE SELECTION OF MUNICIPAL POLICE SERGEANTS AND LIEUTENANTS By Clifford G. Ryan AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Police Administration and Public Safety 1968 Approved I I...IIL.’II C! C'='i . A «m a I Z. .' . -‘AA' ABSTRACT A PROPOSED MODEL PROMOTIONAL PROCEDURE TO BE UTILIZED IN THE SELECTION OF MUNICIPAL POLICE SERGEANTS AND LIEUTENANTS by Clifford G. Ryan The first level of supervision in any police depart— ment is the sergeant. He, and his immediate supervisor, the lieutenant, are the commanders, the administrators, and the operators of the police organizations in thou- sands of municipalities across the United States. They are first on the scene to represent the administration, to insure prompt, courteous, fair police service, and to implement department policy developed by the executive level of the department. Since police command officers traditionally rise from the ranks, they form the reser— voir from which future chiefs, deputy chiefs, and inspec- tors will be drawn. The importance of selecting the best possible men to fill these responsible positions cannot be overemphasized. This responsibility of selecting the best men to fill the sergeant and lieutenant positions lies with the chief executive of the department working through his personnel director. From the point of view of the patrolman, the ser- geant's stripes are the first step on the way to success Clifford C. Ryan in his chosen profession. The desire for this success is natural and is a part of every man who joins a police department. This desire is also necessary to the depart- ment for, as patrolmen compete for this success, their performance and knowledge improve and the quality of the entire police service is raised. This competition is keen and spirited because the stakes are high. With this fierce competition, there is a wary eye forever directed at the promotional procedure. The written exam-—is it fair? The seniority——is it computed accurately? The personnel evaluation—-did the supervisor rate objectiv— ely? The oral interview board-—who are they and do they have any favorites? If the entire promotional procedure is consistent, the written examination is fair and honestly adminis- tered, the seniority is accurately computed, the person- nel evaluations objective and backed up with recorded incidents of outstanding performance, the oral interview board composed of such outstanding individuals that there can be no question of their integrity, the best men will be selected for the positions and the morale of the entire department will benefit. The basic hypothesis of this research is that the model selection process which is offered herein is valid, and can be supported by the literature and logical reasoning. To test this hypothesis, the literature in Clifford G. Ryan the field was reviewed and compared with the model. The actual promotional procedure in practice in twenty—three representative American cities was surveyed and studied. Countless hours were spent in informal discussion with police personnel directors, attempting to determine the best possible plan for the proper selection of candi- dates. The findings indicated that the model selection procedure was supported by the literature. The analysis of the empirical data revealed that the use of the model selection procedure will produce two results: (1) the best possible men will be selected based upon knowledge, experience, performance, and potential and demonstrated qualities of leadership, and (2) the morale of the depart- ment personnel will benefit as they see an equitable pro- cedure produce effective leadership. The study suggests that considerable emphasis needs to be placed on demonstrated leadership by police execu- tives as an example to the supervisors who are respon- sible for the personnel evaluations and promotional ratings. The result will be a better police service. A PROPOSED MODEL PROMOTIONAL PROCEDURE TO BE UTILIZED IN THE SELECTION OF MUNICIPAL POLICE SERGEANTS AND LIEUTENANTS By I a! I I. Ryan Clifford G? A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Police Administration and Public Safety 1968 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my profound thanks to the Federal Office of Law Enforcement Assistance and to the Commissioner of the Detroit Police Department, for making this period of advanced study possible. My sincere appreciation to Mr. Raymond T. Galvin, my thesis advisor, for his time, effort, and many worth- while suggestions. My thanks to the busy police executives who gave so generously of their time and shared their opinions and experiences. My special thanks to my wife, Jennie, and my child- ren, who are firmly convinced that I have been on vaca- tion during this entire year and would like to see me back in uniform. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION. Statement of the Problem Importance of the Study Methodology Terms Used and Their Definitions Organization of the Remainder of the Study. Sources of Information. II. CONSTRUCTION OF A RECOMMENDED MODEL FOR THE SELECTION OF MUNICIPAL POLICE SERGEANTS AND LIEUTENANTS III. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE LITERATURE General Review Specific Considerations Comparison of Literature with the Proposed Model IV. THE PROMOTIONAL PRACTICES IN TWENTY—THREE SELECTED CITIES Methodology Municipal Police Promotion Procedures V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary. Page ll 17 17 28 55 6O 6O 62 83 83 Chapter Conclusions Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES iv Page 86 89 91 95 TABLE LIST OF TABLES Cities surveyed Promotional examination weighted scores Seniority computations Service required to take promotional examination Inducements to seek formal education PAGE 63 6A 73 75 78 LIST OF FORMS FORM PAGE 1. U. S. Army Efficiency Report 42—43 APPENDIX A. B. LIST OF APPENDICES Police Promotion Interview Guide. Written Examination for Sergeant. Bulletin, City of Dayton, Ohio Promotional Examination The City of New York, Department of Personnel, Notice of Examination Examination Point Credit for Approved College Training, City of Omaha PAGE 96 (“10:8‘ 110 113 116 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A recent study of seventy-two men who quit police work to go into other professions or fields of endeavor reported the following reasons given by the men for their decisions. 1. Poor opportunity for promotion 2. Night work 3. Politics A. Unfairness in advancement Commenting on this study, authors Richard H. Blum and William J. Osterloh wrote: It seems clear that good men who quit police work could have been kept in police work, if politics and influence were kept out of advancement, if pro- motions were dependent on valid tests of ability and suitability, if department tables of organiza- tion allowed for more men at higher echelons or if there were some other means of awarding men with a sense of achievement and satisfaction of ambition even if the higher ranks cannot be expanded. Good men can also be kept in police work if supervisors themselves get better training in how to do their jobs, if they back their men when right and if they are sensitive to the needs of their men.1 In the squad rooms of our municipal police depart— ments and in the police cars of our cities this subject lRichard H. Blum and William J. Osterloh, "Keeping Policemen on the Job," Police (May-June, 1966), 28. of promotion dominates all others in the officers' dis— cussion. Very often, the discussion centers around Chief Justice Earl Warren's favorite question, "Yes, but is it fair?" Very often, these officers, the ones who are living with a promotional system are in the best posi- tion to observe its weaknesses or its unfair practices. When a system is accepted as fair to all members of a department and does provide the administration with first line supervisors who are the best qualified of those tested, the morale of the department is bound to improve. Conversely, when the promotional procedure is unfairly designed, or favors one segment of the department at the expense of the others, or is poorly administered, the best qualified men will not be selected and the morale of the entire department will suffer. When members of different police departments meet at study seminars or training sessions, promotional pro- cedures are compared and inevitably a wide variation is noted. Police authors have shown the same variation in their approach to the subject. I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM It was the purpose of this study (1) to construct a model promotional promotional procedure to be utilized in the selection of municipal police sergeants and lieu— tenants; (2) to review the existing literature in the field and compare it with the recommended model to deter— mine if it will support or reject the model; and (3) to compare the recommended model with the actual promotional procedures being utilized in representative American police departments to determine if the recommendations are practical. The basic hypothesis of this research is that the recommended model promotional procedure, which is offered in Chapter II, is valid and that this contention is sup- ported both by the literature and by an analysis of the practice in the field. An attempt will be made to test the model by collecting and citing field data from selec- ted police departments throughout the United States, indicating that each of the features proposed in the model is being utilized by some major department. There are three key questions which the study will attempt to answer: 1. Is the model promotional procedure a valid test to be utilized in selecting the best possible leaders and administrators? 2. Do the police departments represented in the survey follow a rational procedure in selecting their sergeants and lieutenants? 3. Would adherence to the model promotional pro— cedure have increased or decreased the quality of the leaders and administrators selected? Conclusions will be developed after the hypothesis has been tested and the key questions have been analyzed. II. IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY 5 Because of the long established American police practice, reinforced by pension and insurance programs, of selecting command officers and even chiefs of police from within the department, it must be recognized that the new sergeant or lieutenant selected today is the nucleus of the manpower reserve from which future command officers and chiefs will be selected. The complex nature of modern society demands an ever increasing awareness and knowledge of our police administrators, and the selection of the best possible men to lead our police departments. The value of this study will depend upon the use that police administrators make of the recommended model, and the quality of the leaders who are selected as a result of the model selection procedure. III. METHODOLOGY The scope of this research will be limited as indi— cated below: 1. A model promotional procedure will be construc- ted for the selection of municipal police sergeants and lieutenants. Although the model should be valid for any municipal police department some minor variations may be indicated between the very largest and the smallest. 2. The literature reviewed for the comparison will be limited to published books and articles on the subject. 3. The empirical study will be completed in selec- ted representative cities throughout the United States. The police administrator interviewed will be at a level sufficient to guarantee his familiarity with the promo- tional procedures currently being utilized in his depart- ment. IV. TERMS USED AND THEIR DEFINITIONS In order to insure complete understanding, several terms featured in the recommended model will be defined in the light of their intended meaning. The terms, when used throughout the thesis, will not be referenced since they are the combinations of many ideas in addition to those of the author. Written Examination A written examination is a formal testing of the candidate's knowledge and experience accumulation. Included questions should be directed to determining the candidate's knowledge of department policy and proced- ures, rules and regulations, principles of supervision, administration, law and evidence, and the operation of the major divisions of the department. Personnel Evaluation The term personnel evaluation includes the ideas expressed by service rating, efficiency report, merit appraisal, or performance test and is a measure of the individual as reported by his immediate work supervisors. In order to be of value to the administration in the selection of candidates, a personnel evaluation should include a measure of work performance in the candidate's present rank level as well as a measure of leadership and administrative potential. Oral Interview The oral interview is a process in which the candi— date appears before a selection board charged with the responsibility of evaluating his value to the department and his potential as a leader or administrator. Seniority Seniority is the accumulation of years of service in the department or in a given rank level. Promotional Rating A promotional rating is a measurement of the leader- ship and administrative potential of a candidate, awarded after a considered opinion by his immediate supervisors in lieu of his appearance before an oral interview board. Veterans Preference The term, veterans preference, refers to point cre- dit on a promotional examination, awarded to a candidate, for honorable service in the armed forces of the United States during specified periods of national emergency. Civil Service or Central Civil Service The term civil service, or Central Civil Service Commission, refers to a city or state body of personnel administrators, charged with the responsibility of admin- istering to the personnel needs of all of the departments within a city or state. V. ORGANIZATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE STUDY The remainder of this study is divided into four additional chapters as follows: Chapter II will present the recommended model for the selection of municipal police sergeants and lieute— nants with an explanation of the procedure. Chapter III presents a review of the literature and an analysis of the comparison of the recommended model with the literature. Chapter IV is a report on the findings of the field survey. Chapter V offers a summary of the study and develops appropriate conclusions. VI. SOURCES OF INFORMATION As was indicated earlier, the basic techniques uti— lized for data collection in this study were library research and personal interview. In the library research every effort was made to find literature on the subject of police promotion or on any one of the features which are included in the recom— mended model. Most of the information ultimately used was taken from the writings of a very small group of pro- fessional police authors. Specific authors or writings will be credited throughout the study. The cities selected for the empirical research represent a cross section of the United States municipal police departments. Geographically, all sections of the United States are represented, ranging from New York City in the East to Los Angeles in the West, and from Savannah in the South to Minneapolis in the North. The Southwest is represented by Houston and Dallas. Seventeen other cities represent the Midwest and central United States. Six of the ten largest cities in the United States are represented and four cities in the study have a popu— lation of one hundred thousand or less. New York City, with a population of over seven million and a police department strength in excess of twenty—eight thousand was the largest city studied. La Crosse, Wisconsin, with a population of forty-seven thousand and a police strength of seventy-four, was the smallest city studied. Four cities in the study have a population of one million or more, four cities have a population between five hun— dred thousand and one million, and eleven cities have a population over one hundred thousand but less than five hundred thousand. The remaining four cities have a popu— lation of less than one hundred thousand. The empirical research was conducted through per- sonal interview with a police representative of a super- visoral level from each of these cities. The nucleus for this study was found right on the campus at Michigan State University, among the officers of the Fellowship program provided by the Office of Law Enforcement Assistance. Officers on the campus partici— pating in this program represented the police departments of New York City, Los Angeles, Detroit, Cincinatti, Min- neopolis, Dayton, Savanah, and LaCrosse, Wisconsin. In addition to the time spent in formal interview, using a prepared interview guide, countless hours were spent in informal discussions over a cup of coffee or during class breaks. Variations in procedures were noted and discus- sed, analyzed and criticized, or approved, by these informal groups. 10 The interviews with the representatives of the Houston and Dallas police departments were conducted at the United States Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where these officers were in attendance. The remaining fourteen cities were visited person- ally by the author and the interviews were conducted at their headquarters buildings. CHAPTER II CONSTRUCTION OF A RECOMMENDED MODEL FOR THE SELECTION OF MUNICIPAL POLICE SERGEANTS AND LIEUTENANTS ;;The number of patrolmen competing for the rank of sergeant in any municipal police force greatly exceeds the number of sergeants who are competing for the rank of lieutenant. This sheer force of numbers, in a large department, precludes one oral interview board from exam- ining all of the prospective candidates for sergeant, which is an essential feature of the oral interview as will be discussed later. Hence, there is a slight varia- tion in the recommended model for selecting sergeants as compared with the model procedure for selecting lieute- nants. Recommended Model for Selecting Sergeants 1. Written Examinations 60% 2. Seniority 10% 3. Promotional Rating 30% Total 100% 12 Recommended Model for Selecting Lieutenants 1. Written Examination 60% 2. Seniority 10% 3. Oral Interview _39% Total 100% Explanation of the Model Although the features of the recommended model are self—descriptive some further explanation will be offered to insure a complete understanding of the author's con— cept of each feature. Research in the literature and in the field has indicated that while certain features are common to many promotional procedures the concepts covered by the same title vary greatly from city to city. Feature l--The Written Examination. All candi- dates will be advised well in advance of a promotional examination. The procedure for selecting the candidates will be clearly explained in an official notice to all members of the department. Eligibility to compete will be clearly spelled out. This official notice of a pend- ing promotional examination will also include a concise listing of the areas of knowledge and experience that will be tested, as well as a list of recommended texts and publications that will be used as authority for the test questions. In those cities in which the examination 13 is prepared by a central civil service agency the test authors will coordinate with selected command officers of the department to insure the complete reliability of the information contained in the test. Test authors will also coordinate with the training officers of the depart— ment both prior to the written examination and after to insure maximum benefit to the department from the self- study each of the candidates engages in in preparation for the written examination. Training officers will rec- ommend areas of knowledge, texts, and general subject material that should be included in the written examina- tion. Test authors and administrators will report back to the training officer of the department any areas of knowledge in which a general deficiency is noted in the men writing the examination. All written examination papers will be scored on a basis of one hundred per cent and this written examina- tion will be weighted sixty per cent of the final promo— tional score. Feature 2--Seniority. Each candidate will be credited with one full point for each year of service and one full point for each full year of college credit com- pleted to a maximum of ten seniority points. As will be pointed out in the review of the literature on this sub- ject, there is a great deal of controversy regarding the 1“ correct percentage to award to seniority in a promotional procedure. Most police authors recommend no more than five per cent and some departments award as high as twenty per cent seniority credit. The author contends that this controversy should more properly be directed at the method of earning seniority points rather than the weighted percentage awarded to seniority points. The only important consideration in the final score is the difference in the seniority total between a relatively young officer and a senior patrolmen. This possible dif— ference should not be so great that it dampens ambition or mathmatically precludes the young officer from consid— eration. Feature 3--The Promotional Rating and/or the Oral Interview. Included within this concept is a recommenda- tion that a personnel evaluation be made for each member of the department at a regular interval, at least semi- annually. This personnel evaluation will be completed by the immediate supervisors of the rated officer and will consist of at least two parts: (1) an evaluation of the officer's performance in his present capacity as compared to other officers performing in the same capacity and with the same relative experience, and (2) an evaluation of the potential leadership and administrative abilities of the officer based upon observed personality character- istics and recorded incidents in which such potential was 15 demonstrated. These personnel evaluations, compiled over a period of time as the officer works in different assign- ments and for different supervisors, will provide a com— prehensive background of information on each officer and will be a part of his personnel file. Also included in each officer's personnel file will be a record of his training, work experience, and formal education. Letters of commendation, awards for outstand- ing police service, as well as letters of demerit, will be included in this personnel file. In the recommended model procedure for the selec- tion of police sergeants, the names of the patrolmen who have achieved a qualifying score on the written examina- tion will be forwarded to their Commanding Officers for a promotional rating. Each Commanding Officer will convene a board consisting of the next two immediate supervisors of the officer to be rated and himself. This board will review the entire personnel file and based upon this review and their own knowledge of the officer, award a numerical promotional rating. This promotional rating will be weighted thirty per cent of the final promotional score. In the oral interview, which is recommended for the selection of lieutenants, and also could be used for selecting sergeants in the smaller departments, the interview board will be composed of two senior command 16 officers of the department and one personnel expert from outside the department. This personnel expert could be a member of the faculty of a local university or a member of the Civil Service Commission. The oral interview board will review the personnel files of each lieutenant who has achieved a qualifying score on the written examination. Based upon this review, and a personal interview with each candidate of at least thirty minutes duration, the oral interview board will evaluate the leadership and administrative potential of each candidate and assign a numerical rating to this evaluation. This numerical rating of the oral interview board will be weighted thirty per cent of the final pro— motional score. When all of the weighted scores of the candidates for sergeant and lieutenant have been compiled, they will be added and a final promotional score determined. The candidates for each rank will then be listed, in descending order of excellence on a roster and this roster will be presented to the chief administrator of the department and certified by the personnel department as "best qualified." The chief administrator of the department will then promote the men from each list, in numerical order, as the vacancies occur in each rank. CHAPTER III REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE LITERATURE In this chapter the literature will be reviewed as it discusses promotion in the police service, in general, as well as specific subjects such as written examina- tions, personnel evaluation, seniority, oral interviews, promotional ratings, and medals and awards. The recom— mended model will then be compared with the literature. I. GENERAL REVIEW The selection and management of personnel is the Chief's most important administrative task. A high qual- ity of service is dependent upon his unwavering insis- tence upon the application of two principles: (I) the best man must invariably be selected for appointment, promotion, and assignment, and (2) doubt in reference to appointment, promotion, or separation from service must be resolved in favor of the department.1 Final responsibility for the consequences of appointment, assignment, promotion and discipline rests with the Chief. Subject to the direction of the 1O. W. Wilson, Police Administration (New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1963), p. 130. l8 administrative head of the city, he should have freedom to select for appointment and promotion and to assign and remove policemen from service.2 Promotion in police service means advancement to a position of leadership. The officer's first promotion is normally to a supervisory position (from patrolman to sergeant). In the original selection of a patrolman, qualities of leadership over and above those needed for the performance of the usual patrol tasks should be sought. When patrolemn are to be promoted to the rank of sergeant, it is essential to choose those who possess the greatest potential qualities of leadership and not neces- sarily those who have displayed the greatest proficiency in their duties as patrolmen. From among the group of sergeants will subsequently be drawn those for advance- ment to higher responsibilities of command.3 Author Raymond E. Clift points out the value of frequent and reasonable opportunities for patrolman pro— motion when he writes: ”Every man wants to get ahead and hardly a recruit wears the uniform who doesn't visualize himself as either a detective or an officer. . . . A patrolman was once asked if he thought he would ever be 2Ibid., p. l3l. 3Ibid., p. 158. 19 a sergeant and he replied that he expected to be Chief before he left the service."u ' Police leadership is usually "up through the ranks,” and only rarely are outsiders allowed to compete for position in the police service above the entrance level. Because of this fact, the promotional appointee is poten- tially the Chief of tomorrow, and must be selected with consideration for this eventuality.5 Germann reports police promotions are usually made in one of three ways. First is the arbitrary selection by the administrator. This procedure is used primarily in the smaller departments and is defended by the admin- istrator's claim to know every man, their strengths and weakneSses, and their suitability for promotion. True as this may or may not be, it is just as true that the qual- ified man will be able to pass a prOperly administered competitive examination--and if he cannot, the original evaluation of his capacity and competency has been over- rated, and the personal decision a defective one. For the sake of morale, in the interests of impartiality, and as a protection against arbitrary whim, simony, nepotism, gross favoritism or crude prejudice, all “Raymond E. Clift, A Guide to Modern Police Think- ing (Cincinatti: The W. H. Anderson Co., l965), p. U8. 5A. C. Germann, Police Personnel Management (Springfield: Charles C Thomas, Publisher, l958), p. 70. 20 promotional appointments, even in the smaller agencies, should be by competitive process. The second procedure for promotional appointments listed by Germann is strict seniority. Generally, this is not a guarantee that the best man will be selected for positions of leadership. This does not mean that senior employees do not deserve consideration, all other quali- fications being equal; on the contrary, seniority credit can be added to final passing scores much like veterans preference points are added to final scores for entrance level people. But whenever seniority is made the sole determining factor, it is dangerous to the agency and inequitable to the individual officers of the agency. The third promotional procedure discussed by Germann is the competitive process. The spirit of civil service or "merit" system calls for promotion according to merit, and usually utilizes some form of screening and examining process. Commenting on police leadership and the selection and responsibilities of police leadership, V. A. Leonard writes: As one goes up the scale of supervisory and com- mand personnel in a police department from the ser- geant through the lieutenant, captain, inspector, and deputy to the Chief executive, emphasis is placed increasingly on judgment, self reliance and resourcefulness. The scope of duties gradually 6Ibid., pp. 70—73. 21 broadens and planning in advance expands in impor— tance until one comes to the Chief executive who is the strategist and the one who is responsible for the operation of the entire enterprise.7 However, the relative importance of the first super— visory ranks cannot be underestimated. General Pershing when asked to identify the most important rank in army organization replied--without hesitation-—the Sergeant! 8 The same can be said of police organization. Bruce Smith is critical of the past practices of police departments in selecting command officers: One of the greatest handicaps suffered by the merit system as now practiced is that its mechan- isms and processes are largely concerned with a personnel of mediocrity. Rarely is there provi— sion for ways and means by which a real career in the higher administrative posts can be quickly achieved by qualified men. Hence ambitious and qualified youth must spend years in the lower ranks and grades, in the course of which it acquires no practical experience or training in administrative leadership, before it can hope to share the respon- sibilities and enjoy the prerogatives of high com- mand. If and when the merit system finally pro- duces a leader the weight of years is already upon him, the erosive effects of routine have worn him down, and an ultimate promotion to high adminis- trative rank is likely to mean only that his retire- ment annuity will be the larger for it. The Army and the Navy do not commit such blunders. They recruit and discharge without fear or favor, on the basis of merit alone, and without the aid of any civil service commission. They also, and this is an especially important point, recruit officer personnel which is thoroughly trained at the great service academies at West Point and Annapolis. In other words, they provide a separate career service 7V. A. Leonard, Police Organization and Management (Brooklyn: The Foundation Press, Inc., 196A), p. A5. 8Ibid., p. 120. 22 for military and naval leadership. So do the police systems on the Continent, with their spe- cial educational requirements for officers. So does the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which draws its commissioned personnel in part from the graduates of the Royal Military College and from the commissioned grades of the Militia.9 Some state and municipal forces accept the prin- ciple of pre-service training for recruits and others have laid secure foundations for in-service training of aspirants to the higher ranks and grades. We need now to mark the road to promotion by the establishment of pre—service training of true professional grade as a standard for direct admis- sion to the administrative level. It is an under- taking which should evoke, as it will surely demand, the full cooperation of police commanders, person— nel administrators, universities, and state colleges. These have it within their power to provide new administrative careers in the police service that are generally comparable with those already avail- able in the Army and Navy, and in education, public health, engineering, forestry and other professional fields.1 The President's crime commission directed its atten- tion to this same problem when they observed the diffi- culty in recruiting college graduates. College graduates are likely to be deterred from a police career by the fact that it traditionally and almost universally starts at the bottom. A young man enters a police department as a uniformed patrolman and serves in that capacity for a considerable period of time—-rarely less than two years and more often four or five—-before becoming eligible for promotion. The knowledge and skill that college education 9Bruce Smith, Police Systems in the United States (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1960), p. 319. 10Ibid., p. 320. 23 can provide must receive recognition at the entry level, through pay, rating, and an immediate opportunity to do interesting work before massive numbers of college grad- uates will be attracted to the police.11 This restrictive nature of police employment also draws the commentary of Jerome Skolnick. Police typically find themselves in a position where their opportunities to change employers are highly restricted, except at the highest executive levels. If a man is an associate professor at a college or university, he can move on to another at that or a higher rank, if another institution makes him an offer. There is 'free enterprise,' a free employment market. Police by contrast are far more restricted in their employment opportun- ities, since most departments require than a man start at the lowest rank when he is recruited into the department, except for employment at the high- est executive level. In effect, each municipality has a separate army, and every recruit has to start from scratch. Such a system has obvious disadvantages for devel— oping professionalism in the police. It limits their employment opportunities. It tends to make them primarily responsive to local demands and con- ditions, thus giving a parochial character to their work. It may lay the structural foundations for corruption. It restricts freedom to disagree with or challenge superiors, for under these conditions police are in a practical sense a form of indentured public servant. It tends to limit the policeman's appreciation of the assertion of rights by others, since under such a system police themselves are restricted in their freedom to dissent from the opinions of their superiors. Finally, the system works in the long run to reduce police salaries, since municipalities do not have to compete with one another for the services of already trained, 11The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 107. 2A middle—level police officials, such as ex erien— ced patrolmen, sergeants or lieutenants.l The President's Crime Commission also looked into the area of promotional procedures and made the following observation. Able recruits may be the most pressing police personnel need, but it is not the only one. Better personnel are needed throughout most departments. Traditional procedures often inhibit the rapid promotion of able officers into supervisory or command positions. As has already been mentioned, patrolmen must serve a considerable number of years, usually at least four or five, before becoming eligible for promotion. In addi- tion, promotions are made, more often than not, from a civil service "list" that is compiled on the exclusive basis of grades scored on technical written examinations. A list arrived at in such a fashion takes no account of the evaluation of individual officers by their superiors, of the special qualifications of certain officers for 6ertain jobs, of the performance records of officers, and the awards and commendations (or reprimands) they have received.13 The Commission recommends: promotion eligibility requirements should stress ability over seniority. l2Jer0me H. Skolnick, Professional Police in a Free Society (National Conference of Christians and Jews: New York, 1967), p. 20. (Pamphlet.) 13The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, op. cit., p. 111. 25 Promotion "lists" should be compiled on the basis not only of scores on technical examinations but on prior performance, character, educational achievement and lea- dership potential.lu Superintendent O. W. Wilson, in his book, Police Planning, answers the specific question: On what basis should officers be selected for promotion? Promotion in police service brings with it ever- increasing need for the qualities of leadership. For this reason, selection for promotion should be based principally on these qualities. It is sound policy to discover qualities of lea— dership and utilize these talents by promotion to ever-higher' ranks as quickly as the experience of the talented officer justifies and opportunity pre- sents itself. Qualities of leadership are not necessarily enhanced by length of service nor do acts of heroism invariably reflect these attributes. Length of service and acts of heroism should not, therefore, be considered in selecting officers for promotion except when all other factors are equal. The practice of basing promotions exclusively or largely on written tests of police knowledge is not considered a wise procedure. Professional know— ledge is a necessary attribute of the leader, but it is not the most important one. Written tests of police knowledge should be made but the principal weight should be given to the qualities of leader- ship reflected in service ratings and summaries of significant incidents. Promotions to positions above the rank of sergeant should also be based on the qualities of leadership demonstrated in the lower supervisory position. Promotion in a department that has not used gen- eral intelligence tests in recruitment should be limited to those who have a minimum intelligence quotient of 112. Intellectually inferior officers do not usually make successful supervisors of their intellectual superiors. lulbid. 26 A qualified psychiatrist should interview each candidate for promotion and submit a confiden- tial report of his conclusions to the Chief.15 Germann's answer to the same question concurs gen- erally with Wilson. In the promotional competitive process, the written examination is usually heavily weighted-— 50 to 75 per cent; the oral interview and service rating less heavily weighted--2O to “0 per cent; and the points for meritorious service or senior— ity only added to passing grades with a light weight--normally 10 per cent or less. The following is recommended as an equitable weighting scale: Written Examination 60 per cent Oral Interview/Group Interview 20 per cent Service Ratings 10 per cent (maximum) Seniority or Meritorious Service 10 per cent (maximum)l6 Some of the difficulties which obstruct the formu- lation of a sound promotion policy are summarized by the International City Managers Association. 1. Unlimited promotion is not available to every employee who enters at the bottom of the scale. In small cities the number of promotional positions is usually larger in proportion to the number of patrolmen, but even in these cities the principle still holds true. 2. There is a serious conflict between using sen- iority as against effectiveness as the principal basis of promotion. Because of the semi-military nature of police 15O. W. Wilson, Police Planning (2nd ed.; Spring- field: Charles C Thomas, Publisher, 1968), pp. 238-239. l6Germann, op. cit., p. 79. 27 department organization there has been a tendancy to rely heavily on seniority as the determining factor in promo— tion. It is obvious that this tends to have a deadening effect on employees who have a capacity for more rapid advancement than their seniority would warrant. For this reason, some authorities have recommended that a maximum weight of one out of ten be allotted to seniority in pro— motional examinations, and many have recommended that no weight be given. 3. In filling the higher posts in the department there is a conflict between the stiumulus to the morale of the men in the department which results from making promotions entirely from within the department and the advantages that accrue from a policy of opening the top positions to competition by non—residents. This conflict may be resolved by giving preference to members of the local department where other qualities are equal, but appointing outside men where their ability is clearly 17 superior. 17International City Managers Association, Munici- pal Police Administration (2nd ed.; Chicago: Interna- tional City Managers Association, 19A3), p. 128. 28 II. SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS Written Examinations Germann has observed that the use of the written examination is characteristic of most all competitive promotional procedures. It has a tendancy in some places to be overweighted, but is definitely a most effective device, not only in determining relative rank order among candidates, but in stimulating daily work, assisting the administration in planning for training, and encouraging study.l8 Wilson voiced the same sentiment in his book, Police Administration. As a general rule, police departments-—especi— ially the larger ones, and those under the influ- ence of central personnel agencies--re1y too heavily on written tests of knowledge in selection for promotion. The popularity of the written test for this purpose arises from a sincere desire to be able to select men on a basis of merit free of out— side or departmental favoritism. The test is easily administered, it provides a numerical score, and it seems fair in that the candidate can blame only him— self for an unsatisfactory result. Suitable tools and procedures for evaluating other desirable qual- ifications have been slow to develop, and it is not surprising, in consequence, that the use of the written test is so wide spread. The department per- sonnel officer should be continuously alert to new methods of appraisal and should assist in their development in order to lessen the need for the written examination. 8Germann, o . cit., p. 7A. 19Wilson, Police Administration, op. cit., p. 159. 29 Wilson's attitudes regarding the central civil ser— vice commission are further amplified in his book, Police Planning. The most common weakness found in police service stems from a failure on the part of the chief of police to exercise suitable authority in the manage- ment of his personnel. The failure sometimes results from lack of courage or lack of appreciation of the need for action, and sometimes from ignorance as to methods to use in the administration of personnel. More often, however, and with increasing frequency, the failure results from restrictions that have been unwisely imposed on the Chief in the manage- ment of his personnel. Some Civil Service Charter provisions defeat this alleged purpose by making difficult if not impossible the application of sound principles of personnel administration. They take from the Chief important authority over the control of the members of his department. A police chief cannot be held responsible for the quality of service rendered by his force under these circum- stances. . To say that the universal demand for personnel administration on a merit basis and for job secur— ity for honest and competent policemen can be attained only through civil service is to ignore the fact that some of the best police agencies at local, state, and federal levels are not under civil ser- vice and actively resist all efforts to take from them the management of their personnel. The Detroit Police Department, the New York State Police, and the F.B.I. are examples.20 This argument is refuted by the International City Managers Association who observe: Functioning independently of the local govern- ing body or chief executive, there is a tendency for such boards to encroach on the authority of the Chief Administrator and at times to work counter to local policies adopted by the City Council. The personnel problem is substantially similar in all departments and can be handled best on a central 2OWilson, Police Planning, op. cit., p. 225. 30 staff basis without according priviledged status to special groups, whether police or any other.21 Germann offers further guidelines for the develop— ment of the written examination. The planning of a promotional written examina- tion requires coordination between the subject matter specialist in the police department and the test technician from the personnel bureau. The test must be carefully planned, its content must be analyzed and developed, it must be sampled, and after its administration it must be evaluated and revised. V. A. Leonard is enthusiastic in his approval of the written competitive examination. The means for improving selection methods in police personnel procedure are now ready at hand. With the employment of carefully validated and standardized tests, there is as much difference between selection on the basis of their results and haphazard selection as between the purchase of an automobile "sight unseen" and its purchase after careful trial. Where such tests are not a part of the screening process at the intake, sel— ection and replacement are necessarily uncertain matters. The myth of the man who can correctly judge character or ability at a glance has been exploded by an extended array of psychological experiments. The intelligent use of tests and examinations, now accepted as a part of standard procedure in the best American police departments will go far toward reducing the element of chance in the rocess of selection, placement and promo— tions.2 While not completely critical of the written exami- nation in promotional procedures, Smith points out the 21International City Managers Association, Munici- pal Police Administration (5th ed.; Chicago: Interna- tional City Managers Association, 1961). 22 Germann, op. cit., p. 7A. 23V. A. Leonard, op. cit., p. 10“. 31 fact that written examinations do not test those quali— ties of leadership or administrative capacity which are presumably a major consideration in promotions to higher rank. Such qualities are therefore largely ignored because the more familiar techniques of personnel manage- ment do not attempt any such evaluation of human per- sonality.2u Personnel Evaluation Personnel evaluation is the one area in each promo— tional procedure which is the most controversial and at the same time, the least understood. Whether it be known as a service rating, an efficiency report, a merit apprai- sal or a performance test, the controversy and confusion remains. Those men who are being rated generally dis— trust the system and see it as a form of patronage with certain favored individuals being rewarded by supervisors who are unaware of the real police work being done in the city. Generally, this feeling is a result of a poorly administered and incomplete personnel evaluation pro- cedure. Unfortunately, many of the personnel evaluation systems currently in use are poorly conceived and the supervisors charged with administering the systems poorly trained to make the necessary judgments. In many cases, the personnel evaluations are designed to measure work 2“Smith, op. cit., p. 13“. 32 competence at a patrolman level and used to select super— visors without an effective measure of leadership or administrative potential. The result may well be the situation decried by police personnel experts, that of producing promoted patrolmen rather than leaders and administrators. Supervisors, responsible for rendering a personnel evaluation of a subordinate are cautioned by Clarke and Saxenian to keep three important goals in mind. 1. Greater uniformity in ratings given men for comparable performance. 2. Increase in courage in giving both high and low ratings as deserved. 3. Greater open-mindedness both in the periodic performance evaluation and in actual daily police super- vision.25 Wilson discusses personnel evaluation in each of his three books. In Police Records, first published in 19A2, he wrote: Although no very satisfactory service rating sys- tem has yet been devised, there is general agree- ment that evaluations produced by some rating sys- tems serve a useful purpose. They at least force commanding officers to evaluate the performance of their men. . . . The rating system devised by 25Victor J. Clarke and Hrand Saxenian, ”Objectivity in Performance Evaluation," Police, (November—December, 1965). 33 Ordway26 has the advantage of giving special advan— tage to the unusually competent and the unusually incompetent. Any act which might be considered justification for placing an officer in either of these two extreme groups is reported in detail by the supervising officer. If the services per— formed are properly recorded and analyzed, an objective record of the officer's value to the ser- vice is available to the administrator who is respon— sible for promotions, demotions, and separations from service. By the time he wrote Police Administration, pub- lished in 1950, Wilson's attitude regarding service rat— ings seemed a bit more positive. A service rating should be prepared by superior officers once each month or quarterly on probation- ers and once every six months on other subordi- nates. Unit Commanders should be aware that an "outstanding" worker will be penalized on a promo- tional examination when there is not a sufficient difference between his grade and the grade of a member whose performance is "fair." Service ratings should be uniformly consistent throughout a department. In a large department some raters will be more generous than others, and the officer who was rated more stringently is at a serious disadvantage in competition for promotion. This lack of uniformity in rating may be deminished by requiring that the average of the scores of each component unit in a department approximate the department average. Another form of rating is one which forces the superior officer to designate 10 per cent of his men as the most competent and another 10 per cent as the most deficient in each factor. Those who consistently remain in the upper 26Samuel H. 0rdway, Jr. and John C. Laffan, "Appro- aches to the Measurement and Reward of Effective Work of Individual Government Employees," National Municipal Review (October, 1935), pp. 557—601, quoted in O. W. Wilson, Police Records (Chicago: Public Administration Service, 19A2), p. 162. 27lbid. 3A bracket should be considered for promotion and special assignment. Those who consistently remain in the lower bracket need special training, reas- signment, and when on probation should be consid- ered for separation from the service. Earlier, in this same book, in discussing the dut- ies of the police personnel officer Wilson described one of his many duties as the appraisal of each member's value to the service. Performance and accomplishments should be noted and evaluated. The exceptionally competent have to be discovered so that their talents may be used most advantageously in assignment and promo— tion; the deficient must be detected in order that action may be taken to correct their weaknesses and prevent the development of future ones.2 In his third book, Police Planning, Wilson remains consistent with his attitudes expressed in Police Admin- istration, advocating the identification of the extremes in ability, the top 10 per cent and the bottom 10 per cent. He adds a somewhat surprising statement, however, when he stated, "An accurate appraisal of the service value of the policeman of average ability is not impor— tant."30 V. A. Leonard cites an unpublished manuscript by J. S. Greening, former Chief of Police in Berkely, Cali- fornia, to answer a question he posed. Leonard asked, "Why have rating systems?" Greening's answer: 28 Wilson, Police Administration, op. cit., pp. 15A—155. 291bid., p. 134. 30 Wilson, Police Planning, op. cit., p. 237. 35 (1) For the same reason that we have examinations to determine the applicant's degree of intel- ligence and adaptability. (2) To determine his efficiency on the job. (3) To assist him in increasing his efficiency and thereby the efficiency of the organization. (A) As a basis for determining his fitness for pro- motion or salary increase. (5) As a basis for determining what branch of the service he is best fitted for. (6) To stimulate and keep alive the personnel spirit. (7) To make supervisory officers more analytical in their judgments of the men under their supervision. (8) To rate, by use of the rating scheme, the abil- ity of the person doing the rating and his success in building up the efficiency of his subordinates. (9) To discover the reason why men who have pre- viously done good work go into a slump, and to help them overcome the difficulty. (10) To eliminate probationers that the examina- tions failed to detect as inadaptable, or who are adaptable but will not apply their abili- ties. 31 (11) Order of lay off. It is generally conceded that a rating scale is just as valid as its design and the degree of intel— ligence, judgment, honesty and understanding of the rating instrument, exercised by the raters. Men on the same intellectual level will vary somewhat in their ideals; their degree of honesty may differ slightly, but as a general rule, aside from personal idiosyncrasies, their judgment and understanding of the design and purpose of the rating instrument and knowledge of human values will reduce the element of error.32 Leonard also adds a word of caution regarding the design of rating forms which is characteristic of most of 31Adapted from an unpublished manuscript by J. A. Greening, former Chief Division Deputy, Sheriff's Depart— ment, Oakland, California, and former Chief of Police, Berkley, California, quoted in V. A. Leonard, op. cit., pp. 108-109. 32Leonard, o . cit., p. 109. 36 the authors of his time. He warns of the inherent dan— gers involved in attempting to embrace too many qualities under one heading or in attempting to rate too many qual- ities in one individual. He reports that as of the date of his writing the United States War Department and the State Department were doing important developmental work with personnel evaluations. He warns that the same rat- ing form is not applicable to all members of the depart- ment since there is so great a variation in the exper— ience, abilities and desired qualities of the various positions in a police department. His writings were first published in 1951. It is interesting to note that the research then being conducted by the War Department and continued by the Defense Department has led to a form, seven times revised and which now incorporates 26 indi- vidual qualities to be rated and which applies to all officers in the Army. This form will be discussed in detail later. In his writing, Leonard recommended there is evi- dence to support the belief that there should be five different grades of rating scales used by police agencies. He would include the following: (1) For recruits covering a two year period, with short period ratings being made. (2) For detecting those qualities which merit promotion. (3) (A) (5) (6) 37 For sergeants to cover qualities necessary for supervision, and some of the qualities of leadership that should be present in lieute— nants, together with qualities that indicate detective ability. For detectives showing their success in this division qualitatively and quantitatively com- bined with leadership ability demonstrated. For lieutenants, showing leadership ability and administrative qualities. For captains, covering qualities necessary to point out presence or lack of executive abil- ity and administrative accomplishment.33 Leonard concludes his discussion of service ratings with the following observation. If If If If If If If If If If it it it it it it it it it it points out the highly adaptable, points out the leaders, points out the energetic workers, points out the drones, points out those with special abilities, points out the tempermentally unfitted, points out the morale tone of the individual, points out the defects in the organization, aids in morale development, speeds up the organization, then the rating scale is decidedly worth while and justifies all the time and effort necessary to admin- ister and analyze it.3“ Smith's book, first published in 1940, also presents a rather dated approach to this subject. After making a strong recommendation for the use of the oral interview in the selection process, and noting that the oral inter- view had not been well received in the past, he suggested that perhaps a possible substitute for the oral interview might be a review of all of their subordinates by the 33Leonard, op. cit., pp. 109-110. 3uIbid. 38 police supervisors using one of the personnel rating forms for the purpose. He then added that while such forms had found rather wide acceptance in business and industry they had not yet commended themselves to police administrators. He reported the reasons were various. In some cases the police have not yet troubled to master the technique of rating, or have not given the rating system a fair trial. In other instances, and particularly in the larger police establishments, different sets of superior offi- cers have graded their subordinates according to differing standards which proved difficult to reconcile.3 As will be pointed out in the results of the empir- ical study reported in Chapter IV, this situation is no longer true. Twenty-two of the twenty-three cities studied do use a personnel evaluation to good advantage. Smith concurs with the thoughts expressed previ- ously by Leonard when, in discussing the rating forms, he recommends that the form be simplified to provide a more honest evaluation of the man as a whole rather than rating too many characteristics and as a result requiring the rater to "fragment his personality and achievement." He concurs also with the thoughts expressed by Wilson when he reports that many departments "commendably" have limi- ted the number of rating degrees to three: below average, average, and far above average. Smith also advocates that the rating be accomplished by one, or at the most, 35Smith, op. cit., p. 13“. two direct line supervisors who are in a position to 36 evaluate personality and performance. Germann offers the opinion that The service rating should never be connected with promotion or pay raises, for whenever the ratings directly affect rank or pay, the supervisors will gravely consider the possible effects of their ratings and make ratings in terms of these effects rather than in a truly objective fashion. This will cause the ratings to form a rather flat and uniform curve, rather than distributing themselves normally. Germann feels that if service ratings are used in the promotional process, they should be qualifying, rather than competitive.38 Germann also directs his attention to the that should be included in a rating process and to be merely traits C on- 39 c1udes,as did Wilson,Leonard,enuiSmith, that they should be kept as simple as possible and limited to those traits which can be observed and which are characteris- tic of the position being rated. He would include: (1) Work attitude (2) Judgment (3) Initiative (A) Personal appearance (5) Contact with public (6) Quality of work (7) Knowledge of work (8) Loyalty 39 (9) Punctuality. 36 Smith, op. cit., p. 135. 37Germann, op. cit., p. 177. 38Ibid., p. 78. 39Ibid., p. 177. A0 He also concurs with the previous authors that the ratings should be completed by the officer's immediate superivors and should be accomplished at least semi- annually after the probationary term has been completed. After having given his recommendation that the rating not be tied to a promotional process he further cautions that if the rating is keyed to the promotional or pay scheme, an appeal procedure should be provided. Germann concluded his discussion of service ratings by attacking the problem of over—rating or inflated rat- ings. His recommendation is a bit more detailed than the top 10 per cent—~bottom 10 per cent advocated by Wilson but still is not very different. He would require the ratings of the patrolmen to conform to the following spread: 8 per cent Superior 2“ per cent Good 36 per cent Average 2“ per cent Fair A0 8 per cent Poor. The International City Managers Association reports that in some cases service ratings have been abused or misconstrued so as to cause a breakdown in the promo- tional system and then goes on to recommend rather than weighting the service rating as a part of the promotional examination, which gives officers a chance to play favor- ites, such ratings should be looked upon as a means of uolbid., pp. 176-181. U1 inspiring discipline and devotion to duty, and ascer- taining the assignment in which a man will be most useful in a given grade. Such rating may well be considered qualifying in that no man having a low service rating should be eligible to take examinations for promotion without clarification of his rating.Lll Similarly, in selecting army officers for promo- tion, the Office of Personnel Operations at Department of the Army consolidates all of the candidates efficiency reports for presentation to a selection board specifi- cally convened for this purpose. These reports are con- sidered as qualifying or nonqualifying by the board, rather than having a specific numerical value attached. The one agency which is most actively engaged in personnel research is probably the United States Army. The Officers Efficiency Report, or OER as it is more familarly known, has been revised seven times since the 1920's, each time becoming a little more realistic and more effective. The sixth revision was made in 1963 to correct a problem of inflated ratings. The latest revi- sion (see Form 1) introduced this year and not actually to be used until September, 1968, eliminates still other deficiencies discovered in earlier reports and incorpor- ates the features found by a constant review, research, ullnternational City Managers Association (2nd ed.), op. cit., p. 131. 42 INPORTANTI THE PREPARATION OF AN EFFICIENCY REPORT IS A SERIOUS RESPONSIBILITY. EAOI INDIVIDUAL 'ILL TAKE THE SAME PAINSTAKING CARE IN THE PREP- ARATION OF THE REPORT FOR HIS SUSORDINATES THAT HE WOULD EXPECT HIS RATING OFFICER TO TAKE IN THE PREPARATION OF HIS OWN REPORT. ALL ENTRIES WILL BE TRUE AND IAPARTIAL. READ CAREFULLY REFERENCED PARAGRAPH IN AR 623405 BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO FILL OUT ANY ITEM. PART I - PERSONAL DATA (Read paragraph J-2a. AR 623 [05) ! BRANCH a. LAST NAN! - FIRST NAN! - MIDDLE INITIAL E SERVICE NUNBER c. 55“; d. GRADE EDATEOF RAN eASIc DETAIL *7 ‘. UNITI OHGANIIATION. STATION, AND NAJOR CONNAND PART II - REPORTING PERIOD AND DUTY DATA (Read paragraph 1215, AR 623-!05) a. PERIOD COVERED b, REASON FOR SUBMITTING REPORT (Check) c, REPORT BASED ON (Cherk) RATER INDORSER rnou I To ANNUAL DAILv CONTACT DAV NONTN YEAR DAY NONTN YEAR CHANGE or RATER FREQUENT ODSERVATION PCS RATED orrICER INFREQUENT OBSERVATION on"! OS“ °"‘E" 9‘" CHANGE or DUTY ron RATED orrICER RECORDS AND REPORTS OTHER (Specrty) OTHERfSpecrty) PART III - AUTHENTICATION (Read paragraph 3-2c, AR 621105) Na. IIONATuRE or RATER . TYPEO NANE, GRADE. DRANCN. SERv'EI E' ~8qu ER. . one ASSIGNMENT 5- "“"ATU" 0' ”OOPS!" TYPED NAME. GRADE ORANCN. SERVICE NuuaER ORGANIZATION'AND DUTY DATE ASSIGNNENT c. RIVIEIER (Read chapter 5, AR 623-105) NY REVIEI E] INDICATES no FURTHER ACTION I RESULTS IN ACTION STATED ON INCLOSURES SIGNATURE OP HIVIE'ER 7;:gD-NEANTE, GRADE. BRANCH. SERVICE NUMBER. ORGANIIATION. AND DUTY DATE A I N N DATE ENTERED ON DA PORN DD PERSONNEL OFFICER‘S INITIALS 4. THIS REPORT MAS INCLOSUIIS. (Tnaert "0" it Qpropriate) TO COMPLETE PARTS IV VI VII VIII, IX, X, AND XI EVALUATE TH! RATED OFFICER IN COMPARISON VITII OTHER OFFICERS OF TIIE SAME GRADE, sum.“ Immucz. AILI'I‘AIN scuoouuc. AND I‘M IN GRAD:- ITEMS oesmuneo ev ASTERISK aromas axpuumou m mu m. PART Iv . PERSONAL QUALITIES (Re-d ruminant 4-Jd. AR 621-105) DEGREE TOP SECOND . RIDDLE FOURTH BOTTOM ' NOT OBSERvEO RAT" moon" I 2 3 4 5 N 1’0 . ADAPTADILITY (Adjusts to new or changing srtuatrone) a D. ANDI‘I’ION (Seek- and welcotnaa, within bomda o! rmlrtary propriety, additional and more Important responsibllrtres) S" APPEARANCE (Poaeeaaea military Deanna and Is neat. smart. and well-groomed) .9- COOPERATION (Wort:- I'n harmony With other: as a team member) e. DECISIVENESS (Ability to reach concluaiona promptly and deride a dehmte course 0! actron) I. OEPENDADILITY (Consistently accomplishes desired action. IIrIth mmtmutn lupervrsr‘on) g. ENTHUSIASI (Notivates other: by his keen Intereat and personal partrcrpatron) h. FORCE (Executea actrona vigorously) i. INDCNUITY (Creative abilrty in deviainn meme to aolve problerna) I- INITIATIVE (Takes neceuary and appropnate actron on hrs own) It '"TEGMTV (Adrerence to pnncrplee o! honesty and moral courage) u v INTELLIGENCE (Acquires knowledge md graspa concepts readily) JUOGI‘ENT (T‘hrnka lodrcally and makes pflClit‘ll decrsrons) 0- LOVALTV (FaitMOI and willm‘ aupport to eupen‘ors and aubordrnatea) o. NORAL COURAGE (Intellectual honeaty, willingnen to stand up and be counted) P- NON-DUTY CONDUCT (Keepe hla pereonai attain In order) q. SELF-DISCIPLINE (Conducta hirneel! in accordance with the hidieat standards) SELF-IHPROVEHENT (Taken action to human hlmael!) 3 a. SELPLESSNESS (Subordinatea hie peraonal waltare to that of the organization) '- SOCIAUIUTV (Participatee freely and easily in eociai md commity artrvmes) u. STANINA (PortorTna aucceaatully under protracted phyarcal and mental ureae) ,_ TACT (Saya or boa what in appropriate without giving unnecessary oflenae) Ir. TENAC'TV (The will to per-even tn (ace 0! obetaclaa) x. UNDERSTANDING (Appreciation tor the needa md viewpoints of other.) i DA FORM 67 6 REPLACE: DA roan on. I Ana 0:. 'NICH IS oesoLETE. 0.5. ARMY OFFICER EFFICIENCY REPORT (AR 623-105) I JAN ea '- T FICERS N NE SERVICED NUMBER AND SSAN GRADE. H3 PART V- DUTY ASSIGNMENT FOR RATED PERIOD (Read para—graph d-Je. AR 623- l05) I. PRINCIPAL DUTY d. MAJOR ADDITIONAL DUTIES b DUTY NOS C AUTN GRADE PART VI - PERFORMANCE OFLDPILEEORS (RI-art paragraph 4- 3! AR 623 l05) ; _ PART VIII _ PROMOTION POTENTIAL DEGREE TOP SECOND NIDDLE FOURTH DOTTOM‘ NOT ODSERVED (Reid POMRMPII 44h. AR 623-105) RATER INOORSER 1 2 3 A S N/O ' R I a. DISPLAYS A FROFESSIONAL EORIDOE—OF ASSIGNED DUTIES 'Q— _——;j_ 'p"rat;:::::::c:::::::::::' b. NANAOES RESOOREES EFFICIENTLV AND ECONONICALLV 7 , , __ . , :ggfrfigflmggé“$gjt ”on" c. ESTAaLISNES AND ACNIEvEs HIGH STANDARDS OF FERFORNANCE E§2¥ELEO‘RLA°R",ES"T“ , ..*____ _. ______ __._._..__. . ._-___ d. FULFILLS HIS RESPONSIRILITIES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUDONDINATES 00 NOT PROMOTE AT THIS TINE' e. PLANS IEYOND TNE IRREDIATE REQUIREMEN—‘EOF AEONEITDUTIES — Do NOT PROMOTE TRIS OFFICEN‘ l. DELEGATES AUTHORITY As APPROPRIATE I U I - PART IX . SCHOOLING POTENTIAL g. EXERCISES FRORER DEGREE OF SUPERVISION H , (Rud p‘""“’" "3’“ AR “3"”) ' h. CORNANDS CONEEENEEARO—RESPECT _ rrrrrrrrr ' ”_-_ —_ 4... ‘_ *4 I “ gchPEST leITANV SCNOOL l" ACCEPTS PULL RESPONSIBILITY POT::I:ACTION; _ -7 A ‘ i A - v_ —— R --|__I—J ,2 IILLINOLY ACCEPTS AND ACTS UPON—SOCIEONSEDMCOrfi—TRUCTIv:C:ITRI_— _ ‘ J ZE’;‘$€HL‘O"RV:SFE§°LLE°E ”'“° °' N. EXPRESSES NIIISELF CLEARLY AID—CONC‘ISELV ONALLY ; _ A I I — “ égz'fguieonfig COLL!“ "T" t. ENFRESSES NINSELF CLEARLY AND CONCISELv IN INITING— — _ - ' q—Mfi gg:fig:,g§i‘§*g“* “"“O °' m. IIAINTAINS AN ARRRORRIATE LEVEL OF PHYSICAL FITNESS Egfifigfib'g’gfiflf "T" _ L, L - I.— _ - ———_——< n. NAS CONCERN FOR TNE IEL FARE OF SUEORDINATES_ gggogicggofiwsg FOREFORTNER PART VII - DENONSTRATED PERFORMANCE OF PRESENT DUTY (Read paragraph 4-3‘, AR 623-105) NOT APPLICABLE RATER INOORSER V“— H _ OTHER (Specify below) FERFORIIS TI-IIS DUTv aETTER TNAN ANY OTNER OFFICER I NNOII ° RATER PERFORMANCE OF TNIS DuTv EouALEO Dv VERv FE! OFFICERS _ . INOORSER FERFDRIIS TRIS DUTY OETTER TNAN NOST OFFICERS I I PM" Y - A I- _ I (Read paragraph l-Jh, AR 623-!05) FERFORNS TRIS DUTv AS IIIELL AS NOST OFFICERS . I 1 2 3 4 5. PVC FERFORRANCE OF THIS DUTY NEETS NININUN STANDARDS -- 28,357.31,” '°" "'°“"‘ “V“- ' PERFORIAS TNIS DUTY IN AN UNSATISFACTORY NANNER ' - POTENTIAL FOR HIGHER LEVEL STAFF PART XI - COMMENTS (Rt-ad paragraph 4-3:". AR 623405) I. RATER A IRDORSER [:]I An UNA-LE To EVALUATE TNIS OFFICER FOR TNE FOLLOIINO REASON: PART XII. OVER-ALL VALUE TO THE SERVICE (R9041 POIDRMPh "31'. AR 633-105) O. OFFICERS OF THIS GRADE PERFORNING SINILAR TOTAL PLACEMENT OF OFFICERS (Enter ' In approprrate group) RANKING 'ITHIN OVER-ALL GROUP PURCTIONS I CURRENTLY IOTTON 5TH FOURTH MIDDLE SECOND TOP RATE OR INDORGE RATER INDORSER b. RANKING OP THIS OFFICER IN COMPARISON 'ITH ALL ARMY OFFICERS OF THIS GRADE AND BRANCH I KNOW WELL ENOUGH TO RATE RATER l I I I I - I I I I I 4 1 S o 10 20 30 ab 50 so 70 so 90 100 T I I I I I I T I INDOR'ER I MM and development program to be desirable in a personnel evaluation form. Part IV of the new form, labeled DA Form 67-6—-U. S. Army Officer Efficiency Report, lists twenty-six personal qualities. "Each of these qualities, when developed to a high degree, is generally accepted as a leadership attribute. Part V deals with the duty assignment of the rated officer during the rated period and Part VI is a measure of the performance of current duties. Part VIII requires the rater to recommend the promotional potential of the officer and Part IX requires an evaluation of the potential for further schooling possessed by the rated officer. The instructions accompanying this OER caution the rater to consider each officer to be rated, in competi- tion with other officers of the same rank and experience when performing the evaluation.“3 The Army Regulation which governs the use of the OER carries this resume: Officer efficiency reports provide a measure of an officer's overall value to the service and infor- mation essential to the career development, including assignments of individual officers. Each report is intended to report manner of performance of specific duties and for specific periods in a form which is readily usable by boards appointed for various per- sonnel activities, such as promotions, and in the ”2A. F. Jones, "OER Spells Your Future," The Army Digest (March, 1968), p. nu. u3Army Regulation 623-105. '45 assignment of officers. A single report provides an estimate of the officer's personal qualities, manner of performance, professional qualifica- tions, and potential as demonstrated during a specific period and in a particular duty assign— ment. Normally, no single report will be used as the sole basis of any personnel action. The infor- mation produced by a series of reports submitted by different rating officers in a variety of duty situations becomes an indication of each officer's progressive development and a basis for measuring his value as compared to his contemporaries. Ultimately, this information, when incorporated into and considered with the whole record, becomes a sound basis for competitive personnel actions-— in short the qualitative management of officers' careers.a In his preliminary remarks on the subject of per— sonnel evaluation, Wilson wrote, The importance to a large department of rating its personnel is apparent and there is every jus- tification for urging the police personnel offi- cer to develop new and improved procedures or to encourage their development by other agencies.“5 Wilson's admonition would seem to encourage modern administrators to look closely at this new army develop- ment in personnel evaluation for features adaptable to the police profession. Seniority The President's Commission on crime recommends: promotional eligibility requirements should stress abil- ity over seniority.”6 qubid., p. l—l. “SWilson, Police Administration, op. cit., p. 152. u6The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, op. cit., p. 111. A6 Length of service should be considered in the pro- motional procedure only when all other factors are equal, which will rarely be the case. Length of service will be considered, only in that it may have given the candidate better judgment, greater self—confidence and decisive- ness, greater knowledge, and an improved ability to get along with people. In others, the greater length of ser— vice may have resulted in diminished energy, initiative, enthusiasm, interest in work, and willingness to accept responsibility. The factor, then, should be measured only in these terms, and not in the numerical years of service.“7 Qualities of leadership are not necessarily enhan- ced by length of service nor do acts of heroism invari— ably reflect these attributes. Length of service and acts of heroism should not, therefore, be considered in selecting officers for promotion except when all other factors are equal.”8 Clift, on the other hand, contends that real harm can be done to the service when a man goes up too fast. The men will not respect the inexperienced officer who has not been one of them and will conclude he has been a special favorite with the examiners. Clift compares police work to the medical profession in that a “YWilson, Police Administration, op. cit., p. 158. “SWilson, Police Planning, op. cit., p. 238. “7 substantial period of internship is necessary before one can consider himself a seasoned officer. He recommends a minimum of three years as a patrolman before eligibil- ity for sergeant and at least two years in each succeed- ing rank before promotion.“9 The ICMA comments on the deadening effect a strong seniority program has on a promotional procedure and reports that some authorities recommend a weight of no more than 10 per cent be awarded to seniority while still others argue that no weight or consideration be given to seniority.50 Germann concurs with this attitude as expressed by the authors cited and recommends a maximum weighted score of 10 points. Curiously, none of the authors or works reviewed directed their attention to the method in which the sen— iority points were to be earned. Consider the difference between Chicago and Indianapolis, two cities studied. Chicago awards one seniority point per 6 months of ser- vice to a maximum of 5 years, 10 points. Indianapolis awards one point per year to a maximum of 20 years or 20 points. The young officer of ability in Chicago is able to completely overcome seniority in 5 years. An officer ugClift, op. cit., p. A9. 50International City Managers Association (2nd ed.), op. cit., p. 128. A8 of comparable ability may fight seniority for over 15 years in Indianapolis. Oral Interview The greatest advocate of the use of the oral inter- view in the police promotional procedure is Professor A. C. Germann. In his book, Police Personnel Management, he states: Because administrative ability and leadership potential are the sine qua non for the supervisor or command officer, even more important than the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and experience, the oral interview is considered an essential part of the competitive process for promotion. Know- ledges, skills, and the results of experience can be measured, to a good degree, by the written exam- ination, but personality factors cannot—-hence, the need for careful oral examination.5l Germann then cites the dangers inherent in compos— ing the oral interview board completely of command or supervisory officers of the testing department, favori- tism and prejudice for example, and concludes by recom- mending that the oral interview board be composed of the following: An expert in oral examining from the Civil Service Commission or personnel office; an expert or experts in law enforcement--from other jurisdic- tions or from the colleges and universities offer- ing law enforcement training; and a representative of the agency who is familiar with the policies and procedures of his agency.5 51Germann, op. cit., p. 75. 52Ibid. “9 If Germann is to be considered an advocate of the individual oral interview, he must be considered an even stronger advocate of the group oral interview. As the terms imply, in the individual oral interview, one candi- date is interviewed by a board and a report rendered. In the group oral interview several candidates, as many as six, are assembled and presented with a topic or problem, and then observed as they discuss the topic or attempt to arrive at a solution. As the group works the personali- ties and mental capacities of the group can be observed and rated by the interviewers.53 One critic of the oral interview is Professor William H. Hewitt who states: The popular notion that some people have a nat~ ural gift for sizing up others is one of the myths which has blocked progress in this field. Undoubt— edly, some persons are better qualified for this work than others, but, as is true of all other per- sonnel workers, interviewers must be trained. Prac- tice interviewing, for example, provides an excel- lent apprenticeship, just as practice teaching or coached case work visitation. Research on the reliability and validity of the interview is dif- ficult precisely for this reason. Interviewers vary so greatly in skill that if the most precise results are desired, research fleeds to be done with each separate interviewer.5 The present state of the art of interviewing and the need for more scientific study of the subject is dis- cussed at considerable length and depth by John Guidici 53Ibid., pp. 75-77. 5“William H. Hewitt, "Police Personnel Administra- tion," Police (September-October, 1966), p. 22. 50 in a chapter on the oral board written for the book Police Selection, edited by Richard H. Blum. Guidici summarizes his discussion of the oral board with a plea for objectivity and further study to improve present pro- cedures. He discusses the composition of the board and concludes that the board should include one key figure, the "examiner" or "personnel technician" and two or more interviewers. The examiner is, or should be, a profes- 55 sional personnel man. It is very important that qualified interview— ers be assigned to service on oral boards. It will be of little avail to carefully prepare a good interviewing program only to have it undone by incompetent interviewing. It is difficult to understand why so much inexpert employment inter- viewing is accepted in law enforcement hiring prac- tice in View of the great respect held for compe- tent interviewing in our other police activities. What has not been already understood is that employment interviewing is an activity calling for particular skills of the highest order.5 Guidici cites an American Management Association study by Mandell.57 The (employment) interviewer has one of the most complex of all jobs. He needs some know- ledge of psychology; he should have a thorough 55John Guidici, "The Oral Board, in Police Selec- tion, ed. by Richard H. Blum (Springfield: Charles C Thomas, Publisher, 196“), p. 185. 56Ibid., pp. 191-192. 57M. M. Mandell, The Employment InterView (Ameri- can Management Association: Research Study No. A7), cited by John Guidici, Police Selection, edited by R. H. Blum, op. cit., p. 192. 51 and up to date knowledge of job requirements in general and those of his organization in parti- cular; and he must be able to relate these fac- tors to the problem at hand and so project the behavior of the applicant. And he must base his difficult task upon the inadequate information obtained in an artificial situation: the inter— view. 58 Guidici cites Ordway's comments on the same sub- ject: The effectiveness of the oral test depends in great part on the skill of the examiners (inter— viewers). Thus, the examiner should possess considerable aptitude for his work before he is selected to serve as a member of an examining board. Skill in the procedure of the interview, however, may be acquired and perfected through training. In the opinion of Guidici, the controversy over department interviewers vs. outside interviewers avoids the basic consideration of competence of the interviewer. If the police department has, among the personnel in com— mand positions, men who are competent interviewers, they should be used. If not, outside interviewers should be utilized until such time as competent department inter— viewers can be selected, trained and can become exper- ienced. An apprenticeship interviewing program is rec- ommended for this training. These then are the basic ingredients for a success— ful oral board procedure: 58Samuel H. Ordway, Jr., Chairman, Committee on Oral Tests in Public Personnel Selection, Report submit- ted to the Civil Service Assembly, Chicago, 1943, cited by John Guidici, Police Selection, edited by R. H. Blum, p. 192. 52 (l) The program material should be set down for— mally in writing to the greatest extent pos- sible. Program materials must be readily available to the oral board members. Pre- pared by the examiner, the program will con- sist of: (a) a statement of objectives; (b) an exact identification of the attitudes, traits, knowledge, skill, and other char- acteristics which the examiner wants con- sidered and evaluated; (c) a definition of the terms used; (d) the criteria, standard or values which will be applied in the consideration and evaluation of the qualities, and finally (e) a description of the scoring system to be used in reporting the evaluations of the interviewer. (2) The successful oral board procedure is a pro- duct of the interviewers. It requires a high degree of knowledge and skill in order to effectively implement the interview procedure. Experience has clearly shown that the oral inter— view is an important and meaningful device in screening men. It may be, in fact, the best device we now possess to do our selection job.59 Smith comments on the reluctance of many civil ser- vice commissions to utilize the oral interview and sug- gests two basic reasons for this reluctance: (1) a belief that a formal test can be developed that will meet all the requirements of the interview, and at the same time lend itself to a simple and easily demonstrable system of grading, and (2) popular distrust concerning the fairness of the examination process. Since the sys- tem is devised and administered by the examiners it is 59Ib1d., pp. 195—196. 53 not subject to easy review. There is some danger that the oral interview will be criticized as a department device for avoiding the restrictions placed upon indivi— dual judgment by the civil service commission. This crit- icism can be easily overcome by appointing superior men to the oral interview board, men who are above this type of criticism. At any rate, the oral examination is an important supplement to the written test and it can be administered so as to avoid any reasonable suspicion of personal bias or partisanship on the part of the exami- 6O ners . Promotional Ratings In the prOposed model for the selection of munici- pal police sergeants, the oral interview is replaced by the promotional rating. The primary reason for this sub- stitution is the sheer force of numbers involved in this selection process. Hundreds, and even thousands, of men may be competing for the rank of sergeant in a large department. The promotional rating arrived at by the recommended board convened by each individual's command— ing officer is an acceptable substitute and draws some support from O. W. Wilson, who states: The evaluation made by an oral board in the rela- tively short time at its disposal cannot be as accurate as a composite evaluation made by all the supervising officers who have observed the work of 6OSmith, op. cit., p. 13a. 5A the candidate over a period of time. There is also the danger in oral board review that favoritism or other factors of personal acquaintance may influ- ence the rating of the candidate. In the case of promotions to the rank of sergeant and lieutenant, a rating scale, similar to that used in the rating of personal qualities of recruits, should be pre— pared by each officer who has rated the candidate previously during his service. Veterans Preference The influence of veterans preference points on a promotional examination have been largely negated in an age when most police candidates are veterans. Leonard, however, has voiced a very realistic criticism of the practice. Veterans preference may influence favorably the final score of the individual candidate although it must be conceded that the allowance of extra grade points on this basis is in conflict with the merit principle. Veterans Preference is obviously a ques- tion of politics and outside the pale of sound per- sonnel administration. In approaching this problem, governmental agencies must decide how far they are willing to go in compromizing the merit concept. It should be emphasized at this point that military experience is definitely an asset to a career offi- cer; however, if credit is given, it should be variable and based upon an examination of the extent and character of military experience rather than mere status as a veteran. Veterans Preference as presently understood and applied in most jurisdic— tions is basically unsound. 2 61 62 Wilson, Police Administration, 9p. cit., p. 159. Leonard, op. cit., p. 106. 55 III. COMPARISON OF LITERATURE WITH THE PROPOSED MODEL This section will compare the literature with the selection model proposed by this thesis. For the sake of clarity,each of the features included in the model will be compared separately. For the most part, the information referenced in the preceeding section will not be duplicated here. The reader, however, is advised to consider the literature presented on each of the features as they are discussed. Feature l--The Written Examination The model envisions a written examination, prepared by a central civil service commission or department per— sonnel section working in very close coordination with the command and training officers of the department to insure maximum training value accrues to the department as a result of the written examination. A numerical score will be awarded, based on a max— imum of 100 per cent which will then be weighted at 60 per cent of the final promotional examination. The written examination is supported by all of the police literature although reluctantly in some cases. Wilson warns of "too heavy" a weighting in some cities.63 63Wilson, Police Administration, op. cit., p. 158. 56 Germann recommends a weighting of 60 per cent.6u Germann also points out the great training value accruing to a department as a result of a well prepared and well coor- dinated written examination.65 Wilson,66 Smith, 67 Leonard,68 and Germann69 all point to the need for the personnel examiner to develop more scientific devices for evaluating leadership and administrative potential but to date none has been devel— oped. Leonard, perhaps, offered the most enthusiastic endorsement when he wrote: The intelligent use of tests and examinations, now accepted as a part of standard procedure in the best American police departments, will go far toward reducing the element of chance in the pro- cess of selection, placement, and promotion.7 'The written examination, weighted at 60 per cent of the complete promotional examination, is supported by the literature. 6A Germann, o . cit., p. 79. 65Ibid., p. 7n. 66Wilson, Police Administration, op. cit., p. 159. 67Smith, op. cit., p. 134. 68Leonard, op. cit., p. 102. 69Germann, op. cit., p. 70. 70Leonard, op. cit., p. 10“. 57 Feature 2——Seniority The model envisions one full point for each year of service with the department and one full point for each full year of college credit completed to a maximum of ten seniority points in the complete promotion examination. The literature is generally critical of seniority as a factor in selection for promotion and although not condemning it completely advises that seniority credit be awarded only after all other factors are considered and found to be equal. The chief critics of seniority points to the fact that promotion based upon seniority is deadening and pen- alizes qualified young men, influencing many to avoid the police profession in favor of other professions where they may advance more rapidly. None of the works reviewed considered the innova- tive characteristic of this particular feature, that is, equating college education to experience. Germann awards a final weight of 10 per cent to seniority in his proposed model.71 While not completely condemned by the literature, this feature does not receive strong support. 71Germann, op. cit., p. 79. 58 Feature 3--The Oral Interview and/or the Promotional Rating Whether the final rating be arrived at by an oral interview board in the case of prospective lieutenants, or a specially convened promotional rating board in the case of prospective sergeants, this feature includes the concept of continuing and regular personnel evaluation by the candidates' immediate supervisors and a one—time career evaluation and estimate of future potential ren- dered by a special board, convened for this purpose. The support for a personnel evaluation program in the literature is unanimous, as demonstrated by the pre- ceeding section. Germann offers some cautions against including the results in the promotional or pay proced- ures and advocates a qualifying--non-qualifying rating instead.72 This position is also proposed by the I.C.M.A.73 However, there can be no question, based upon the literature, that personnel evaluation is a necessary and important activity in modern police personnel admin- istration. The support of the authors cited in the review of the literature is equally unanimous in favor of police administrators selecting the best qualified candidates 72Ibid., p. 177. 73International City Managers Association (2nd ed.), op. cit., p. 131. 59 based upon demonstrated personal qualities, work exper— ience (not necessarily seniority), compiled personnel evaluations, police training and formal education com- pleted, and a considered evaluation of leadership and administrative potential. The oral interview is acknow- ledged to be the best means for accomplishing this task. Wilson acknowledges the need for this type of review of the "whole man" but favors the review being accomplished by the candidates supervisors, past and present]!4 This feature is supported by the literature. The complete model, as proposed in Chapter II, is supported by the professional police literature. The support for Feature 2, Seniority, is less than complete and enthusiastic although not considered as proposed in this model. 7”Wilson, op. cit., p. 7“. CHAPTER IV THE PROMOTIONAL PRACTICES IN TWENTY-THREE SELECTED CITIES This chapter will report the results of the field interviews that were conducted. The first section will discuss the methodology used. The empirical data will be presented in Section II. Section III will compare the recommended model with the results of the empirical study. I. METHODOLOGY The empirical studies were conducted through per- sonal interviews with the representatives of twenty-three police departments in the United States. The cities selected are representative cities by population and by geographic location. Nine of the police representatives were interviewed on college campuses where they were in attendance and fourteen of the cities were visited per- sonally by the author. The purpose of this field research was to determine what practices are actually being followed in the field to select municipal police sergeants and lieutenants. To insure accuracy, civil service notices of impending 6l promotional examination, with the detailed weighted sec— tions spelled out, were collected whenever possible. All of the interviewing was done by one person and an interview guide1 was used. The interview guide was designed and then tested in the office of the Director of Personnel of the Detroit Police Department to provide an interview that could be completed in thirty minutes. The author felt that thirty minutes was the most time he could ask of a busy police executive. The author termi- nated each interview with this informal question, which was not included in the interview guide: If you could change your promotional procedure, how would you change it? The response to this question was immensely inter— esting and led to further informal discussion which could be terminated at any time by the police executive being interviewed. None of the interviews was completed in less than one and one half hours and many lasted as long as four hours. The interest and the time of these busy police officials which was so freely and generously given is deeply appreciated by the author. The proposed model promotional procedure was undoubtedly influenced by these informal discussions with the men who are charged with the responsibility of administering their own proced- ures, and the changes they would like to make in those procedures. 1See Appendix A. 62 II. MUNICIPAL POLICE PROMOTION PROCEDURES The information developed regarding each of the promotional procedure features will be summarized and unique or outstanding situations will be discussed in narrative form. Unnecessary details or information which is merely accumulative will be eliminated although every effort will be made to preserve all pertinent data. The cities surveyed for this study are shown in Table 1. Written Examinations A. Does your department utilize a written examina- tion in the promotional process? Twenty-two of the twenty-three cities do use the written examination. The only exception is Ft. Wayne, where promotions are made by the mayor of the city. B. What weight is given to the written examina— tion in the final selection process? For sergeant? for lieutenant? Individual city responses are shown in Table 2. Only two cities, Detroit and Flint, assign different weights to the sergeants' and lieute- nants' examinations. Of the twenty-two cities represented in this study who do utilize a written examination, twelve assign a weight of 60 per cent or more. The weights assigned range from a high of 90 per cent in Cincinatti to a low of 30 per cent in Indianapolis. The average assigned weight for written examinations in all cities surveyed is 57 per cent. TABLE 1.-—Cities surveyed '63 Reéigixe City Population Sigiigih 1 New York, N.Y. 7,781,98A 28,000 2 Chicago, Ill. 3,550,AOA 11,Aoo 3 Los Angeles, Cal. 2,A79,o15 5,Aoo 5 Detroit, Mich. 1,670,1AA A,A68 7 Houston, Tex. 938,219 1,370 10 St. Louis, Mo. 750,026 2,200 1A Dallas, Tex. 679,68A 1,500 21 Cincinatti, Ohio 502,550 1,086 25 Minneapolis, Minn. A82,872 851 26 Indianapolis, Ind. A76,258 972 27 Kansas City, Mo. A75,539 900 A2 Omaha, Nebi 301,598 A65 A9 Dayton, Ohio 262,332 A35 62 Flint, Mich. 196,9Ao 336 70 Gary, Ind. 178,320 276 71 Grand Rapids, Mich. 177,313 279 78 Ft. Wayne, Ind. 161,776 2A3 82 Savanah, Ga. 1A9,2A5 230 110 Dearborn, Mich. 112,007 182 ** Warren, Mich. 89,2A6 213 ** Pontiac, Mich. 82,233 136 ** Kalamazoo, Mich. 82,089 136 ** La Crosse, Wis. A7,575 7A *The Everyday Encyclopedic Edition, Webster's New World Dictionary (Nashville: pany, 1967), p- 1163. The Southwestern Com- 6A TABLE 2.--Promotiona1 examination weighted scores. r-i : m H o 3 >3 c (Du-1 (D 4-) O U) C g-p vi -H -H p o a m > L ¢>m : p o s p o 0:: o 135 m.a rim H Ewd E w+m p m m4: c 04» 5 City £53 5‘35 63 53 3:52 8 New York 60 A0 Seniority in—' eludes medals and awards Chicago 60 30 10 Los Angeles 50 + 50 Detroit—-Sgt 55 35 10 Lt A5 20 10 25 Houston 70 30 10 Seniority added over 100% St. Louis ? ? ? Not announced Dallas 50 A5 5 Cincinatti 90 10 10 Seniority added Minneapolis 50 20 20 10 over 100% Indianapolis 30 + 50 20 Kansas City 60 + A0 Omaha 6O 3O 10 Dayton 70 20 10 Flint—-Sgt 8O 2O Lt 5O 2O 30 Gary 50 30 1o 10 Grand Rapids 60 A0 10 Seniority Added over 100% Fort Wayne -- -- -- -- -- Appointment by Mayor Savanah 50 15 35 Dearborn 60 A0 1 Warren 60 20 20 12§' Seniority Added Over 100% Pontiac A0 25 15 20 Kalamazoo 50 + 50 La Crosse 60 30 10 5 Seniority Added Over 100% + Indicates accumulated personnel evaluation reports are provided to oral interview board. 65 The St. Louis Police Department is unique in this respect. While they do announce to the can- didates that the promotions will be based upon the results of a written examination, a personnel eval— uation rating and an oral interview, they do not announce the relative weights assigned to each of these features. And, while they do compile a list of the candidates' final standings, in descending order of excellence, they do not publish this list for the general information of the department. Each candidate must visit the personnel division personally to determine his position on the list and his potential promotional probability. C. Does your department give official notice to the examinees of the subject matter to be covered in the examination? Thirteen of the twenty-two cities utilizing a written examination do give official notice of the subject matter to be covered. D. Does your department recommend study references to the examinees? Sixteen of the twenty-two cities utilizing a written examination do recommend study references. Questions C and D were designed to determine if the cities are gaining maximum training advantage from the examination. The activities of several cities are note—worthy in this respect and are fine examples of police administrators who have recog- nized the full potential of the written examination for inspiring home study by their officers. New York conducts a series of promotional schools in the police academy prior to the written examination. All of the student officers attend on their own time while the department provides the services of three lieutenants as instructors. Classes are three hours per session and are pre— sented four days each week at hours convenient to the men working the various shifts. Four thousand copies of the week's prepared handouts are printed and distributed to the men. An average of three hundred men attend each class session. A one—half hour resume of the material presented in each class 66 session is broadcast on the department's closed circuit television system for those officers who miss one of the class sessions. Using this procedure, the New York Police Department accomplishes thousands of man hours of training with the minimal cost of three lieutenants' salaries and the material needed to prepare the student handouts. The Chicago Police Department utilizes a dif- ferent approach to realize the same goal. A small staff in the Chicago Police Academy operates a home study correspondence school, using the department mails to send texts and lesson material to the individual officers. Completed lessons are returned to the academy for grading and credit. The Chicago Civil Service Commission coordinates with the Chicago Police Academy in preparing their written examinations and in reporting back to the academy areas of information in which the examinees are deficient. Again, the result is maximum training with minimal cost to the department. Indianapolis has developed an equally effective method of directing the study activities of its officers. A promotional school is announced con- currently with the promotional examination notice. The written examination portion of the promotional examination is prepared by the Indianapolis Police Personnel Division and is administered as the final two hours of the A0 hour promotional school. Atten- dance at the promotional school is voluntary, at no cost to the city. The most detailed notices of the subject matter to be covered and the study references recommended are made by Kansas City and Dayton. Copies of these notices are shown in Appendices B and C. E. Does your department give separate written examinations for sergeant and lieutenant? If yes, how do the examinations differ. All of the cities involved do give different examinations for sergeant and lieutenant. Although there are necessarily many similar questions, the emphasis on the sergeants examinations is on patrol procedures and general police knowledge and 67 leadership. The lieutenants examinations include leadership and general police knowledge, but add administration and management sections. F. Who is responsible for preparing your written examinations? In the vast majority of the cities studied, (15 of 22 who use a written examination) the writ- ten examination is prepared by a central city civil service commission. There is excellent coordination between the civil service commission and the department training officers in the pre— paration of exams in several cities but no coor- dination in most. In three cities, Detroit, Indianapolis, and Kansas City, the examination is prepared by depart- ment personnel and training officers. In four cities the examination is prepared by other agencies. The Psychology Department at Washington University in close coordination with the police personnel department prepares the exami- nation for the St. Louis Police Department. The Michigan Municipal League, a commercial organiza- tion, prepares the examination for Warren and Pontiac. The Bureau of Personnel, State of Wis- consin, prepares the examination for the La Crosse Police Department. G. Why is responsible for administering your writ- ten examination? In all cases except St. Louis, the examination is administered by the preparing agency. The St. Louis examination is administered by the personnel office of the St. Louis Police Department. H. How much time is required to administer the written examination to the prospective sergeants? the prospective lieutenants? All of the cities reported approximately the same amount of time is required for both examina- tions. 68 Four cities, St. Louis, Dallas,0maha, and La Crosse, require two hours or less to administer the examination. Two cities, New York and Detroit, require more than four hours to administer the examination. The remainder of the cities, the majority, require between two and four hours to administer the examination. I. Who is responsible for scoring your written examination? In all cases, the examination was scored by the preparing agency. J. Does your department make use of commercially prepared intelligence exams? If yes, what tests have been used in the past? The answers to this question were largely affir- mative with several commercial intelligence tests being used by more than one department. Most popu- lar of the commercial tests are: the Revised Otis- 1ennon, the California Short Term Maturity Test, the Hannon Nelson, and the Wunderlicht. Personnel Evaluation A. Does your department utilize a personnel eval- uation in the promotional process? If yes, how is the rating utilized? If no, is a personnel evaluation uti- lized for any other purpose in your department? Two cities do not make a personnel evaluation or their officers. In sixteen cities, the person- nel evaluation is a feature of the final promo- tional examination. Weights assigned to personnel evaluation in these cities vary from 10 per cent in Cincinatti to A5 per cent in Dallas. 69 In four cities the accumulated personnel eval- uations are considered by the oral interview board as a part of the entire personnel file of each officer. One city, New York, prepares a personnel eval- uation of its officers but does not use the evalua— tion in the promotional process. B. Who is responsible for preparing personnel eval- uations for patrolmen? for Sergeant? In all cases, the personnel evaluations are prepared by the individual officer's next two immediate supervisors. 0. Is training in the preparation of personnel evaluations given to new supervisory personnel? In response to the formal question on the interview guide, there was a unaminous "yes" to this question. However, in the informal discus- sion which followed, this training was found to be sketchy, irregular, and incomplete, in the opin- ions of the department representatives. Most thought that, in order to be effective, any per- sonnel evaluation program should include a thor- ough indoctrination of all supervisory personnel to spell out the aims and goals of the program and to enlist their support. This indoctrination, they felt, should be followed by a complete review immed- iately prior to each rating, to reinforce the training previously given. D. How often are personnel evaluations made? One city makes a personnel evaluation every 2 weeks. One city makes a personnel evaluation quar- terly. Eleven cities make a personnel evaluation semi~annually. Two cities make a personnel eval- uation annually. Six cities make a personnel eval- uation for each examination. Two cities do not make personnel evaluations. St. Louis, which makes a personnel evaluation upon the occasion of each promotional examination, makes the evaluation only for those officers who have filed their intent to take the written exami- nation. 70 E. What steps are taken by your department to avoid the problem of "inflated ratings." The responses to this question are so varied that no easy summarization can be made. Several representative answers deserve reporting here. New York uses a system in which the rater is forced to designate his rated men in numerical order of excellence. There can be no inflation. St. Louis, in addition to requiring that the rated men be designated in numerical order of excellence, requires a department average be main- tained. Several cities reported that supervisors are required to maintain an average rating for the men they supervise. Chicago requires an average of 86, and Detroit an average of 88 on a scale of 100. Houston requires an average of 26 on a scale of 30, but then goes one step further by requiring that the supervisor justify in writing any rating over 26 or under 18. In order to justify these extreme ratings, specific instances of either outstanding or poor performance must be cited. These extreme ratings must then be approved by the Captain in charge of the division before they can become final. Dallas uses a variation of this idea, allowing the average to fall between 70 and 90 on a scale of 100 and requiring special justification, in writing, for any rating which falls outside of these aver- ages. In Pontiac, the Chief has recognized the prob- lem of inflated ratings and has constituted a spe- cial rating board composed of two captains and one lieutenant. The ratings are made semi-annually in Pontiac and each patrolman is rated by his patrol sergeant and his shift lieutenant. When the rat- ings are complete, the lieutenant must personally appear before the rating board constituted by the Chief, with all of his ratings and present them to the board. Each rated man has the right to appeal disputed ratings to this same board. If the rated man is not satisfied with the decision of the rat- ing board, his final appeal is to the Chief of the department. This system has the added advantage of providing a measure of the supervisory effective- ness of the lieutenants who command the shifts and specialized bureaus. 71 The Oral Interview A. Does your department utilize an oral interview in the selection of new sergeants? new lieutenants? Thirteen cities do utilize an oral interview in the selection of new sergeants and lieutenants, although Flint's utilization is for lieutenants only. Nine of these cities utilize the oral inter- view in addition to the personnel evaluation, with each feature being weighted in the final promo- tional mark. Four of these cities utilize the oral interview in conjunction with the personnel evaluation, with one weighted mark applying to the final promotional mark. Ten cities do not utilize an oral interview. B. What is the composition of your oral board? Are any outside personnel administration experts included? The responses to this question are extremely varied. Of the thirteen cities who do utilize an oral interview, the composition of the oral boards is as follows: Five cities utilize all department command personnel. Two cities utilize all outside police adminis- trators. Two cities utilize outside police administra— tors plus university personnel experts. Two cities utilize all outside Civil Service personnel, not personnel experts. One city utilizes a group oral by a civil ser- vice board, not personnel experts. One city utilizes department command personnel plus an outside personnel administration expert. C. Does the same oral board interview all appli- cants? In 10 cities, the same oral board interviews all applicants. In 3 cities the personnel assigned to the oral board varies during the rating period. 72 D. What weight is assigned to the oral interview in the final selection process? Weights vary from 10 per cent in La Crosse and Gary to 50 per cent in Los Angeles, Indianapolis, and Kalamazoo (refer back to Table 2 for specific weights in each city). Seniority A. Does your department utilize seniority points in the promotional process? Fifteen cities do utilize seniority points in the promotional process. Eight cities do not utilize seniority points. B. How are seniority points computed in your department? The responses to this question defy summariza- tion and so are reported in Table 3. C. What is the maximum number of seniority points that can be utilized in the promotional process? Responses are shown in Table 3. D. What weight is given to the seniority points in the final selection process? Responses are shown in Table 3. E. Is seniority weighted as heavy today as it was 5 years ago? 10 years ago? Responses to this question indicate little or no changes in the weighting of seniority for many years. TABLE 3.--Seniority computations 73 Maximum Years to City Seniority Formula . Reach P01nts Maximum New York* A0 Chicago 2 points per year 10 5 Detroit 1/2 point per year 10 20 Houston 1 point per year 10 10 Dallas 1/3 point per year 5 15 Cincinatti 1 point per year, first A years .6 point per year, next 10 years 10 1A Minneapolis 1 point per year 10 10 Indianapolis 1 point per year 20 20 Omaha 0 points, first A years 1 point per year, 5th through 1A years 10 1A Dayton 1 point per year, first A years .6 point per year, next 10 years 10 1A Flint 1 point per year 25 25 Gary 1/2 point per year 10 20 Grand Rapids 1 point per year 10 10 Warren 1/2 point per year 12 1/2 25 Pontiac 1 point per year 20 20 *New York uses a combination of years of service plus medals and awards. See Appendix D for formula. 7A F. Is there any provision in your promotional pro- cess for granting seniority credit for formal years of education? None of the cities involved in this study grant seniority credit for formal years of education. G. How many years service are required before a patrolman is allowed to take a sergeants examination? Responses are reported in Table A. H. How many years service are required before a sergeant is allowed to take a lieutenants examination? Responses are reported in Table A. Veterans Preference A. Is veterans preference given any consideration in your promotional process? Five cities add veterans preference points to the final promotional examination. Eighteen cities to not give any consideration to veterans prefer- ence. B. How are veterans preference points computed? New York awards 5 points to a disabled veteran, 2 1/2 points to a veteran. Chicago awards 1 point per 6 months of military service to a maximum of 3 1/2 points. Detroit awards 1 month of seniority credit for each 3 months military service--maxi— mum 10 points seniority credit. Minneapolis awards 5 points to a veteran. La Crosse awards 5 points to a veteran. C. How has the awarding of veterans preference points changed in the past ten years? Minneapolis reports the only change. Effective June 1, 1968 veterans preference points may be used on only one examination, upon the election of the candidate. 75 TABLE A.—-Service required to take promotional examination. City To Sergeant To Lieutenant New York 1* 1 day in rank Chicago 6 months 6 mo. in rank Los Angeles A years 2 years in rank Detroit 3 years** 2 years in rank Houston 2 1/2 yrs. 2 years in rank St. Louis 3 years 1 year in rank Dallas 3 years 1 year in rank Cincinatti 3 years 2 years in rank Minneapolis 5 years 2 years in rank Indianapolis 3 years 2 years in rank Kansas City 2 years 1 year in rank Omaha A years 2 years in rank Dayton 3 years 2 years in rank Flint A years 1 year in rank Gary 5 years no lieutenants in dept. Grand Rapids 2 1/2 yrs. 6 mo. in rank Fort Wayne -- -- Savanah 3 years 2 years in rank Dearborn 5 years+ 3 years in rank Warren 7 years++ 2 years in rank Pontiac 5 years 2 years in rank Kalamazoo 3 years 2 years in rank La Crosse 5 years 2 years in rank *In New York a patrolman may take a written examination after 1 year service but must have three years' service before he can be promoted. **In Detroit a college degree reduces the time required to sergeant to 2 years, to lieutenant to 1 year in rank +Dearborn utilizes ranks of PFC and Corporal. 2 years to PFC, 2 years as PFC to Corporal, 1 year as Corporal to Sergeant ++Warren utilizes rank of Corporal. 5 years to Corporal, 2 years in rank of Corporal to Sergeant 76 D. Are veterans preference points added to the total score before all other items are complete? New York adds the veterans preference points only after a passing score on the written exami- nation. Chicago adds the veterans preference points only after a passing score on the written exami- nation and the performance evaluation, upon the declaration of the candidate. Veterans preference points may be used on only one examination. Detroit adds the veterans preference points to the seniority total to a maximum of 10 sen- iority points. Minneapolis awards the veterans preference points only after a passing score on all other tests and upon declaration of the candidate. Vet- erans preference points may be used on only one examination. La Crosse adds the veterans preference points only after a passing score on the written exami- nation. Formal Education A. Is any credit given for formal education in your promotional process? Only one city, Omaha, awards credit for formal education in the promotional process. B. How is this credit computed and awarded? Each three (3) semester hours of applicable college work shall carry a value of one-fourth (l/A) of one (1) promotion point. Points may not accrue or be valued in promotional examinations at a rate in excess of one-half (1/2) of one (1) point per semester. A maximum of one and one- fourth (1 1/A) points per academic year may be credited (for a complete description of the Omaha plan, see Appendix E). 77 C. Has any change taken place in the area of edu- cation in the promotional process in the past 10 years? The only change reported is in the city of Omaha. D. What does your department do to encourage offi- cers to seek additional formal training? Included among the encouragements to seek additional formal training are additional pay, promotional credit, reduction of time requirements for promotional eligibility, paid tuition, arrange- ment of work schedules to facilitate attendance, academic paid leave, college credit for police academy attendance and one largely unknown factor, emphasis on formal education in the oral inter- view. The complete response is shown in Table 5. The additional pay is being paid by Dallas and Grand Rapids. Dallas has created the position of Master Police Officer with pay midway between patrolman and sergeant or roughly $500 per year additional pay. Officers qualify as a MP0 with 2 full years of applicable college credit. Grand Rapid pays 2 1/2% of a pay step increase per month for one year of applicable college credit or 5% for 2 years of applicable college credit. This amounts to about $200 per year additional pay for one year of college and $A00 per year for two years of college. Several cities which utilize an oral interview have indicated that the boards have been placing increasing emphasis on formal education in recent years. This statement was not validated, however, in this study. General This entire section was included in an attempt to gain insight into promotional practices in the survey cities and was chiefly influenced by some of the criti- cisms in the literature. Generally, the responses in TABLE 5.—-Inducements to seek formal education. p l -a o :n «o c E ~ 6 p m 6 inLD > H m :. era 2 x m U o a)mtm o a o a) Cl H E H -r-4 0 .4 S-«(D or-iS-a (U 5:: HS—u—i 4—) 3 DO 0) C: O BOLT—1 H C) "-1 (04—) O -r-1 CH :5 (D "-1 (Dc-4% ~HC. 0H 4.: (1) H [—4 60 E 6008 cor—1 4—) O OCDCU EU) (I) (DD-«(1) CO -H E :sos: ro m p U r4 1: .Qr43 'd o TIMCD -H a 3 m rihcd Qaim "(5 $4 GJS-c-r-l (U $40 0 OOO ES—aor-i Guy < m map m <3 < o%< mo> New York x x x Chicago x x Los Angeles x x x Detroit x x x x Houston x x St. Louis x x x x Dallas x x x Cincinatti 1/2 x x Minneapolis x x x x Indianapolis x x x x Kansas City 1/2 x x x Omaha x x x x x Dayton 1/2 x x Flint* x** x x Gary x Grand Rapids x x x x Ft. Wayne x Savanah x x x x Dearborn 1/2 x Warren X Pontiac x x x Kalamazoo x La Crosse x x *1 yr. college to apply, 2 yrs. college to captain, A yrs. college to chief **Paid by Mott foundation 79 this section have little or no bearing on the proposed thesis of this work. Promotional examinations in these survey cities are carried out at least every two years. In all of the sur- vey cities, eligibility to write a promotional examina- tion, either for sergeant or lieutenant, is limited to the next lower rank. Eligible rosters of the candidates for each promo- tion, arranged in order of excellence, are compiled in all cities except Ft. Wayne, These lists are published in a general department order in all cities except St. Louis and Omaha, when the candidate may visit the person- nel office to determine his own position on the roster. There were three different responses to question F in this section: "Is your chief executive required to promote the top man, in order, from the eligible roster?" The three answers, and the cities responding were: YesJ no deviation No, one of three No, all are eligible Cincinatti New York Detroit Minneapolis Chicago St. Louis Kansas City Los Angeles Indianapolis Dayton Houston Savanah Gary Dallas La Crosse Dearborn Omaha Warren Flint Grand Rapids Pontiac Kalamazoo The "one of three" rule, found to be most common, requires the chief executive to promote one of the top 80 three men on the eligible roster to each vacancy which exists. There are various requirements among the cities for actions which must accompany the passing over of any eligible officer on the roster. III. COMPARISON OF THE EMPIRICAL DATA WITH THE RECOMMENDED MODEL An analysis of the promotional procedures actually being used in twenty-three American cities reveals twenty- three different promotional systems. No two procedures are alike because each was developed to fill an existing need, faced with different influences and beset by dif- ferent pressures. Several cities now approach the rec- ommended model promotional procedure, others are far different. Feature l--The Written Examination Twenty-two cities utilize a written examination, although several do not gain maximum training advantage from the experience. The average weight assigned to the written examination is 57 per cent as compared with the recommended 60 per cent. Twelve cities assign a weight of 60 per cent or more to the written examination. This feature is supported by the empirical data. 81 Feature 2—-Seniority Sixteen cities include seniority in their promo- tional procedure with considerable variation in the weight assigned. Ten cities favor 10 per cent as the assigned weight. None of the cities includes seniority credit for formal education although Omaha is beginning to assign promotional points to formal education. All cities have indicated a desire for their officers to seek additional formal training by offering substantial inducements. The inclusion of seniority is supported by the empirical data but the equating of formal education with seniority is not supported. Feature 3--The Oral Interview Thirteen cities of the twenty-three studied do presently utilize an oral interview in the promotional process. In four of these cities, the accumulated results of the personnel evaluation are provided to the oral interview board for a part of the overall consideration of the man's performance in his present position and his potential for leadership. The composition of the oral boards are extremely varied but several closely resemble the recommended model and Savanah is following the model exactly. The composition of the boards in several other cities is not so substantially different that they reject the model. The use of department command personnel and 82 the use of outside personnel experts are both common practices. The only point remaining is the establishing of a proper balance. This feature is supported by the empirical data. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This final chapter contains two sections. The first will summarize the results of the study and the second will deal with conclusions which have been reached as a result of the study. In reaching these conclusions, the recommended model will be compared with the summary of the literature and the field interviews. Finally, certain recommendations for further study will be offered. I. SUMMARY The literature on the subject of promotional exami- nations and related factors was interesting but somewhat shallow in several areas. For example, the writings in the area of written examinations warned of the evils of overweightingl and the central civil service commission but failed to stress the tremendous training results being obtained from these efforts in some cities and com- pletely ignored in others. The writings in the area of personnel evaluation warned of the confusion arising if more than seven or at the most ten personal qualities are lGermann, op. cit., p. 7A. 2wilson, Police Planning, op. cit., p. 225. 8A evaluated in a rating form.3 Admittedly these writings are dated. The latest development in this field is the new Army officers efficiency report which requires the evaluation of twenty-six personal qualities. This form is actually the seventh revision of the series and is the result of a very careful study and evaluation pro— gram.LI There is a unanimous concensus among police writers that some inducements must be made to recruit university trained candidates into the police service, but other than general references to lateral entry at the command level,5 which is bitterly opposed in the field, there are few specific recommendations for actions which can or should be taken by police administrators. There is cer- tainly agreement in the literature that the promotional procedures need to be improved in the American municipal police service. The practices currently being utilized in the field are as varied as the literature. There were as many different approaches to the pro- cess of selecting municipal police lieutenants and ser- geants as there were cities surveyed. The features in 3Leonard, op. cit., p. 109; Smith, op. cit., p. 13A; Germann, op. cit., p. 177. “A. F. Jones, op. cit., p. AA. 5Leonard, op. cit., p. 131. 85 each process are similar although none of the cities puts the features together to form the same final selection process. The promotional processes are traditional, to a large extent, in each city and changes and improvements are slow to evolve. Pressure groups within police organ— izations bitterly oppose any change in the established process unfavorable to themselves. The innovative fea- ture of promotional point credit for formal education in Omaha was opposed by the patrolmen's association until the limitation of formal education credit to the rate at which it can now be earned by a patrolman who is just beginning his formal education.6 Thus, the present col- lege graduate on the Omaha Police Department, and the patrolman who enrolls for 6 credits during the fall term at the University of Nebraska will both accumulate pro- motion points at the same rate.7 This concession was necessary in order to overcome the objections of the patrolmen's association. These same pressure groups are suspicious of changes in the promotion procedure in any way and greatly impede the establishment of innovations and improvements. 6Personal interview with Chief Richard Anderson, Omaha Police Department, May 20, 1968. 7See Appendix E. 86 II. CONCLUSIONS Comparison of the Literature with the Model Every feature of the recommended model is amply supported by the literature with the possible exception of the innovative feature of equating formal education 9 10 all advo- to seniority. Wilson,8 Germann and Leonard cate inducements to stimulate the recruiting of college graduates to the police service and all are critical of a heavy emphasis on seniority per se. The chief deter- rent to a career in the police service for a college graduate, at the present time, is the prospect of long and unrewarding service at the lowest level. The final weights assigned to each feature in the recommended model is consistent with the literature, and in fact, closely approaches the model recommended by Germann.ll It can be stated that the available literature supports the recommended model which was proposed by this thesis. 8Wilson, Police Administration, op. cit., p. 130. 9 10 Germann, op. cit., p. 70 Leonard, op. cit., p. 10A. llGermann, op. cit., p. 79. 87 Comparison of the Field Data with the Model The selection procedures being used in the field are varied and, apparently, each in its own city is pro- ducing the kinds of police commanders and administrators that each of these cities desires because changes are extremely slow to come. The written examination is strongly established and deeply rooted in all of these systems and perhaps rightly so. It does provide a con— crete definitive listing of excellence so far as excel- lence can be tested in this manner. The personnel evaluation is also an established and accepted fact of life in the police service although the method of utilizing this rating is varied with some cities making it a part of the final promotional score and others passing it along to the oral interview board, where it becomes a part of the total evaluation of the candidate. The oral interview is a common police promotional procedure, although not as well accepted, and the target of considerable suspicion. The composition of the board appears to be the target of most of the suspicion. Seniority is also deeply rooted and traditional in many departments. Pressure groups, especially senior employees, will fight for its retention. It can also be stated that the recommended model is supported by the field data. 88 Final Conclusions The research findings support the following state- ments. 1. The hypothesis was supported. The proposed model selection procedure allows the police administrator to select the best possible men for promotion based upon proven knowledge, experience and training, performance and demonstrated potential for leadership. 2. Specifically regarding the three key questions that were asked: a. Is the model promotional procedure a valid test to be utilized in selecting the best possible leaders and administrators? The findings indicate the answer is yes. The test is a proper device for measuring the ability, attitude, knowledge, experience and potential for leadership possessed by each candidate. However, deficiencies may occur where the persons conducting the written examinations or making the personnel evalu— ations, or rating the individual in a promotional rating, or oral interview, are not men of integrity. There is also some indication in the field that the tests being used are not always specifically designed to test the knowledge or traits that they propose to test. Particu- lar attention needs to be directed to test content to insure the practicality of the subject material and its application to the position in contention. 89 b. Do the police departments represented in the survey follow a rational procedure in selecting their sergeants and lieutenants? Yes, although it must be remembered that each department developed its own sys— tem beset by its own peculiar set of pressures and in- fluences. c. Would adherence to the model promotional pro- cedure have increased or decreased the quality of the leaders and administrators selected? The use of the model selection procedure might have increased the quality of the leaders selected. The quality of the leaders selected vs the quality of the candidates might provide a basis for an entire new study. III. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. It is recommended that further research be conducted concerning the use of this model. This research could take several directions. For example, a study of the comparative effectiveness of various compositions of oral boards, or, a study of the general efficiency of a police department which closely follows the recommended model and one which utilizes administrative selection, such as Fort Wayne. Another study might attempt to refute the model by finding or developing hypothetical situations in which it would not work. 2. It is further recommended that police administrators place increasing emphasis on objectivity and recorded 90 documentations in the personnel evaluation systems in use. Any of the systems will be effective if an ob- jective evaluation of each officer is an integral part of the system 3. Police administrators should research the problem of recruiting able, educated personnel into the police service. Bold, innovative measures are needed to reverse a dangerous trend and to recruit the best pos- sible candidates to the police service--so that they may then be the persons selected by this model selec— tion procedure. The equating of formal education to seniority, to reduce the required years in the patrolman ranks, may overcome one of the basic objections college gradu- ates have to police service. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS Blood, Jerome W., ed. The Personnel Job in a Changing World. New York: American Management Association, 1955. Blum, Richard H. Police Selection. Springfield: Charles C Thomas, Publisher, 196A. Bristow, Allen P., and Babard, E. C. Decision Making in Police Administration. Springfield: Charles C Thomas, Publisher, 1961. Bristow, Allen P., and Babard, E. C., eds. Readings in Police Supervision. Los Angeles: Los Angeles State College Foundation, 1963. Clift, Raymond E. A Guide to Modern Police Thinking. Cincinatti: The W. H. Anderson Co., 1956. Germann, A. C. Police Personnel Management. Springfield: Charles C Thomas, Publisher, 1958. Germann, A. C. Police Executive Development. Spring— field: Charles C Thomas, Publisher, 1963. Goode, William J. and Hatt, Paul K. Methods in Social Research. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1952. International City Managers Association. Municipal Police Administration. Chicago: International City Managers Association, 19A3. Leonard, V. A. Police Organization and Management. 2nd ed. Brooklyn: The Foundation Press, 196A. Merrill, Harwood F. Developing Executive Skills. New York: American Management Association, 1958. Nigro, Felix A. Public Personnel Administration. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1959. 93 Perkins, Rollin M. Elements of Police Science. Chicago: The Foundation Press, Inc., 19A2. Pfiffner, John M., and Sherwood, Frank P. Administrative Organization. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Pren— tice Hall Inc., 1960. Skolnick. J. H. Justice Without Trial. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967. Skolnick. J. H. Professional Police in a Free Society. New York: National Council of Christians and Jews, 1968. Smith, Bruce. Police Systems in the United States. 2nd revised ed. Harper & Brothers, Publisher, 1960. Sullivan, John L. Introduction to Police Science. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966. Weston, Paul B., and McCann, Harry P. Police Promotion Quizzes. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1962. Wilson, 0. W. Police Administration. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963. Wilson, 0. W. Police Planning. 2nd ed. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1958. Wilson, 0. W. Police Records, Their Installation and Use. Chicago: Public Administration Service, l9A2. B. PERIODICALS Blum, Richard H., and Osterloh, William J. "Keeping Policemen on the Job." Police (May—June, 1966), 28-29. Brandstatter, Arthur F. "Executive Development in Police Service." The Police Yearbook (Washington, D.C.: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1962). Clarke, Victor J., and Saxenian, Hrand. ”Objectivity in Performance Evaluation." Police (November-December, 1965): 33’37- 9A Hewitt, William H. "Police Personnel Administration." Police (September-October, 1966), 22—26. Jones, A. F. "OER Spells Your Future." The Army Digest (March, 1968), AA—A6. C. PUBLICATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT, LEARNED SOCIETIES AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS Army Regulation--AR 623-105. Personnel Efficiency Rat- in s. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1958 Department of Army Pamphlet, 360-30A. Officers Call-- Efficiency Reporting. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1968. Mandell, Milton M. "Employment Interviewing. United States Civil Service Commission Personnel Method Series, No. 5, 1956. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Adminis- tration of Justice. The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1967. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administra- tion of Justice. Task Force Report: The Police. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1967. D. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS Police and Fire Training Program Advisory Committee. "Report and Recommendations." A report and recom- mendations regarding the establishing of an incen- tive pay program for formal education in the Police and Fire Departments, Madison, Wisconsin. Madison: 1967. (Mimeographed.) APPENDICES APPENDIX A POLICE PROMOTION INTERVIEW GUIDE POLICE PROMOTION INTERVIEW GUIDE DEPARTMENT IDENTIFICATION AND INFORMATION: DEPARTMENT TOTAL STRENGTH NUMBER OF SERGEANTS: UNIFORM DETECTIVE TOTAL NUMBER OF LIEUTENANTS: UNIFORM DETECTIVE TOTAL I. WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS A. Does your department utilize a written examination in the promotional process? For Sergeant Yes__ No__ For Lieutenant Yes__ No__ What weight is given to the written examination in the final selection process? For Sergeant % For Lieutenant % Does your department give official notice to the examinees of the subject matter to be covered in the examination? For Sergeant Yes No For Lieutenant Yes__ No WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS (continued) 98 D. Does your department recommend study references to the examinees? For Sergeant Yes__ No For Lieutenant Yes__ No If yes, what study references do you recommend? E. Does your department give separate written exami- nations for Sergeant and Lieutenant? Yes No If yes, how do the examinations differ? F. Who is responsible for preparing your written examinations? For Sergeant? For Lieutenant? G. Who is responsible for administering your written examinations? For Sergeant? For Lieutenant? WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS (continued) 99 H. How much time is required to administer the written examination to the prospective sergeants? hours. the prospective lieutenants? hours. I. Who is responsible for scoring your written exami- nations? For Sergeant? For Lieutenant? J. Does your department make use of commercially pre- pared intelligence examinations? Yes No If yes, what tests have you used in the past? IE. PERSONNEL EVALUATION (Service or efficiency ratings) A. Does your department utilize a personnel evalua- tion rating in the promotional process? For Patrolmen? Yes No For Sergeants? Yes No If yes, how is the rating utilized? PERSONNEL EVALUATION (continued) 100 If not used in the promotional process, is a personal evaluation system utilized for any other purpose in your department? B. Who is responsible for preparing personnel eval- uations for patrolmen? For sergeants? C. Is training in the preparation of personnel evaluations given to new supervisory personnel? Yes___No__ D. How often are personnel evaluations made? __Month1y __Semi-Annual __Annual Each examination E. What steps are taken by your department to avoid the problem of "Inflated Ratings"? III. ORAL INTERVIEW A. Does your department utilize an oral interview in the selection of new Sergeants? Yes__ No__ ORAL INTERVIEW (continued) 101 If yes, are all prospective sergeants inter— viewed by the board? Yes__ No__ If no, how are prospective Sergeants selected for interview? If yes, what is the composition of your oral board. Are any outside personnel administra- tion experts included? If yes, does the same oral interview board inter- view all applicants? Yes No If no, what measures are taken to insure uniformity in the oral interview board results? ORAL INTERVIEW (continued) 102 If yes, what weight is assigned to the oral interview in the final selection process? % COMMENTS: B. Does your department utilize an oral interview in the selection of new Lieutenants? Yes__ No__ If yes, are all prospective Lieutenants inter— viewed by the board? Yes__ No__ If no, how are prospective Lieutenants selected for interview? If yes, what is the composition of the oral interview board? Are any outside personnel administration experts included? If yes, does the same oral interview board interview all applicants? Yes No ORAL INTERVIEW (continued) 103 If no, what measures are taken to insure uniformity in the oral interview results? If yes, what weight is assigned to the oral interview in the final selection process % COMMENTS: IV. SENIORITY A. Does your department utilize seniority points in the promotional process? For Sergeant Yes__ No__ For Lieutenant Yes___No__ How are seniority points computed in your department? What is the maximum number of seniority points that can be utilized in the promotional pro- cess? Points SENIORITY (continued) 10A D. A. B. What weight is given to the seniority points in the final selection process? _____% Is seniority weighted as heavy today as it was 5 years ago? Yes No 10 years ago? Yes__ No__ Is there any provision in your promotional pro- cess for granting seniority credit for formal years of education? Yes__ No__ How many years service are required before a patrolman is allowed to take a Sergeant's exam- ination? .____ Years How many years service are required before a Sergeant is allowed to take a Lieutenant's examination? Years VETERANS PREFERENCE Is veterans preference given any consideration in your promotional process? Yes No How are veterans preference points computed? VETERANS PREFERENCE (continued) 105 C. How has the awarding of veterans preference points changed in the past ten years? D. Are veterans preference points added to the total score before all other items are complete? Yes__ No__ VI. FORMAL EDUCATION A. Is any credit given for formal education in your promotional process? Yes No B. If yes, how is the credit computed and awarded? C. Has any change taken place in the area of educa- tion in the promotional process in the last ten years? Yes__ No__ D. What does your department do to encourage offi- cers to seek additional formal training? 106 VII. GENERAL A. How often does your department give a promotional examination, on the average? For Sergeant For Lieutenant Who is eligible to compete for Sergeant? Who is eligible to compete for Lieutenant? Does your department compile an eligible roster for promotion as a result of this promotional selection process? To Sergeant Yes No To Lieutenant Yes__ No__ What is the life expectancy of an eligible roster? For Sergeant For Lieutenant GENERAL (continued) 107 F. Is your chief executive required to promote the top man, in order, from the eligible roster? To Sergeant Yes No To Lieutenant Yes__ No Has the emphasis changed from one criteria to another in your department over the past ten years? Yes No If yes, in what way? Does your department have an executive develop- ment program? Yes No If yes, how is this program managed? Please describe any other selection criteria in your promotional process? APPENDIX B WRITTEN EXAMINATION FOR SERGEANT 1139 ‘93. SPECIAL ORDER 10-1-66 10.1.“ f"; KANSAS CITY, '40. POLICE DEPARTMENT oars or "SUI e'rscrws oars . I“, 66-7 au'iu'fid A.written examination for promotion to the rank of sergeant will be con- ducted on December. 1, 1966. -’:T'; to be eligible to participate in this examination, an officer must hold the rank of Class A Patrolman, Corporal or Detective, with a minimum of 6 years current consecutive service. Any officer who meets these qualifications, and.desires to be placed on the new eligibility list for promotion to the rank of Sergeant, must take this written examination. Eligible officers who desire to register for the written examination must appear in person at the Personnel Unit and make application on or before Friday, October 14,1966. . the written examination will consist of: ggeetions Content -10 ‘ 'Observation and Recall 11-15 Reading Comprehension' 16-25 - Patrol 26-30 ' , . Courts and Trials 31-40 Interrogation 61-55 Investigation 56-65 . Identification 66-75 - Juvenile Delinquency 76-85 Crime Prevention 86-90 . Vice ‘ 91-100 ' Evidence 101-110 ' Criminology 7111-120 ‘ Riot Control 121-125 . uniform Crime Reporting 126-130 Records and Reports 131-140 ' Public Relations 141-155 Supervision 155-200._ Organisation, Administration, Financing and Policy, Kansas City Missouri Police Department Officers desiring to review material that will be beneficial to them in this examination should refer to the following publications: 1. Police Administration - O. H; Wilson - 2nd Bd., New York, McCraw-Hill, 1963 2. gun unicipal Police Administration - International City Manager' s Association - ' 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, Illinois g 3. Police Org_nization and'Mansgement - V..A. Leonard, Poundation Press, 1955 APPENDIX C BULLETIN CITY OF DAYTON, OHIO PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION BULLETIN CITY OF DAYTON, OHIO CIVIL SERVICE BOARD ROOM 300 MUNICIPAL BLDG. 101 WEST THIRD STREET NO. 120 PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION POLICE LIEUTENANT. . . . . . . . OCTOBER 17, 1967 DUTIES: To act as the responsible head of a relief of the patrol section, or second in command of one of the major sections of the Department of Police. To assign duties to lower ranking officers for the purpose of carry- ing out administrative policies and procedures of the Police Department; to see that the duties assigned to subordinates are competently performed; to maintain ade- quate written records; to submit required reports; to make decisions pertaining to police administration on both routine and emergency police situations; to maintain discipline and morale of assigned subordinates; to follow orders as given by superior officers. QUALIFICATIONS: Five years of experience as a police officer of which at least two years shall have been cur- rent and continuous as a Police Sergeant with the City of Dayton, Ohio; thorough knowledge of Police Rules and Regu— lations, State Law and local Ordinances to be enforced, and of modern police methods and tactics. Must have administrative ability; skill in directing men in police activities; maintaining discipline. Must be certified by Physical Examining Board as physically fit to perform all necessary duties of the position. SALARY: $9,A53.6O to $10,306.A0 per year, plus uniform allowance. EXAMINATION WILL BE HELD — OCTOBER 17, 1967 — 8:30 A.M. APPLICATIONS MUST BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 13, 1967 - 5:00 P.M. 112 NOTE: Written examination will test adaptability for general administration and supervision, vocabu— lary knowledge and ability to write reports, analyze problems and situations by logical reason— ing; ability to interpret written material; and knowledge of modern police methods; state laws; city ordinances; Police Rules and Regulations and police administration. PRINCIPAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR EXAMINATION: 1. Training Bulletins - Dept. of Police (201—393) 2. Essentials of Management for Supervisors - C. H. Broaded 3 Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation - O'Hara (1956 Edition) A Homicide Investigation - LeMoyne Snyder (1967) 5 Modern Criminal Investigation - Soderman & O'Connell (5th Edition) 6. Evidence Handbook - Donigan & Fisher (1965) 7 Ohio Criminal Code - Schneider 8 Black's Law Dictionary 9. Manual of Procedure - Dept. of Police 10. Rules and Regulations of the Dept of Police 11. Code of General Ordinances — City of Dayton 12. Ohio Revised Code - State of Ohio 13. Police Administration - O. W. Wilson (Second Edition) 1A. Police Organization and Management - V. A. Leonard (196A) 15. Municipal Police Administration - I.C.M.A. (1961) DATE ISSUED: SEPTEMBER 18, 1967 THE CITY OF DAYTON IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER APPENDIX D THE CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL NOTICE OF EXAMINATION THE CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION NOTICE OF EXAMINATION No. 1A53 PROMOTION TO SERGEANT This examination is open only to employees of the Police Department. The eligible list resulting from this examination may be selectively certified on the basis of sex. The eligible list resulting from the examination will expire two years from the data it is established. TESTS: Performance and seniority, weight A0, 75% required; written, weight 60, 75% required. The written test may include questions on super- visory principles and practices; patrol procedures; departmental regulations and operations; legal aspects of police work; special areas of police operation; and current problems and developments in law enforcement. Candidates who fail to attain the pass mark which shall be set for any test, subject or part of the exami- nation shall be deemed to have failed the examination and no further test, subject or part of the examination shall be rated. 1. Method of Computing Performance and Senioripy: Beginning with the date of appointment as Patrolman or Policewoman, 75%. For each three months of service in that title during the five years next preceding the date of the written test add 1/2%, or 2% a year, making at the end of five years a maximum of 85%; and for each three months of service in that title during the five years next preceding the above, add l/A%, or 1% a year, to a maximum of 90%. 2. Awards: a. Department Recognition-- Department Medal of Honor. . .add 3.00% Police Combat Cross. . . . . .add 1.75% Medal for Merit. . . . . . . .add 1.50% Honorable Mention. . . . . . .add 1.25% Exceptional Merit. . . . . . .add 1.00% Commendation . . . . . .add 0.75% Meritorious Police Duty. . . .add 0.50% Excellent Police Duty. . . . .add 0.25% Firearms Proficiency-- For each year in which there has been awarded the special designation of: Expert . . . . . . . . . . .add .125% Sharpshooter . . . . . . . . .add .100% Marksman . . . . . .add .075% Terms and ConditiOns Governing Credit for Department Awards: a. 115 Credit for Honorable Mention shall not be given for the same act in addition to the credit for the Department Medal of Honor, the Police Combat Cross, or the Medal for Merit. Credit for awards is granted in one suc- cessful examination only, i.e., an exami— nation in which the participating candi- date attains a place on the eligible list and from which list he is subsequently promoted. Credit for awards must be used by the can- didate at the earliest opportunity, i.e., in the first successful examination fol- lowing acquisition and recognition of the award. Deductions for penalties: For each day's fine deduct .30%, for each day's vacation fined deduct .15%, and for each reprimand deduct .10%. Credit shall be given for awards received while in the eligible rank and deductions made for penalties incurred while in the eligible rank, only during the five years immediately preceding the date of the written test. The maximum credit attainable on perform- ance and seniority is 100%. The pertinent sections of the General Exam— ination Regulations are also to be consid- ered part of this notice. APPENDIX E EXAMINATION POINT CREDIT FOR APPROVED COLLEGE TRAINING CITY OF OMAHA CITY OF OMAHA DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL ROOM 105, INTERIM CITY HALL June 7, 1968 EXAMINATION POINT CREDIT FOR APPROVED COLLEGE TRAINING As an incentive to continued self-improvement and professional growth, the following point credit program will apply for police officers who complete approved col- lege training: Effective February 1, 1969 point credit will be added to promotional examination scores of police offi- cers, based upon college credits earned toward an Asso- ciate Title or Bachelor's Degree in Law Enforcement. This will give officers the opportunity to enroll in the Law Enforcement course at the University of Nebraska at Omaha in September, 1968 and to earn 6 hours of college credit per regular semester thereafter, plus 3 hours in summer work, which amounts to a total of 15 credit hours for the academic year. After February 1, 1969 point credit will be added to promotional examination scores. The method of earning such credit shall be in accordance with the following formula: EXAMINATION POINT CREDIT FOR 118 APPROVED COLLEGE TRAINING Each three (3) semester hours of applicable college work shall carry a value of one—fourth (l/A) of one (1) promotion point. Points may not accrue or be valued in promotional examinations at a rate in excess of one-half (1/2) of one (1) point per semester. A maximum of one and one- fourth (1 l/A) points per academic year may be cre- dited. This equals 15 semester hours, which can be taken at the rate of 6 per regular semester and 3 in summer sessions. If an officer completes more than 6 hours per semes- ter or 15 per year, the additional hours will be placed in an inventory reserve for his utilization at a later date when he may not carry 6 hours in a given semester or 15 in an academic year. In no instance shall more than 1 l/A points per year be applied, nor shall more than an accumulative total of 10 points earned in academic pur- suits be applied. The following formula shall apply to officers who presently have college credits: Earned semester hours of approved credit shall apply at the same rate as they may be earned by officers who are enrolled in the course. That is, 6 semester hours, or 1/2 point per semester fol- lowing September 1, 1968. The application of such earned credits shall be limited in the same manner as limitations apply to officers who are currently enrolled in the course. The following provisions shall be con— trolling: 1. Transfer college credits shall be applied based upon their acceptance by the Admissions Office of the University of Nebraska at Omaha. EXAMINATION POINT CREDIT FOR 119 APPROVED COLLEGE TRAINING 2. In all cases the official transcript of the University the police officer attended shall be the determining document. 3. Only those hours acceptable toward a degree in Law Enforcement by the University of Nebraska at Omaha will be allowed under this policy. ll!"Will”lllllllmfllHill!!!"”MW“INHIUIHHHI 308 9349