MSU LIBRARIES ” RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. n|l""'xA.A'.A A x a [H 00 11 @085 A TASK INUENTORY FOLLOW-UP EVALUATION OF THE OAKLAND BASIC POLICE ACADEMY CURRICULUM: A SURVEY STUDY by Richard Allan Talley A DISSERTATION Presented to Michigan State University in partial ful‘illment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Education 1984 ABSTRACT A TASK INVENTORY FOLLOU-UP EVALUATION OF THE OAKLAND BASIC POLICE ACADEMY CURRICULUM: A SURVEY STUDY BY Richard Allan Talley Basic police academy curricula are vulnerable to becoming outdated, unrealistic and ineffective. LThe traditional subjectivity associated with developing recruit curriculums, combined with the rapid police occupational changes and absence of satisfactory curriculum relevancy evaluations, has resulted in much criticism and uncertainty about the actual effectiveness of recruit training to prepare officers to adequately perform police work. The purpose of the study was to comprehensively evaluate the Oakland Police Academy (OPA) in order to identify and prioritize curriculum deficiencies to facilitate program improvement. The evaluation was a curriculum product assessment. A task inventory follow-up curriculum evaluation methodology was employed. The methodology was designed to collect task training ratings from patrol officers regarding how effective the recruit training was in preparing new officers to adequately perform important entry-level police tasks. OPA graduates who had between one to two years of patrol officer experience were 0 Richard Allan Talley surveyed. The sample (27) rated 304 entry-level patrol officer tasks. Range and consensus of agreement among _ officer Judgments were analyzed to make reasonable determinations about the adequate effectiveness of the GPA training program.“ Graduates also provided comments and recommendations about the training they received. A substantial majority gave an 'overall' evaluation rating indicating that the training they received prepared graduates to perform patrol officer tasks from quite well to very well. However, when rating tasks independently, graduates reported that the training received was less than effective for adequately preparing officers to perform a significant proportion (102) of the 304 job-tasks rated. Twenty-seven of thirty duty fields were rated as having some meaningful training curriculum deficiency. written comments and recommendations indicate that curriculum weaknesses may extend beyond those tasks rated below the adequate training standard criterion level. written remarks critiqued the training for not providing certain essential entry-level job knowledges and skills. Recommendations generally called for a need to increase training for certain subject areas as well as to incorporate additional practical exercises to develop basic police job performance skills. ACKNOULEDGMENTS I extol my deepest appreciation to all those individuals who assisted and advised me throughout this study. Special appreciation goes to Joel Allen, Director, Oakland Police Academy, who provided the opportunity to conduct the evaluation study out of his sincere interest to improve the quality of police training. I benefited, too, from discussion with my dissertation committee members Dr. George Ferns (Chairman) , Dr. Charles Blackman, Dr. Kenneth Christian, and Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker, Michigan State University. it found the committee’s support, encouragement and advice to be exceptional in every respect. Finally, I wish to acknowledge my wife, Becky, for her help and great patience which aided me throughout the study. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I I PROBLm I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Oakland Basic Police Training Academy Program . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of Evaluation and Research Questions Training Evaluation Criterion . . . . . Research Problem within Evaluation Study Task Inventory Approach . . . . . . . . Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. RELATED LITERATURE . . ... . . . . . . . . Origins and Development . . . . . . . . Recruit Training Curriculum Development The Michigan Experience . Kuhn Study . . . . . . Project STAR . . . . . . Project COSTER . . . . . Statewide Job Analysis of the Po Patrol Officer Position . . Basic Police Training Evaluation Seitzinger Study . . . . . Houghtaling Study . . . . Plog Study . . . . . Toledo/Lucas County Study Earl Study . . . . . . . Sumary.......... 3 I "HHODOLOBY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample . . . . . . . . . . . Specification of Evaluation Criterion and Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . Empirical Description of Criterion Measurements . . . . . Instrument . . . . . . Design . .'. . . . . . Procedures . . . . . . Data Analysis . . . . Methodology Limitations and Considerations . . . . . . . . . . I I I I I I I ‘I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111 OGOUIO)” 00".” i I” I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 84 4 I “LYSI 8 OF RESULTS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 86 Sample of Population . . . . Total Respondents . . . . A9. I I I I I I I I I I Education and Background Race . . . . . . . . . . Agency of Employment' . . Patrol Area . . . . . . . Patrol Officer Experience Patrol Assignment .'. . . Job Attitude . . . . . . 90 Training Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Overall ORA Training Rating. . . . . . . 92 Task Training Evaluation Ratings . . . . . 92 Find‘ng’ I I I I I I I I I I I I I 25 for each of the eight traditional agency types. 2. Overall Percent Performing across eight traditional agency types > 50%. 3. Overall CIP ) 6.00 (extremely serious) across eight traditional agency types. The MLEOTC is currently developing a mandated basic police curriculum based on the patrol officer job analysis project findings. worker requirements necessary to perform each of the core tasks were identified by “task analysis panels“ (MLEOTC, 1981, p.8). These panels consisted of “a patrol officer or first-line supervisor for one of the traditional types of agencies, and knowledgeable in the content area“ for which s/he was assigned. Seven panels 29 composed of 4-6 officers completed this phase of the study. worker requirements have been transposed and formally implemented into the basic curriculum for only the defensive tactics subject area as of January, l982. However, in the Fall of 1984 it is anticipated by MLEOTC that an entire basic recruit curriculum will be formally implemented in the basic academy system, although not all subject areas will have MLEOTC developed lesson guides (MLEOTC, letter, 1983). The MLEOTC effort to develop a training curriculum from an empirical job study which is intended to produce police recruits who are prepared to competently perform essential job requirements is noteworthy indeed. The related literature has indicated the MLEOTC effort is in fact a historical change from the traditional ways whereby police curriculums were originally developed and changed. However, it is difficult to assess with any accuracy at this point in time what effect the new revised curriculum will have on police job performance compared to the past curriculum, or if the revised curriculum is effectively preparing recruits to meet the patrol officer job requirements. Vocational curriculum evaluation is necessary to make such important determinations. 30 BASIC POLICE TRAINING EVALUATION i zi r S Seitzinger’s exploratory law enforcement training evaluation study stands alone as being the first meaningful research attempt to design and implement a comprehensive evaluation methodology for the purpose of improving the Michigan basic police training system (Seitzinger, 1974). Seitzinger’s study first describes the process undergone to develop a systemic analysis evaluation model, which is then followed by a pilot study of the model. The evaluation model, Systemic Analysis and Decision Making Model for Law Enforcement Training, was developed in cooperation and total concurrence with an evaluation committee (Ibid., p. 59). The committee was composed of thirteen basic police academy coordinators and one representative from the Michigan Law Enforcement Officers Training Council (MLEOTC). The pilot study was conducted at Macomb Community College’s basic police training program which was attended by 44 police recruits. As a systemic model does imply, the intent was to comprehensively evaluate the police academy program by measuring system factors such as input, process, product and feedback in terms of related variables. The methodology utilized several instruments to collect an array of system factor variables. The instruments included: 1. R ’ i i l l f n r t' This instrument served to provide the recruits of 31 the basic recruit academy, used in the pilot study, an opportunity to evaluate those persons, properties, and processes employed during the instructional phase of this study. This evaluation rating scale provided the recruits a means of evaluating (a) the various personality characteristics of an instructor for a specific block of instruction; (b) the method of instruction for a block of instruction; (c) the learning objectives designated as essential to that block of instruction; and (d) the use of visual teaching aids. 2. v 'on of r inator n F ili This form provides the recruit an opportunity to evaluate the coordinator and facilities. It provides an opportunity for the researcher to obtain data that is relevant in determining the coordinator’s leadership and personality traits that may play an important role during the training process. 3. ° ’ v i n f ch l Adminigtrgtign, Fagilitieg agg Supporting m ' This questionnaire was designed to determine: (a) the coordinator’s evaluation of the school administration, attempting to determine whether appropriate support, financial stability, and sufficient assistance were provided; (b) an evaluation of the facilities necessary for a recruit training as well as evaluating supporting staff (e.g., secretaries, instructors, etc.), salaries, and additional services deemed necessary. 4. n tru or’s v l ti n f th P ic R r it annex This rating device, executed by the academy instructors, measures the various persons (e.g., coordinators, secretaries, administration, etc.), properties (e.g., classroom supplies, equipment, etc.), and the processes (e.g., teaching objectives, operational procedures, etc.) associated to the instructional phase of the pilot study. 5. v l tio u iv P r nnel This evaluation was designed for the supportive personnel providing services which supplement the training process. The instrument provides data concerning (a) working environment, (b) task assessment, (c) concurrent supportive services, and (d) general information. I 32 6. Evaluatign of Polige Academy by Local Agencies This rating form provides the chiefs of the police agencies sending officers to the training academy an opportunity to provide inputs into the training process. Indices of communication, knowledge of goals of the academy training process, and the ability of providing inputs in the training process, are interpretable from the data provided herein (Ibid., pp. 66-7)e Three standardized tests were also utilized as part of the evaluation study and were administered to the recruits during the pilot study. The standardized tests included: (1) a diagnostic reading test which measured reading speed, vocabulary and comprehension; (2) a police occupational vocabulary test; and (3) the MLEOTC pre- and post-test which was developed to measure the recruit cumulative achievement of training objectives for general program assessment. To accompany all the forelisted means of evaluation, the evaluation committee, the instructors, recruits, supportive personnel and police chiefs were interviewed both formally and informally (Ibid., p. 67). Three analytical techniques were employed to analyze the data: (1) content analysis, (2) the Kolmogorov-Smirnov two sample test and, (3) correlational analysis (Ibid., pp. 109-10). The major findings derived from the analysis indicated a positive correlation between the MLEOTC pre- and post-test; the MLEOTC post-test and the Diagnostic Reading Test; and, the MLEOTC post-test and the Seitzinger Police Terminology Ouiz. A significant difference was found in the reading abilities between those recruits scoring one 33 standard deviation above the MLEOTC post-test mean and those scoring one standard deviation below the mean. It was generally found that the evaluation instruments used during the pilot study were positively rated and that the evaluation committee worked “harmoniously“ throughout the pilot study (Ibid., p. 110). The major analytic findings of Seitzinger’s study are revealing in that one can infer, in part, that the better reading ability the recruit has and/or the greater ' familiarity the recruit has with occupational vocabulary of police work, will result in the likelihood of the recruit’s increased level of academy academic achievement} This finding should not be surprising. However, Seitzinger points out the important evaluation implication is that police ‘academies can use reading and vocabulary diagnostic tests in order to identify recruits who need remedial assistance (Ibid., pp.ll8 and 122). He emphasizes: As may be predictable, the wide range of educational experiences brought to the training centers by the respective recruits, also brings a wide range of learning abilities and skills. This knowledge may be the most imperative to the entire training structure. The learning levels of the recruits entering the system would, to a large extent, predicate the type of methods and procedures used in the training processes. The information would also enable the coordinator the opportunity for establishing remedial programs, geared to the needs of a wide-variety of skills, select the proper level of reading materials and determine the most suitable level of instruction. Currently, there are no means of attaining this information from the training system or the departments who hire the respective recruits (Ibid., p. 122). 34 The need for diagnostic reading tests are apparent based on the diagnostic results which indicated 61% of the 44 recruits tested at Macomb scored below the 50th percentile norm established for the instrument (Ibid., p. 87). Five recruits were found to have reading levels below the 6th grade level. Yet, all recruits academically passed the police academy (Ibid., p.94-5). Seitzinger added he did not find any real appreciative difference of reading levels for those recruits which had college education and those who did not (Ibid., p. 87). Seitzinger reported other meaningful findings pertaining to the perceived need for an evaluation system for Michigan police basic training. These findings were obtained through recorded discussions at the evaluation committee meetings, other related workshops, questionnaires and interviews with academy coordinators..As noted, “All (academy) coordinators feel an urgent need to improve the law enforcement basic recruit academy program“ (Ibid., p. 80). However, 90% of the coordinators did not believe they were qualified to conduct an effective evaluation of the training process. Coordinators further admitted that there is an unavailability of appropriate basic police training evaluation instruments (Ibid.). Even the academy current recruit testing system was believed to be inadequate and coordinators indicated a need “to have some form of standardized examinations“ (Ibid., p.85). Regarding MLEOTC program evaluation efforts, the coordinators voiced an general attitude of disapproval for 35 the agency’s proposed method for evaluating academies (Ibid., p. 75). “The coordinators were informed that a formula would be established from which the MLEOTC would be able to evaluate the regional training centers with a single percentage point ranging between 0-1002“ (Ibid.). Coordinators contended that “a single digit could not adequately describe the performance of a recruit academy,“ since there are too many important variables involved and which need to be accounted for (Ibid.). The pilot test of the developed evaluation process and instruments revealed some noteworthy findings about the Macomb police academy program. Seitzinger said it was found that recruits rated instructors and blocks of instruction as being “above average“ overall (Ibid., p. 101). However, the First Aid instructional block and instructor were found to be unsatisfactory. Seitzinger further commented that the “personality and teaching style seemed to play a major role in evaluation of that instructor and the respective block of instruction“ (Ibid.). Thirty instructors completed an evaluation questionnaire of the Macomb Police Academy. Although instructors indicated on eight of the fourteen questions that they were satisfied with the academy program, there were four questions which revealed definite instructor dissatisfaction (Ibid., p.103-4). Those areas of dissatisfaction included instructors’ believed they “were not provided sufficient background information for the recruits entered in the academy“ (Ibid., p. 104). It was 36 also found that nine of the thirty instructors did not have a part in the selection of test questions. Instructors’ were also not provided feedback about recruits accomplishments or test results for the blocks of instruction taught by the respective instructor (Ibid.). “Fourteen instructors were not informed of any problem recruits represented in the academy“ (Ibid.). In summarY, these problems cited indicate a general problem of communication between the academy administration and the instructors. The data collected pointed out that “no instructor was involved in providing remedial help to the recruits who performed poorly and only eight of thirty counseled any of the recruits in the academy“ (Ibid., p. 105). Twenty percent (20%) of the instructors believed the MLEOTC training objectives were outdated and should be revised. The pilot study revealed some training facility problems and a dissatisfaction on the part of local police agencies for not having input about training academy policy and procedures (Ibid., p.107). Sufficient time was found to be allotted for most classroom activities except those where “hands on“ training was required (Ibid., p. 140). Opportunity was not afforded to every officer to participate in essential practical training exercises. However, other ratings obtained about supportive personnel and the training program appeared favorable for the most part. One important conclusion based on the research was the police academy coordinator “is the key figure in the operation of the 1 37 entire training system. It is his prescribed actions and initiative which directly reflects the effectiveness of the entire training system“ (Ibid., p. 121). Seitzinger’s study must be recognized as a valuable basic police training evaluation effort for several reasons. First, there is an extreme lack of of police academy training evaluation studies. Another reason is that he designed an evaluation process and methodology which accounted for many training input and process factors. His study probed into the recruits learning ability, quality of instruction, training administration, training objectives, supportive staff, training facilities, and more, all from different key perspectives representing recruits, police agency administrators, academy coordinators, instructors and supportive staff. As a result of the study the practical need for developing, implementing, and establishing diagnostic learning techniques and standards to identify recruits who may need remedial assistance is substantiated. The study disclosed the diversity of learning ability among recruits is significant, yet the differences are not considered within the training process. The study demonstrated the advantage of using a systems evaluation approach. The methodology provided a wide array of training information by focusing on many factors using diverse evaluation techniques and obtaining feedback from key resource people. As a result a more objective and holistic evaluation picture can be obtained to preclude false evaluative assumptions based on a narrow research 38 investigation. For example, recruits may evaluate a specific block of instruction as being taught poorly. ' However, the instructor may rate the training objectives for that same block of instruction as being inadequate and outdated. Further analysis may indicate the reading material for that same block of instruction is far above the reading comprehension level of most recruits. when it is found that most the recruit trainees’ score poorly on the final test, to infer a single cause for the training problem from just the recruits ratings, or just the instructors ratings, would easily misrepresent the complexity of the situation. A critique of the study indicates some important weaknesses in the systemic evaluation model. Seitzinger evaluation does not address product assessment in realistic terms. Instead, the study evaluates input (trainee learning ability) and process (e.g. instruction, training objectives, administration, academy examinations). In realistic terms the product of the academy is a police recruit who is adequately prepared to perform police work. Seitzinger did not obtain supervisory ratings of graduated recruits to discover if the recruit-turned-rookie performed police work up to agency expectations for a new officer. Also, recruits evaluated the training only while they were participating in the training program, not after they had gained work experience which might have tempered their ratings. Hence, the evaluation ratings about the quality of instruction and the blocks of instruction may have been quite naive. The manner which the evaluation study reported the 39 training program deficiencies lacked a sense of organized prioritization. As a result the relative value of the deficiencies were unclear for those responsible for future program planning. Prioritization is important when there are limited resources to apply towards improving a program and those doing the improving (academy coordinators) lack evaluative skills. The questionnaire instruments asked respondents to answer very general questions and did not allow for the respondent to qualify, or clarify their answer. The problem is that the findings were so general that they did not lend themselves to indicating what the specific reason for the problem was, or how it could be remedied. Some example questions are: “was the teaching environment conducive to your teaching needs?; Were you provided with a general background of members of the recruit class?; and, Do you feel the administrative staff is doing an efficient job?“ (Ibid., p. 154). t l'n Houghtaling conducted a follow-up study of the Michigan pre-service law enforcement college program. The study’s purpose was exploratory, but was aimed at determining whether the graduates of the regional basic police academies, when compared to those graduates produced in the pre-service college programs were at least equally trained (Houghtaling, 1976, p.5). In addition, the study attempted to'answer other questions about the preservice college program relating to its advantages, weaknesses and overall 40 program acceptance by police administrators. The main difference between the preservice and basic academy system is that recruits who attend basic academies are employed for the express purpose of becoming a police officer, whereas the preservice student is not employed by a police agency and police employment is not guaranteed. The basic recruit is only required to have a high school diploma or equivalent upon completion of the program, whereas the preservice student must possess a college degree. The duration and scope of the basic training program is generally limited to the MLEOTC curriculum, whereas the preservice program is comprised of both the MLEOTC curriculum and academic degree curriculum program. Hence, basic academy programs last several weeks, preservice programs are extended up to two years of occupational and academic study. Three survey instruments were utilized in the study to obtain preservice program data from employers, graduate’s immediate supervisor and graduates. Employers were asked about program acceptance and need for improvements and immediate supervisors and graduates provided judgments about the capability of the graduate and the quality of training they received. Comparative performance and training judgments were also collected (Ibid., p.5). The sample included: 111 (73% responding) graduates representing all preservice programs; 111 (56% responding) supervisors; and, 44 (62% responding) chief law enforcement administrators. Graduate and supervisor categories of factor ratings 41 describing and comparing the graduate ability and knowledge included number of felony arrests, number of other arrests, number of traffic tickets, non-criminal services, number of commendations, number of citizen complaints, knowledge-criminal law, knowledge-arrest laws, knowledge-first aid, patrol techniques, firearms capability, crime scene investigation, traffic accident investigation, report writing, motivation, human relations skills, handling abnormal people and overall capability. Summary statistics of the study indicated that “80.2% of the employers and 80.1% of the graduates rated on an average for all categories the capabilities as ’average’, ’somewhat better’, or ’far superior’ to the average academy recruit. However, only 32.6% of the employers and 44.2% of the graduates believed the students capabilities are either ’far superior’ or ’somewhat better’“ (Ibid., p.85). The researcher therefore concluded that the findings are favorable in substantiating that basic and preservice programs provide at least equal training, but the findings cannot verify that the preservice program is indeed better (Ibid.). One conclusion the researcher makes about the findings is the apparent overwhelming need for review and improvement of preservice courses which instruct written and communication report writing skills (Ibid., p.84). Twenty-five percent (25%) of the supervisors rated preservice graduates as ’somewhat worse’ than the average academy recruit. In addition, handling abnormal people and 1 public relations categories were rated low for preservice 42 graduates by supervisors and the graduates themselves. The need for practical application exercises to improve training was emphasized (Ibid., p. 85). The study expressed “the need for development of methods of allowing the students to utilize their decision making skills in practicing the application of textbook knowledge to common on the job situations“ (Ibid., p.85). Suggested practical areas for decision making included when to make an arrest, detain a subject, search, and coax or coerce. The researcher noted that practical training exercises will help develop self-confidence that the study’s findings found lacking in preservice graduates. Houghtaling’s study does a sufficient job as an exploratory and comparative program assessment. However, there are critical weaknesses within the study’s methodology in terms of being considered highly credible program evaluation research. To begin, the validity of supervisory ratings is very questionable. Supervisors rarely directly observe how police officers handle various situations and therefore are forced to make subjective and unsubstantiated inferences about how an officer performs independently on the street. It is interesting to note that supervisors rated preservice recruits lowest in the category where they [the supervisors] were most directly familiar with the rookie’s actual performance; that is, written communication. Validity of comparison ratings provided by supervisors between preservice and basic recruit programs is further complicated because there is no absolute standard of 43 comparison. Job performance conditions and requirements are never quite the same to allow for precise comparison of performance capability. Police work in terms of performance demands are diverse and range considerably according to each situation, although general categories would indicate uniformity (eg. number of felony arrests, crime scene investigation). There may have been some “halo effect“ affecting supervisory ratings since supervisors were aware the officer they rated was not typical - s/he was a college graduate. There is another validity problem because comparative performance data was only obtained from preservice“ graduates, not basic recruit trainees. The research indicates that college graduate officers are not confident about their capabilities to do police work. This may be due to their rookie status and inexperience, and because they are more introspective and critical about their own performance due to their high expectations, education and self-achievement need. Basic academy recruits’ judgment, like preservice graduates, may also suffer from inadequate self-confidence and therefore underrate their true capabilities when asked to compare their own training and performance to other college trained officers. Hence, ratings should have been collected for both groups to adjust and balance for different group judgment biases and perceptions as required. Another weakness in rookie officers comparing themselves with the training and performance of other 44 similar rookie officers is that rookies generally lack the background to make credible comparative judgments. One reason is that rookies rarely work with other rookies, rather they work with senior officers, or alone. They therefore rarely have the opportunity to extensively observe other rookie performance. Furthermore, even if the rookie observed another rookies’ performance, their inexperience with different acceptable styles of police behavior and performance may wrongly influence their quality of judgment about another officer’s actions. Plgg Stugz Debora Plog (1981) conducted an assessment study of Michigan’s basic police training delivery system. The survey study was conducted for the purpose of documenting the state-of-the-art of basic recruit training with the assumption the research findings would have implications for implementing MLEOTC’s “new“ basic police curriculum. The new curriculum is to be developed by the MLEOTC by means of a multiple phase job analysis project which is directed at improving the training curriculum and satisfying federal and state fair employment requirements (Plog, 1981, p. 1). Before implementing the MLEOTC curriculum there was a decision that the following information would be needed: assessment of the current state of recruit school training; identification of relationships among coordinators, instructors, the MLEOTC, and the implications of those relationships; assessment of student reactions to the present recruit training; 45 identification of the resources used in teaching various subject matter areas; identification of the opinions, practices, and needs of recruit school coordinators and instructors; and identification of potential problems in the field caused by implementation of the “new“ curriculum (Ibid.) The study attempted to assess the above listed informational needs for both the preservice college recruit training programs and the regional basic recruit police training academies. The focus of study was on surveying instructors since it was believed “a significant degree of the success of the implementation phase will depend . . . [on] the instructors“ (Ibid., p. 6). The study identified more than 754 instructors as having taught between 1979 and 1980 in the basic training program for 48 basic training sessions. An average of 38 instructors were used for each session, with the range of 'number of instructors per session being 22 to 52. It was found the there was an approximate 25% turnover rate of instructors for all basic programs. A sample of 250 instructors were surveyed with an overall response rate of around 31% (Ibid., pp. 6-14). The instructor survey and interviews solicited much potentially valuable general assessment information. It was found that 60% or more of the basic police academy instructors had received instructional training in any one of the four following areas: (1) developing objectives; (2) 46 designing and using audiovisual materials; (3) evaluation of instruction; and, (4) instructor platform skills (Ibid., p. 31). Instructors rank ordered instructional methods and indicated lecture as being predominantly (90% or more) used respectively followed by group discussion, demonstration, “hands on“ activity, role-playing/simulation, and other (Ibid., p.35). Instructors provided ratings of instructional obstacles which are hindrances to successful instruction in the basic police program. The rankings of instructional hindrances from greatest to lowest are: (1) lack of time to present material; (2) wdrk schedule conflicts; (3) low pay for time invested; (4) poor physical setting; (5) lack of MLEOTC direction/support; (6) poor student ability/attitude; (7) difficulty gathering content materials; (8) short notice to begin teaching; and, (9) lack of support by academy administration (Ibid., p. 37). The researcher analyzed MLEOTC school evaluation forms for 12 police academies which are normally completed by recruits during the last day of the program. A replication of the Table of findings serves as a descriptive summary (Ibid., p. 38): 47 TABLE 2-1 SCHOOL EVALUATIONS BY STUDENTS (Last Two 1980 Sessions For 12 Basic Training Academies) (5 point scale: I-Poor, 5-Excellent) Sghjggt Rank Ratings Adequacy of Facilities Firearms 1 4.07 Physical Training 2 3.83 Classroom 3 3.52 School Administration Availability of School Coordinator 1 3.93 Compliance with School Rules and Regulations 2 3.83 Classroom Discipline 3 3.72 Effectiveness of Instruction Firearms 1 4.23 Accident Investigation 2 3.87 Physical Training 3 3.86 Criminal Investigation 4 3.79 Legal 5 3.77 Patrol Techniques 6 3.76 Defensive Tactics 7 3.74 Motor Vehicle Law 8 3.60 First Aid ' 9 3.56 Civil Disorders 10 3.55 Human Relations 11 3.45 Overall Evaluation 3.91 The study does have several weaknesses. In terms of the instructor survey, it must be pointed out that there was an overall very low response from instructors. The study did not attempt to determine if those instructors responding to the survey were in someway meaningfully different than those not responding. Hence, perhaps the nonresponding instructors, which made up nearly 70% of the sample, perceived the basic training program differently than 48 responders. without being able to determine if meaningful differences existed between these two groups, the validity of any conclusions and generalizations made from the study findings purporting consensus of agreement among instructors can be reasonably challenged. Another weakness the study had was in the reporting of rank-ordered data. Instruction methods utilized by instructors only indicated the proportion of instructors who ever used that method, not how often the instructor used the method compared to other methods, or to determine if the utilized method was appropriately selected and administered to aid the trainee to adequately reach the training objective. The instructional method data obtained therefore is too superficial to be of substantive guidance to correct instructional method problems, or to determine if any overall problems exist. In the case of rank-ordering instructional hindrances, a statistical shortcoming is apparent. Although the hindrances are rank-ordered, which is informative, the proportion of respondents indicating each hindrance is not presented. The weight of agreement among instructors that any factor is a hindrance can therefore not be reasonably ascertained. In addition, the degree that any hindrance factor is a problem is neglected. The research report presented several written comments made by instructors, coordinators and recruits which were either obtained by survey forms, or interviews. The comments were definitely intended to add a qualitative value 49 to the research study findings; however, the qualitative value was greatly diminished since there lacked sufficient quantitative support. To explain, the content analysis provided summary evaluative statements regarding the basic training program, but there was no statistical report as to how many instructors agreed with any of the summary statements. As a result, an evaluative statement could have been commented on by one instructor, or a hundred instructors. The difference is important. The analysis of the recruit evaluations of the basic training program has validity problems. The recruits who provide evaluations about the quality of training they have received before they have actually tested the adequacy of learning against the demands of the real world are speculating. There are many factors which can falsely persuade the ready to graduate recruit that s/he is sufficiently prepared to perform actual police duties and responsibilities. First, the anxious ready to graduate recruits have satisfactorily passed the academy testing system. The recruits may be over confident that the testing system is a true indicator about their readiness to perform as a police officer. Second, the recruits are not afforded the opportunity in the police academy to self-test their ability by performing a wide range of police work simulation performance exercises. Performance exercises are highly limited to areas like defensive tactics, handcuffing and firearms because of the time and cost. Third, the recruits are inexperienced and therefore cannot adequately judge the 50 quality and practicalness of the academy instruction. To a large extent, they are at the mercy of the instructor in that s/he is competent and adept at conveying the critical Job knowledges and skills the rookies will have to assimilate to become good performing officers. The recruits by their very academy status and naiveness have to accept much instruction on good faith alone. The table of recruit evaluations does lack the necessary specificity for practical evaluative purposes for determining corrective action. The evaluation form requesting the recruit to give an overall rating for a general subject area may, with subtlety, discourage the responder from indicating, or recalling, specific training problems which need attention. Such a form serves as a poor diagnostic evaluation instrument for programs which are generally very good in quality, but nonetheless lack acceptable quality in only a few particular areas. Responders evaluate in general terms when asked general questions. Yet, it is the few specific problem areas the evaluator should want to know about so s/he can take corrective action. l L n S Bolinger et. al (1975), conducted a police training evaluation study for the Toledo/Lucas County Criminal Justice Supervisory Council, Ohio. The authors’ claimed that their comprehensive model for training evaluation was a “dynamic one, involving continuous feedback, and is more' comprehensive and well-integrated than previously existing 51 police training evaluation models“ (Bolinger, 1975, p.205). The evaluation model was interactive and dynamic in that “it calls for continuous reassessment of objectives, course content, instruction, etc.“ (Ibid., p.8). which requires input from “patrolmen themselves, police command personnel, the full range of interacting agencies, and--at the broadest level--the public and elected public officials“ (Ibid., p.205-6). The researchers believed that any factor which had implications for training should be considered. Some example factors provided were change in policy, department structure, and budget (Ibid., p.8). The evaluation methodology procedure for data collection included personal interviews and several survey instruments which were sent to various groups. The population consisted of all metropolitan mental health and drug treatment directors, key criminal justice personnel, over 150 patrolmen, 83 police command personnel, 93 mental health workers, 49 various public officials, 800 citizens, among many others (Ibid., p.16-17). The breadth of the overall sample was quite extensive in composition. One primary survey instrument inquiring about the adequacy of basic police training was administered to both police officers and supervisors. Sixty-one (61) general police activities were assessed on a four point Likert type rating scale which ranged from totally unprepared to fully prepared. Responses were categorized in two subsamples representing large urban/rural and small urban/rural police agencies for the purpose of identifying perceived 52 differences in training needs. Pronounced deficiency differences among officer ratings were found between both agency subsamples. Serious performance deficiencies traceable to training for large urban/rural agencies were identified as “interaction with information, law enforcement, criminal justice agencies; constitutional rights relating to liability; and pursuit and emergency driving;“ - whereas, for small urban/rural police agencies the most serious deficiencies were:“suspect interrogation, obtaining search warrants; handling technical equipment and handling investigations“ (Ibid., p.125-6). Supervisor responses differed from uniformed officers in that they identified additional training deficiency areas which incIuded report writing, control of crime scene, recognition and processing of evidence (Ibid., p.126). These differences existing between supervisors and uniformed officers were considered important by the researchers since they believed: . . . Such disagreements focus on the possibility of serious difficulties with departmental policy - - whether essential policy has actually been formulated, disseminated, understood, and is congruent with training objectives. If policy, because of its absence, lack of clarity, or being misunderstood, is not supportive of the performance objectives of training, it may be more advisable to focus upon policy re-evaluation than upon altering training in order to improve performance. Increased attention to policy becomes even more imperative when it is in direct conflict with the objectives embodied in the training. A fundamental part of complete training evaluation therefore, is a scrutiny of policy (Ibid., p.133). 53 Another survey questionnaire was administered to uniformed officers, supervisors and command personnel in order to assess the perceived clarity of department policy for guiding performance of 61 police activities. Several differences of agreement were found between both department subsamples regarding adequate clarity of policy and also differences were found among uniformed officers and supervisors. However, the main summary finding reported was “more uniformed patrolmen in these departments agree than disagree that field performance evaluation criteria are not supportive of basic training“ (Ibid., p.143). The majority of command and supervisory personnel held that erformance criteria was supportive of basic training. The authors comment, “The source of such clear differences in orientations must be traced, whether it be in inadequate attention paid to policy, lack of understanding of the training objectives on the part of command, or the need for more attention to be paid to the quality and consistency of supervision“ (Ibid., p.146). There are several study weaknesses which need discussing. First, the sample of officers who provided ratings regarding the adequacy of training were not recent trainees of a basic police training academy; instead, the officer sample was selected from a population of seasoned officers. The study did not indicate how many years, on the average, it had been since the sample had last attended an academy, or even if the officers had attended the same police academy system. Both these points seriously 54 challenge the credibility of the officers used as a source of data. The researchers admit: For maximum effectiveness such a field oriented question should be asked of the most recent trainees who have acquire sufficient field experience to assess the impact of training on their performance capability. Because we did not have such available, in order to test the functionality of the procedure the question was given to a random sample of all patrolmen and asks for a recall as to how well prepared they were (Ibid., p.117). Some patrolmen providing ratings may therefore have as many as ten or more years of experience since they completed basic police training. The ability to evaluate their past training with any accuracy decreases as time increases. The credibility problem is compounded since both police training and job requirements were not held reasonably constant over time to allow for a congruent and sound evaluation. Training programs have changed over time, as well as police work. Officers may be comparing the training they received years ago with the new contemporary job requirements which they now must meet. More simply said, they may be unequitably comparing the old with the new. Another weakness is the subjectivity encouraged by the evaluation study. One cannot expect the public, public officials, or agency administrators to credibly rate the quality of police training based on their finite experience and little expertise. These kind of respondents actually know very little about the subject matter, instruction, or overall quality of training the officer receives. Such respondents would do better to only provide satisfaction 55 ratings concerning the quality of police services they have experienced. However, there are many other factors besides training alone which can affect the quality of police service - examples, the officer’s attitude, the subject’s attitude, departmental policy, immediate patrol priorities, patrol staffing level, among others. Inferences made about the quality of training based on third party respondent quality of police service ratings have to be considered speculative without more substantial supporting evidence. The study also failed to identify specific problems within the basic police training program. Problems were stated in very general terms (eg. report writing, departmental policy) without enough clarification to help propose any meaningful resolutions to correct program deficiencies. The evaluation study conclusions and recommendations were scant in that they did not give any well defined direction on how to go about improving the current basic police training program. As a result, the final evaluation product was not very conducive for utilization by program administrators, curriculum specialists and instructional staff as a means for program improvement. M9): Earl conducted a study to test the hypothesis that “persons exercising a high degree of responsibility, authority and discretion --such as first-line peace officers --perform their duties with a higher level of proficiency and personal satisfaction and in a manner more acceptable to 56 the people being served when they have been trained under authoritarian or stress conditions than when their training is conducted under non-stress conditions“ (Earl, 1973, p.58). A quasi-experimental methodology was utilized to determine the influence of stress upon field performance, job satisfaction and performance acceptability to those served. Control classes were subjected to the Los Angelas Sheriff Departments established stress training program which employed rigorous discipline and organization. Treatment classes were kept as equivalent as possible with the exception that the recruit academy environment was relaxed and non-stressful. The sample consisted of 174 recruits who were distributed to control and treatment classes by matching subjects according to six factors: education, previous military experience, marital status, previous police experience, age and race. Field performance data was collected for both classes over a two year period (Ibid., p. 83-4). Three instruments were used to collect and analyze field performance data. A Deputy Evaluation Form was the primary instrument which divided field performance by eleven traits: personal appearance, communications, public and personal relations, job knowledge, following instructions, attitude toward duties, adaptability, judgment, initiative, responsibility and leadership. A five point ordinal scale served to measure trait evaluative ratings ranging from inadequate to outstanding. The work Quality Questionnaire measured subjects interpersonal relationships with their 57 peers and supervisors. Immediate supervisors provided ordinal ratings approximately every six months for ten questions. Paired Comparisons were performed to assure that every subject would be compared to every other subject and the result would be a definite judgment about which subject is the better performer (Ibid., p. 96-8). In addition, personal impressions of the subjects were measured on two other questionnaires: Job Satisfaction Questionnaire and Training Effectiveness Questionnaire (Ibid., p. 99). The summary findings indicated, with the exception of the Training Effectiveness Questionnaire, that evidence supported the hypothesis proposing, “Non-stress trained subjects displayed a higher level bf performance proficiency in the field, a higher level of job satisfaction and higher level of performance acceptability by persons served“ (Ibid., p. 143). The Training Effectiveness Questionnaire findings were relatively neutral indicating equality between the stress and non-stress approaches to basic recruit training. The author concluded that the overall evidence is . definitely in favor of non-stress training over stress training. Earl’s study is one of the most respected and renown basic police training evaluation studies ever conducted; however, the study did have some weaknesses and limitations. Earl himself expressed that the nonconfidentiality of the experiment probably influenced to some degree the subjects’ and raters’ performance (Ibid., p. 148). He adds that the first sample did experience self-induced stress although the 58 staff maintained a relaxed learning environment. In order to counter the extraneous variable, the researcher said the potential weakness “prompted creation and administration of the Post-Experiment Questionnaire“ (Ibid., p. 149). The study was limited in that it really focused only on the philosophical operation of the training delivery system (Stress vs. Non-Stress), not on other qualitative curriculum concerns. A thorough examination of dissertation abstracts from Dissertation Abstracts International, July 1965 to July 1983, revealed no doctoral dissertation related specifically to this study. Furthermore, a review of a number of periodicals and books revealed‘the same. The study is unique because there has not been found any directly related formative graduate follow-up task-inventory evaluation study of the basic police training curriculum at the Oakland Police Academy, or at any other police academy in the United States. However, the review of the literature has provided a critique of similar research addressing the development and evaluation of basic police training programs. 59 SUMMARY The review of the precedent literature has indicated that the advancements in police training between the early 1900’s to the early 1960’s were described by many authors as being subjective developments without a consensus of training practices and standards. Police training has too often been based on tradition, custom, imagination, or what other agencies are doing - not by analyzing the occupational learning needs of the police. In order to identify and plan to meet police occupational needs through training, police educators and trainers have proposed the need to conduct job analysis studies to develop relevant curriculums. The Michigan basic police curriculum was developed in the historical traditional mode. Basic training program requirements were not based on job analytic information and evidence, but rather on subjective judgments of police adninistrators and practitioners reflecting their opinions about what police training should provide. with the advent of Public Act 203, 1965, the Michigan Law Enforcement Officers Council (MLEOTC) was legislatively created and was empowered with the responsibility, in part, to establish a mandatory minimum basic police training curriculum standard. Hence, the Michigan basic police curriculum was centrally controlled by the State of Michigan. The Kuhn study in 1967, initiated a long influencing groundwork project which was directed at reviewing and improving law enforcement training in Michigan. One product 60 of the study was a recommended curriculum with lesson plans, which was later implemented by the MLEOTC in a modified form. The recommended curriculum was supposedly a result of a job analysis study and comparative curriculum study; however, neither the job analysis or the comparative curriculum study methodologies were described in enough satisfactory detail to understand their relationship to the final recommended curriculum. Michigan has participated in other studies which were intended to revise and change'the basic police curriculum, but little curriculum change actually occurred. Project STAR (1974) findings did not have any influence upon the . MLEOTC basic curriculum. The reasons why Michigan did not make any revisions based on Project STAR findings is not clear, especially since MLEOTC was invited and did participate in the administrative responsibilities of the project. Project COSTER (1976) was an effort to establish a comprehensive examination and develop a competency based curriculum for the the basic police academy system. The bulk of the entire project was later scrapped with only some slide-tape programs being integrated into the curriculum. The decision to terminate Project COSTER was based upon MLEOTC staff beliefs that the project suffered serious problems which could not be overcome. Soon after Project COSTER, the MLEOTC conducted a job analysis study of the Michigan patrol officer position in order to develop job related selection and training standards for entry-level patrol officers. The study 61 utilized the task inventory survey approach which asked both supervisors and job incumbents to make judgments relating to the importance of various job-tasks. The study findings indicated that over 300 job-tasks were found to be important to the selection and training of entry-level patrol officers. The MLEOTC intends to develop a basic police training curriculum from further analyses of the findings of the study. Evaluation studies of basic police academies and their curriculums are seriously lacking; however, Michigan has experienced a few evaluation studies. Seitzinger’s exploratory study was designed to be a comprehensive law enforcement evaluation training model. The evaluation took into account many key people such as instructors, coordinators, recruits and even police administrators. The evaluation study findings pointed to the need for diagnostic instruments to identify recruits with learning deficiencies. However, the evaluation study model was training process oriented, not training product oriented. There was also an absence of organization and prioritization of training deficiencies. Houghtaling conducted a follow-up study of Michigan pre-service law enforcement college graduates to determine the comparative quality of training between pre-service and basic police academy programs. Pre-service graduates and their supervisors completed evaluation instruments which provided judgments about the quality of training the preservice and basic graduate received. Although the 62 evaluation comparative ratings between pre-service and basic academies are suspect as to their validity, the researcher concluded that the findings cannot verify that the pre-service program is better than the basic. Houghtaling’s study did partially focus on curriculum product assessment. Plog’s (1981) study assessed the Michigan basic police training delivery system with the purpose of documenting the state-of-the-art with the assumption the findings would have implications for the MLEOTC “new“ basic curriculum. The study suffered from a low response rate from the primary sample group - instructors. The credibility of recruit ratings of training were considered questionable since they were made without police experience. Other statistical weaknesses in reporting the data were noted. Instead of the assessment study being training product oriented, it was process oriented. Other police training evaluation studies were reviewed. One of the most consistent summative findings is the general agreement among the studies that there is a need for more “hands-on-training“ (exception being Earl). The studies reviewed were found to lack the specificity and prioritization of curriculum deficiencies which is conducive to constructive curriculum revision. Many of the studies reviewed were found by this researcher to suffer serious methodological and/or statistical weaknesses. CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The study was conducted in cooperation with the Oakland Police Academy (OPA), which is affiliated with Oakland Community College, Michigan. The evaluation is one of descriptive design. A sample of recruits graduating from three different ORA basic training sessions were selected. Recruits graduating from the OPA reported to their respective agency job sites where they performed the patrol officer position. After performing the job from one to two years, the subjects were mailed a task inventory instrument which requested evaluative measures regarding the police officer’s judgments concerning the adequacy of the training they received at the basic police academy. The data was analyzed to determine if there was sufficient evidence to support a meaningful agreement among officers as to the curriculum effectiveness in preparing recruits to perform entry-level job-tasks. The analyses did include a comparison of officers’ judgments against a set of standard criterion for identifying and prioritizing potential curriculum weaknesses in order to facilitate necessary curriculum research, planning and change for the purpose of improving the OPA basic training program. POPULATION The intgngeg gggulation was to have consisted of Michigan police academy recruits who had graduated from 63 64 anyone of thirteen state certified basic police academies and are employed as patrol officers. The number of graduates a year ranges on the average from 500 to 2,000. However, with the employment of police officers dropping considerably over the past few years, the average number of graduating recruits is approximately 500 per year. The population is listed within the basic training academy roster system recorded by the Michigan Law Enforcement Officers Training Council (MLEOTC). The record system indicates where each graduating police recruit is initially employed within Michigan. However, a more defined population of recruits was required for the research study since the MLEOTC Administration was unwilling to provide a cover letter of endorsement. Without the cooperation and the endorsement of the MLEOTC it was determined by the researcher that the probability of obtaining a reasonable response from recruits _ would likely be poor. Research adjustments had to made regarding the scope of the research population. OPA was therefore contacted and invited to become the focus of the evaluation study. Their response was most favorable and they were willing to provide a cover letter of endorsement to recruits as well as give some administrative assistance. The actual population of the study are recruits who have graduated from the OPA basic training program and have employment experience as a police officer. Patrol officers as defined within the study includes only state certified uniformed police personnel who are responsible for all basic 1 65 police functions which consist of enforcement of laws, maintenance of order, prevention of crime and protection of property. The definition excludes officers assigned exclusively to special functions within a police agency such as controlled substance, detective division, juvenile division and jail security. SAMPLE In July 1983, a sample was selected from the population by surveying all graduating recruits from three different ORA basic training sessions. The three sessions selected started and ended on the following dates: Session 1 July 20, 1981 to September 11, 1981 Session 2 October 8, 1981 to December 4, 1981 Session 3 March 1, 1982 to April 30, 1982 The criterion for selecting the sessions was based primarily upon a reasonable time parameter factor. To explain, those OPA sessions which had been completed within a time frame where the graduates would have attained approximately one to two years of patrol officer experience since graduation were utilized as the sample base. The criterion served principally to assure that the sample surveyed had enough experience as patrol officers to provide a valid detail evaluation of the basic training they had received, yet not so removed over time from the training program where recall and recognition of their training may become inaccurate and unreliably obscure. The sessions selected had been completed recently enough to be reasonably considered representative of the contemporary OPA basic recruit training program. Selecting three sessions also provided a 66 potentially large enough sample base to conduct the necessary statistical analyses whereby reasonable inferences could be derived about the OPA program. Controls were administered to ensure the elimination of dissimilar subjects within the sample. Some examples of dissimilar subjects are animal control officers, police dispatchers, housing guards, community service officers, correctional officers, marine officers and any other position which does not have patrol officer responsibilities. Background questions within the questionnaire assisted in determining if in fact the subject was officially authorized and did exercise patrol officer responsibilities. MLEOTC records were checked to make certain each subject was certified to practice law enforcement in a public police agency. SPECIFICATION OF EVALUATION CRITERION AND CONCERNS The primary source for specifying the evaluative paradigm is the by-product of a patrol officer job analysis project conducted by the MLEOTC in cooperation with law enforcement supervisors and police patrol incumbents. A representative statewide sample of police agencies participated in the job analysis project utilizing a task inventory methodology. The project resulted in the identification of just over 300 police job-tasks which were determined to be essential core job-tasks which should represent the foundation of the Michigan basic police curriculum. Since the MLEOTC’s stated position is that trained 67 recruits should be competent job performers because inadequate performance may result in unacceptable consequences, the criteria for evaluating the OPA curriculum are the officers collective judgment regarding the effectiveness of the training to adequately prepare them to perform essential entry-level job-tasks. Based on the MLEOTC’s position expressing the importance of training officers to perform competently, it is held that patrol officer consensus indicating anything less than adequate job-task preparatory training must be considered a curriculum weakness. Such is designated as the conceptual criterion standard for the evaluation. The criterion will serve to answer the following specific evaluative concerns: 1. Does the ORA curriculum in reality effectively prepare police officers to adequately perform important entry-level job-tasks? 2. Which job-tasks are addressed by the curriculum more or less effectively than other job-tasks for the purpose of determining which tasks need additional curriculum attention and consideration? 3. What recommendations can be suggested by OPA graduates concerning how the ORA curriculum can be improved for the purpose of increasing the training programs effectiveness to adequately prepare recruits for realistic police work? EMPIRICAL DESCRIPTION OF CRITERION In order to answer the evaluative concerns, job data was collected from the sample on a task inventory instrument 68 which is a composite of 304 essential job-tasks. Officers provide a criterion rating score for each task which reflects their judgment of perceived adequacy of the OPA training in preparing them to perform the job (Appendix B: Instrument). The criterion ratings are represented by a , five point Likert type ordinal scale which ranges from training being considered “Totally Inadequate“ to “Excellent“. The operational criterion standard as designated is “training received was i t r “, which has the numerical value of 3 . Hence, mean scores are calculated from the task ratings for each and every task for the entire sample. Any mean score resulting in a value of less than 3 is considered a potential curriculum weakness, or problem which needs attention. MEASUREMENTS The instrument is designed to measure various variables relating to the patrol officers perceived adequacy of the basic police curriculum to provide the necessary learning to competently perform the patrol officer job. The data collected is both quantitative and qualitative. Nominal data represent officers simply indicating if they have, or have not, performed a task. Ordinal data are representative of the officer judgment ratings of the curriculum adequacy to prepare recruits to perform essential job-tasks. Qualitative measurements collected from the instrument zero in on obtaining specific recommendations from police officers about how the actual training program can be improved as well as which training subject areas need the 69 most improvement. A content analysis is conducted to determine what graduate feedback can be formulated into reasonable constructive recommendations for immediate administrative action. The overall measurements serve well for performing the appropriate analyses required to address the evaluative concerns within the study. INSTRUMENT The instrument utilized in the study is the by-product of a task inventory instrument used in a job study conducted by the MLEOTC to determine the patrol officers job content. Job content was further defined by distinguishing tasks which were considered essential to the job and tasks which are of less significance of importance. The instrument utilized in the study is composed of 304 tasks which were deemed essential job tasks and would be part of the mandated basic police curriculum. Officers will report on each task indicating if they had performed the task and how well prepared they were to perform each of the 304 tasks listed. The instrument can be found in Appendix B. The instrument used in the study was not extensively pilot tested since a very similar task inventory instrument developed by the MLEOTC had been used successfully during their occupational study of the Michigan patrol officer position. However, reasonable precautions were taken in that selected police officers were requested to review the instrument to assure the instructions and content were indeed reasonably understandable. The instrument was found to be easily understood and not difficult to complete by the 70 reviewers. One clarification needs to be explained about the instrument duty-task statements and their relationship to the curriculum being evaluated. The task statements strictly represent the important entry-level patrol officer job content which should be part of the basic police training academy curriculum as defined by the MLEOTC The tasks found to be important to entry-level patrol work were g9; necessarily a part of the MLEOTC mandatory curriculum, or the expanded OPA curriculum, when the police graduates attended the basic academy program: In short, at the time period being studied, the MLEOTC had not revised their basic police training curriculum based on the 1979 job analysis findings. I DESIGN The instrument is designed to measure the officer judgments regarding the effectiveness of training received concerning job-task performance. The measure is directly related to the Michigan police job training being provided in terms of the criterion, as well as the essential job-task content of the Michigan patrol officer position. The information is collected from the incumbents because it is assumed the workers are the most reliable source to provide accurate information about their job training. The rationale is that the officer is the one who has completed the training and the person who has to perform the job-task. This assertion is especially realistic since the police 71 officer job is one which receives very little direct on-site job observation and evaluation from supervision. The instrument is further designed to assess if the officer has actually performed a particular task. The measure aids in the analysis by assuring the reliability of the data is acceptable. .The consideration here is that officers who have performed the tasks may consistently rate the adequacy of training differently than non-performers. Consistency of ratings is important to distinguish since it is a fair assumption that ratings reported by subjects who have performed the job-tasks are likely more valid than non-performer ratings. Hence, a special analysis isolating task performer ratings is conducted for each task for comparative purposes. PROCEDURES Graduating OPA recruits completing basic police training return to their employing agency where they begin working as certified police officers. The police officer job status is verified by questions within the background of the research instrument. The control questions will protect against non-police officer types from entering the sample. After the officer has been on the job for approximately twelve to twenty-four months s/he is sent the research instrument with appropriate instructions on how to correctly complete and return the instrument. The instrument is directly returned to the ORA, Oakland Community College. A cover letter from the OPA encouraging a response did 72 accompany the survey instrument mailing to the patrol officers. Follow-up letters were mailed two weeks after the initial mailing as reminders to OPA graduates to complete and return the instrument. Anonymity was promised to respondents. Instruments were reviewed for obvious respondent errors. Errors needing correction were corrected by corresponding with respondents. In those very few instances where the respondent could not decide if the training was, or was not adequate for a particular task - the task was given a satisfactory rating. After instruments were found to be acceptable for processing, they were analyzed. DATA ANALYSIS The data collected were analyzed to illustrate findings in a meaningful way and usable fashion. Respondent background information and related experience were reported by simple frequency and proportional statistics for the purpose of describing the sample. Tables of statistics were provided in instances where a composite display of statistics might serve to better illustrate important variances among the sample. In addition, the data analysis of the sample of the population provided a check procedure to identify and exclude those respondents who did not qualify in accordance to the definition of the population. The analysis of the respondent training evaluation data primarily focused on presenting the findings by two major complimentary ways: (1) quantitative duty-task evaluation comparisons; and, (2) qualitative duty-task evaluation 73 comments. Quantitative duty-task comparisons are displayed within various tables for the purpose of prioritizing, highlighting and contrasting both adequate and inadequate task training evaluation ratings within the basic police academy program. Tables include organizing tasks according to their relative curriculum priority with all other tasks, by relative priority when comparing tasks within their own duty-field and by comparing each duty-field relatively to all other duty-fields according to overall task training evaluation strengths and weaknesses. In order to establish a relative priority among tasks and duty-fields which need curriculum attention, a rank ordering format was applied to many of the tables. Within the tables the task evaluation ratings are classified in three data fields. These fields are consensus, performers and non-performers. The consensus field is representative of the calculated mean task rating for all respondents. The performers field represent a calculated mean rating exclusively for those respondents which reported they have performed that particular task. Non-performers simply represent those respondents mean task rating exclusively for those respondents who reported they did not perform the task rated. The field analysis serves to offset the possibility that not enough officers will have performed all 304 tasks to obtain sufficient and necessary task performer ratings to reach a reliable finding. However, if non-performer task ratings are found to be reliably consistent with performer ratings, then some 74 reasonable inferences can be made about those tasks which few officers have performed. Qualitative duty-task evaluation comments were collected and organized for the purpose of providing some thoughtful evaluation insight about task training weaknesses, as well as how training might be improved from the patrol officer’s standpoint. Each respondent was asked to select three tasks which they believed needed the most improvement in the basic academy curriculum and comment why according to directions. Comments are assembled in Appendix C for reference and future curriculum consideration. METHODOLOGY LIMITATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS The main evaluation questions of the study are both classic and difficult ones which have taunted many educators and trainers; that is, does the curriculum accomplish what it intends to-accomplish in reality? Or, does the' curriculum prepare the student/trainee for the determined needs of reality? It can be stated fairly that these questions represent some of the most serious evaluation concerns, which are far from easy to assess. The difficulty of assessment increases for an occupation like policing when the occupation itself is in a state of continual transition because of changes in law (job knowledges), related technologies and contemporary police practices. Yet, the need to ask the question of congruence between intended curriculum outcomes and observed outcomes, or the congruence of the curriculum being reflective of the needs of reality, are even more critical for curricula which are impacted by 75 change, because those very same curricula are in the greatest danger of becoming prone to obsolescence. Robert Stake (Stake, l967, pp. 372-90), does an excellent job of laying out a schematic of the different approaches to curriculum evaluation. He points out that the purposes and procedures of educational evaluation may differ and as a result so will the curriculum evaluation approach. His conclusion is that the “countenance of evaluation should be one of data gathering that leads to decision-making, not trouble-making.“ He contends that educators need to be more deliberate and formal when performing curriculum evaluations.. They should ask and try to clarify their responsibility by answering such questions as: (1) Is this evaluation to be primarily descriptive, primarily judgmental, or both descriptive and judgmental? (2) Is this evaluation to emphasize the antecedent conditions, the transactions, or the outcomes alone, or a combination of these, or their functional contingencies? (3) Is this evaluation to indicate the congruences between what is intended and what occurs? (4) Is this evaluation to be undertaken within a single program or as a comparison between two or more curricular programs? (5) Is this evaluation intended more to further the development of curricula or to help choose among available curricula? (Ibid., p.389) These questions are indeed helpful guidance to the prospective evaluator. In terms of this evaluation study the researcher has attempted to answer these questions and consider their weight in the design of the evaluation methodology. In brief response, regarding question one, the evaluation is both descriptive and judgmental. Judgments are 76 provided by police officers who have graduated from a police academy within approximately two years and have at least one year of job experience. Descriptions consist mainly of descriptive statistics and explanation of the training system being evaluated. Question two can be answered by saying the study focuses primarily on “outcomes,“ but some recommendations are compiled from job incumbents pertaining to antecedent conditions and transactions. Question three is definitely addressed by the study because it is directly concerned with establishing if there is a congruence between what is intended and what occurs. Question four can be answered that the study is undertaken within a single program, however, with hope that some general inferences can be proposed about other similar programs. Question five is best answered that the evaluation should help facilitate further development of the curricula. What becomes apparent after answering the questions is that the study does have its definite limitations. In particular, although the study will probably do a very good job in answering program intentions and what occurs in reality, the research will lack comprehensiveness and depth in evaluating descriptively and judgmentally the antecedents, transactions and their contingencies. Antecedents are those conditions existing prior to instruction and learning which may relate to outcomes and transactions consisting of the innumerable encounters of instructor with trainee, trainee with trainee, author with reader, etc. - which are “the succession of engagements 77 which compromise the process of education“(Ibid., p. 377). The primary focus of the study is therefore measuring program intentions with learning outcomes with the accepted deletion of a thorough investigation of the learning process. However, curricula evaluation which focuses on measuring the congruence between educational intentions and actual outcomes has much support within the literature. Ralph Tyler, one of the most traditionally renowned curricula authorities, asserts, “The process of evaluation is essentially the process of determining to what extent the educational objectives are actually being realized by the program of curriculum and instruction“ (Kliebard, l970, p. 63). Bloom (l962) notes, “The criterion for determining the quality of a school and its educational functions would be the extent to which it achieves the objectives (intentions) it has set for itself...“ (Cronbach, 1963, p. 322). Cronbach emphasizes that when evaluation is conducted for the purpose of course improvement,“the chief aim is to ascertain what effects the course has -- that is, what changes it produces in pupils“ (Ibid., pp. 322-3). Cronbach contends that the greatest service evaluation can provide is to identify aspects within a course where revision appears necessary. Evaluating educational intentions and outcomes according to many authorities is an important and central concern pertaining to curriculum development and overall assessment. Now, a brief explanation must be given to interrelate some of the concepts and authoritative assertions with the 78 evaluation methodology which the research study utilizes to evaluate the OPA basic police training curriculum. To begin, the methodology is a task inventory follow-up study. The task listing represents a symbolic philosophical statement, in part, by the MLEOTC regarding what job-tasks police recruits should be prepared to perform at the job entry-level. It is the adequate preparation of recruits to perform the MLEOTC identified tasks which represents the in ini t . The task listing is composed of the 304 task statements which were identified by the MLEOTC as being representative of “reality“ pertaining to what worker requirements police recruits should be ready to encounter under actual working conditions. The tasks were identified by a job analysis project conducted by the MLEOTC. Hence, the task listing represents a powerful comprehensive framework of reality in terms of projecting the police recruits future job expectations and demands, as well as the basic training programs goal to prepare trainees to adequately perform the job of policing. In order to measure congruence between intended training outcomes and actual behavioral outcomes of trainees, trainees did provide judgments regarding the training they received which should have adequately prepared them to perform the identified common and important tasks. These judgments serve as the observational data which Robert Stake calls for to determine congruence. The result of the statistical analysis will prdduce a rank-ordered listing of tasks which range from needing “improvement“ to not needing 79 improvement. Such a listing satisfies the purpose of evaluation according to what Cronbach requests concerning identifying aspects within the curriculum which need improvement. In short, the literature does verify the methodological approach as being a reasonably productive one; however, there are still some limitations which need addressing. Cronbach points out that follow-up evaluations are probably the best means to measure ultimate educational contributions, “but the completion of such a study is so far removed in time from the initial instruction that it is of minor'value in improving the course or explaining its effects“ (Cronbach, p. 326). This statement without doubt appears to be a pressing methodological problem. Cronbach adds, I would emphasize departures of attained results from the ideal, differences in apparent effectiveness of different parts of the course, and differences from item to item; all these suggest places where the course could be strengthened. But this view cannot be applied to the follow-up study, which appraises effects of the course as a whole and which has very little meaning unless outcomes can be compared with some sort of base rate (Ibid.). Cronbach however does finally say although follow-up data does not indicate how to improve a course “such studies should have a place in research on the new curricula, whose national samples provide unusual opportunity for follow-up that can shed light on important questions“ (Ibid.). This research study counters Cronbach’s parochial view 80 that follow-up studies have to be so narrow and cannot provide important information about the need for curricula improvement. If other follow-up studies are too general it may be that it is a problem of methodological design and development, rather than methodological approach (e.g. follow-up study). The task inventory follow-up approach does have some of the characteristics Cronbach expects from a methodology that will identify aspects in need of curriculum improvement. For example, a rank-ordered listing of tasks which need curriculum improvement does satisfy looking at particulars in a course as opposed to describing the general whole. In reference to the need of a base rate, actually other task ratings can serve as a base rate of comparison to indicate relative need for curriculum improvement. In addition, the mean judgment rating provided by the graduate indicating “satisfactorily prepared“ can serve as an indicator of need for curriculum improvement. Finally, open ended questions were included which asked the graduate to indicate and describe weak areas within the curriculum, along with recommendations on how those weaknesses might be improved. These questions do enhance the value of follow-up study in prbviding findings which facilitate meaningful feedback about where to direct curriculum improvement efforts. The job analysis technique has been found to be very pragmatic for designing training courses, determining training needs and identifying areas of job change (Prien and Ronan, l971, pp. 371-96). Prien and Ronan suggest that 81 there are logical research extensions of the job analysis technique, but they either have not been reported, or they have not been investigated. The task inventory approach as a follow-up method to evaluate the adequacy of the training curriculum to prepare trainees to perform important tasks is certainly a logical extension of job analysis general methodology. It is only reasonable that a technique which has been used so successfully to describe jobs and design training can be used as a framework to evaluate those very same j obs . There are some precautions one should keep in mind when using job analysis techniques. One is the question of reliability and validity of responses obtained from job incumbents which provide task ratings. Another is the possibility that a task statement is inadequately described to include important job elements in order to allow instructional designers, or those providing ratings, to understand critical distinctions and characteristics about that task in question which may affect the quality of analysis, or task ratings provided. And of course, it should be recognized that a task listing of supposedly all the important aspects of a job may falsely lead one to be over confident about the true comprehensiveness of the task listings reflecting the total job. Each task rarely stands alone, rather it overlaps with other tasks. Such overlap indicates certain interrelationships between tasks which cannot be so easily captured or analyzed by a single or even group of task factor ratings. Those interrelationships are 82 important to describing the job as well as critical to those who must design or evaluate a curriculum. The concept to keep humbly in mind when looking at task statistics is that the sum of the parts (police work) is indeed greater than the whole (all tasks). Hence, the job of policing is more complex than an extensive listing of task statements may indicate and therefore any statistical findings will only reflect superficial, but important, identification of curriculum weaknesses and strengths. Once the curriculum weaknesses are identified, intensive curriculum research (eg. task analysis) will have to be conducted before any definite conclusions should be made about “how“ the curriculum should be revised. The research study is confronted with some of the more common limitations found within such curriculum evaluation studies. Attrition is a likely problem since a number of subjects may discontinue work as police officers, or change agency of original employment. However, attrition was controlled for by selecting three basic academy sessions in order to increase the sample size and by sampling all the graduates for those sessions. There is a very good probability that not enough officers will have performed all 304 job-tasks within the inventory. Hence, some tasks will not be able to be analyzed reliably because of insufficient data. However, if non-performer task ratings are found to be reliably consistent with performer ratings, then some reasonable inferences can be made about those tasks which few officers I 83 have performed. Another problem is that each OPA basic police training session is unique in some ways whether it be instructors, students, learning conditions, or historical variables which make up the learning environment. Because of these uniquenesses, there is always a validity question about combining similar, but unidentical, sessions and their subjects together as a single sample and then making inferences from that multivariable group about other sessions. In this case, the validity problem is less for. making inferences about anticipated curriculum weaknesses and strengths concerning other future OPA sessions than it is for makihg inferences about other different police academy sessions. However, this validity problem is partially controlled. The controls which offset the session uniqueness factor is that most instructors used in each OPA session are about constant. Few new instructors are used from one session to the next. Even when new instructors are used, they are all given a set of MLEOTC instructor guidelines for their area of instruction. Although these instructional guidelines are oftentimes vague and lack detail and subject matter substance, the guidelines still serve as an instructional parameter which aids in assuring some curriculum consistency. Another offsetting control is that the OPA testing system is also quite constant from one academy session to the next. As a result, those graduating from OPA, 84 regardless of which session, have reached a very close minimum standard level of achievement. Lastly, computations of task training ratings for each task based on all subjects will indicate any excessive ranges of variance which will alert a possible validity problem. Such variances may occur if training in each sampled OPA session differed. The research study findings can also be challenged because officers providing ratings are dissimilar since most work for different police agencies. The task performance requirements for police officers working at different agencies do meaningfully differ for certain tasks. Ideally with a large enough sample officer ratings could have been analyzed by agency type. However, the research sample size within the study does not permit such an analysis. The control embedded within the methodology to counter the noted problem is the task inventory itself and OPA program. According to MLEOTC findings, the task inventory represents a composite of core tasks which are common important entry-level work requirements found in traditional police agencies. Secondly, the OPA program is responsible for preparing recruits for various traditional police work responsibilities, not just one type of police agency. OVERVIEW . The methodology which was utilized in the study has been explained in Chapter 3. The explanation addressed the evaluative concerns the curriculum evaluation study is directed at investigating and answering, as well as the population, sample, procedures, criterion, measures, 85 limitations and research considerations which are essential to understanding the rationale for the research approach and design. The methodology is intended to aid others in assessing the research study and to serve as a means of replication and methodology refinement for future curriculum research studies. ' The actual research findings based on the analyses of data are presented in Chapter 4. CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS SAMPLE OF POPULATION Tgtal Respondents A total of sixty-two survey questionnaires were mailed to all Oakland Police Academy graduates who attended anyone of three academy sessions and were determined to be employed as police officers for approximately one to two years. Two questionnaires were returned undeliverable leaving the actual total sample of potential respondents as sixty. A follow-up postcard reminder was sent to those graduates who did not respond within two weeks of the first survey mailing. The analysis of results is based upon twenty-seven survey responses from OPA graduates which represents a return rate of 45% of the defined population. The findings of the study should be viewed with some scientific caution due to the return rate statistical strength. egg The average age of the sample was found to be 28.3 years old. However, the age of the sample does vary considerably as illustrated in Table 4-1. I c ti n ack round The average amount of education attained by the sample was 13.6 years. Education level was obtained by reviewing basic police academy enrollment forms. Eighteen (66%) of the OPA graduates reported they had some law enforcement 86 87 related background before entering the OPA program. Thirteen (48%) had reserve police officer experience and six (22%) reported they had civilian employee experience with a public police agency. The other related backgrounds included security guard, correction officer, campus public safety, probation officer, military police and park ranger. Six (22%) of the graduates indicated they had more than one kind of police related background experience before attending OPA. TABLE 4-1 AGE OF SAMPLE ABS REL CUM FREQ FREQ ‘ FREQ Interval (N) (%) (%) 18-20 1 3.7 3.7 21-23 6 22.2 25.9 24-26 10 37.0 63.0 27-29 2 7.4 70.4 30-32 2 7.4 77.8 33-35 1 3.7 81.5 36-38 0 .0 .0 39-41 2 7.4 88.9 42-44 2 7.4 96.3 45-47 1 3.7 100.0 TOTAL CASES 8 27 VALID CASES 8 27 MISSING CASES = O ABS FREQ 3 Absolute Frequency REL FREQ = Relative Frequency CUM FREQ 8 Cumulative Frequency Rgge The twenty-seven respondents indicated that twenty-six (96.3%) are caucasians and one (3.7%) is black. The sample is therefore predominantly caucasian. 88 Agency of Employment The sample provided information pertaining to what type of police agency the graduates are presently employed with as illustrated in Table 4-2. Municipal, township and sheriff police agencies accounted for the majority (92.6%) of the employment of OPA sample graduates. TABLE 4-2 RESPONDENTS’ AGENCY OF EMPLOYMENT ABS REL CUM FREQ FREQ FREQ Agency (N) (%) (%) Municipal 10 .37 37 ‘ Township 8 29 66.7 Sheriff 7 25 92.6 Urban 0 0. 92.6 Univ/College 1 3.7 96.3 State Police 0 0. 96.3 Other 1 3.7 100.0 TOTAL CASES 3 27 VALID CASES 3 27 MISSING CASES = O Patrgl Area The sample of OPA graduates performed their police responsibilities within diverse kinds of patrol areas. Although the largest proportion of graduates perform police work in suburban areas (37%), the overall distribution of patrol areas is broadly represented. A frequency distribution of patrol areas represented within the sample 0 is provided in Table 4-3. 89 TABLE 4-3 PATROL AREAS REPRESENTED WITHIN THE SAMPLE ABS REL CUM FREQ FREQ FREQ Patrol Area (N) (%) (%) Urban 2 7.4 7.4 Suburban 10 37.0 44.4 Rural 4 14.8 59.3 Urban/Suburban 2 7.4 66.7 Suburban/Rural 5 18.5 85.2 Urban/Rural 0 0 85.2 4 14.8 100.0 Urb/Sub/Rural TOTAL CASES 8 27 VALID CASES 3 27 MISSING CASES 8 O Pgtrgl foicer Experience The data analysis revealed twenty (74%) responding OPA graduates had between 14 to 24 months of patrol experience since graduation. The remaining seven respondents (26%) had approximately one year of experience. Aprroximately 82% (22) of the graduates reported they have formally completed probation. P t As ' nm n The sample reported information describing their general patrol assignment duty. The analysis produced findings which indicates that about 67% (18) of the officers perform their duties in a one person vehicle patrol assignment and approximately 26% (7) work two person vehicle The remainder of the officers (2) stated they . assignments. performed other patrol related assignments. 9O OPA graduate sample responded that on the average they spent approximately 72% of their time working alone while on patrol. Only two respondents reported they spent any less than 50% of their time working alone on patrol. Table 4-4 illustrates the breakdown: TABLE 4-4 TIME SPENT WORKING ALONE ON PATROL ABS REL CUM % Time FREQ “FREQ FREQ Alone (N) (%) (%) 0-9 1 3.7 4. 10-19 0 0 4. 20-29 0 0 4. 30-39 1 3.7 8. 40-49 0 0 8. 50-59 8 29.6 40.7 60-69 1 3.7 44. 70-79 1 3.7 48. 80-89 1 3.7 52. 90-99 12 44.4 100. TOTAL cases = 27 VALID cases = 25 MISSING cases a 2 Job Attituge The sample was asked two questions for the purpose of gaining some insight about the graduates attitudes toward policing since completing the OPA program. Question one asked the officer how interesting s/he found the job. The analysis of responses indicate that on the average officers found police work to be fairly interesting to very interesting. There were not any sample responses declaring an OPA graduate thought police work was dull. The second 91 question asked the officer if the job utilized their natural talents. The sample generally reported that they found police work utilized their natural talents quite well to very well. Job attitude findings are illustrated in Table 4-5 and 4-6: TABLE 4-5 SAMPLES’ JOB INTEREST ABS REL CUM FREQ FREQ ' FREQ Interest (N) (%) (%) Very Dull ' 0 0 0 Fairly Dull 0 0 0 So-So 1 3.7 - 3.7 Fairly Interst. 9 33.3 37.0 Very Interst. 17 63 100.0 TOTAL CASES 3 27 VALID CASES = 27 MISSING CASES 8 0 TABLE 4-6 JOB UTILIZATION OF SAMPLES’ NATURAL TALENT ABS REL CUM FREQ FREQ FREQ Utilizes (N) (%) (%) Not at all 0 0 0 Very little 1 3.7 3.7 Fairly well 5 18.5 22.2 Quite well 13 48.1 70.4 Very well 8 29.6 100.0 TOTAL CASES 8 27 VALID CASES 8 27 MISSING CASES = O 92 TRAINING EVALUATION Over ll P Tr in'n Ratin The sample pnovided an overall evaluation rating which allowed the sample to report how prepared they were to perform important tasks based upon the training they received. Approximately 70% (19) of the sample responded that training prepared them to perform patrol tasks quite well to very well. Table 4-7 frequency distribution of overall basic training ratings among the sample illustrates the findings. TABLE 4-7 OVERALL BASIC TRAINING ACADEMY RATING , ABS REL CUM FREQ FREQ FREQ Rating (N) (%) (%) 1 Very Little 0 0 0 2 Fairly Well 8 29.6 29.6 3 Quite Well 14 51.9 81.5 4 Very Well 5 18.5 100.0 TOTAL CASES = 27 MEAN 8 2.9 MISSING CASES 3 0 S.D. I 0.7 VALID CASES = 27 ask Tr inin Eval ation Ratin s OPA graduates rated 304 tasks regarding as to how adequately the basic police training program prepared them to perform each task. The job-tasks were classified by duty fields. The ordinal task training rating values which the 93 officers had to select from are: (1) Totally Inadequate; (2) Unsatisfactory; (3) Satisfactory; (4) Very Adequate; and, (5) Excellent. Mean and standard deviation scores were calculated for for each task among three categories which are listed in both Table 4-8 and 4-9. The first table category represents the consensus of computations for the entire sample (N=27). The second and third categories represent task performer and non-performer evaluation ratings for each subsample respectively. The number of OPA graduate respondents either who have, or have not, performed the task rated is provided for the second and third categories. Table 4-8 findings are organized by rank ordering all tasks, whereas Table 4-9 and 4-10 presents the findings according to duty fields. Table 4-8 has a standard evaluation criterion dividing line at the 3.0 mean level for distinguishing those tasks which mean scores indicate the respondents cumulative agreement that a job-task was either adequately, or inadequately, addressed within the basic police training curriculum. Rank ordering of tasks is organized according to the consensus category first and by the performer category secondarily when and if an equal mean value was found within the consensus category for more than one task. Tables 4-9 and 4-10 serve to organize the task training ratings by duty fields for the purpose of facilitating decision-making concerning the need for curriculum attention across and within the major work function level. Work 94 function areas generally translate within the curriculum as being major subject areas. Hence, the Tables provide an indicator which training subject areas, as opposed to individual tasks, possibly need the greater attention. The Tables should be especially helpful to instructors and specialized experts for reviewing their respective subject areas. Table 4-10 is designed to compare and indicate which major work functions have a higher proportion of duty field tasks rated adequate, or inadequate. To explain the Table, column one states how many tasks are listed within that duty field. Column two displays how many of those duty field tasks were found to have mean ratings less than the acceptable training standard criterion. Column three expresses column two findings in terms of a percentage of tasks receiving inadequate training ratings for that independent duty field. Column four describes the impact of each independent duty field upon the total number tasks across all duty fields which were found to be rated below the standard criterion. Duty fields are rank ordered according to column four. Findipgp Table 4-8 rank ordering of task training evaluations indicates that 34% (102) of the 304 tasks listed received consensus category mean scores less than the 3.0 level. However, task performer ratings reveal some meaningful disagreement with non-performers for the 102 tasks. The performer mean ratings category indicates that performers 95 generally believe graduates received adequate preparatory training for 20 (7%:304) of those 102 tasks listed. On the other hand, only four (1%) tasks in the performers category were found to have mean values less than the criterion standard, which were not listed in the non-performers category as being substandard. In either case, a significant number of job-tasks were found to be below the adequate training standard evaluation criterion level. Standard deviations of task mean scores for all three categorgies generally indicate a close range of task rating consensus among the sample. The standard deviation values rarely exceed much over one (1) in the consensus category and a little more than rarely in the performer category. However, the standard deviations evidenced more instability in the range of agreement among the non-performer sub-sample category since a considerable number (54) of standard deviations reached the value of three (3). Table 4-9 is a task listing with data analysis findings according to duty field. A review of the findings by duty field demonstrates that certain duty fields received a greater proportion of task training ratings as being inadequate, or adequate, than other duty fields. Table 4-10 illustrates the differences of task training ratings among duty fields. As Table 4-10 clearly displays the findings, seven duty fields were found not to have any task mean scores less than the criterion standard. Those duty fields are: (1) Conflict Mediation; (2) Emergency Preparedness - Disaster Control; 96 (3) Field Notetaking And Report Writing; (4) Fingerprinting & Palmprinting; (5) Firearms Training; (6) Latent Prints; and (7) Search & Seizure. However, the other duty fields did have task training mean scores below the standard criterion. Two duty fields which accumulated a significant higher proportion of tasks below the standard criterion were Physical Training & Defensive Tactics (12.8%; based on 102 substandard tasks) and Jail Operations (11.8%). Driving (7.8%), Criminal Investigation (7.8%), Case Prosecution (6.9%), Patrol Operations (6.9%), Traffic Control (5.9%) and Arrest & Detain (4.9%) were secondary duty fields receiving a greater proportion of substandard task training ratings. Fourteen of the remaining duty fields reported some substandard criterion training ratings. Another finding is that every task within four duty fields was rated below the 3.0 standard criterion mean level. Those duty fields are: (1) Driving; (2) Miscellaneous; (3) Civil Process; and (4) Crime Prevention. Other duty fields having a disproportionate amount (50% or more) of duty field tasks rated as substandard are: Jail Operations (92%); Case Prosecution (88%), OUIL (80%); Office Clerical (67%); Physical Training & Defensive Tactics (59%); Crime Scene Search (57%); Civil Disorders (50%); and Police Communications (50%). 97 TREE 4-8 TAM M ORDERED F8184 MEMTE TO “NOTE Task: 87. Operate 'breuthnlner' instrunent to test blood alcohol content 84. Escort energencr vehicles 88. Testify in Secretary of State inplied consent hearing: 85. Operate vehicle on dirt covered road 81. Operate vehicle on ice covered road 82. Operate vehicle on snou covered road 41. liitness autopsies 246. Perforn duties uhile uenring heavy eguipneni (other than gun belt) 83. Operate vehicle in tiuing rain 88. Engage in hid: speed pursuit or response driving off road 282. Clock vehicles using radar 245. lindn through unrshes, sup land or unterunru 24. Omnicntn uith nnnegenent and labor over strike disturbances 61. Reviuu uith nedicnl exuuiner circusinnces relating to a death 78. Engage in lid! speed driving in cmgested are: .260. Operate LEIN terninnl to update data 191. Schedule uoril assignments for other officer: 261. Operate LEIN turninnl to check person: and ”DION? 188. Prepare list of vented persons for department use 79. Engage in hid: speed pursuit or response driving on open road 114. Minister oxygen using oxygen supply device other than resuscitnior 187. Issue pick-up or wanted notice: 62. Conduct intelligence activities on knoun or suspected offenders 8. Request bystander: to assist in In apprehension 253. Crwl in confined areas (e.g., attics) 140. Investigate injuries to prisoners 259. Operate telephone console or uuitchbonrd 139. Record injuries to primers 77. Recruit confidential infornnnts 11. instruct suspect on process for obtaining an attorney 58. Search fir: dnbri: for evidence relating to the cause of the fire 144. Check legal status of the case of prisoners 12. Prepare felony cmlnint fares for unrrant authorization X ~80 .. - 2: s on. an .- gngngo NNNNNN I I N . Sins: 2.59 Consensus .93 1.09 .92 1.13 1.15 1.15 .90 .77 1.22 1.25 .87 .75 .98 .77 1.36 .91 .67 .83 .62 1.45 .83 .5 .74 .83 .79 .69 .92 .92 .83 .96 .62 .87 Periorners X 1.67 2.31 2.07 2.13 2.2 2.2 1.67 2.17 2.19 .94 1.26 .85 1.19 1.17 1.17 .75 .9 1.24 1.31 .91 .49 .80 .78 1.50 1.16 .5 .99 .5 1.47 .80 .43 .94 .84 1.89 1.09 1.85 1.89 1.24 .86 17 14 17 17 11 21 13 Non-Pnriorners X .82 .62 .99 .71 .5 .5 .90 .73 .5 1.19 .63 .78 .90 .78 .99 .5 .7 .5 .63 .83 .49 .69 .79 .5 .5 .5 .60 .5 .80 .51 .81 11 u--; 11 25 22 18 21 10 13 10 18 16 98 Table 4-8 cont. Tasks 112. Minister oxygen using resuscitator 249. Pull self through openings 148. Collect interiin bond 27. Serve probate orders (e.g., nentals, juveniles, adult offenders) 73. Organize surveillance of individuals or locations 14. Review warrants for canpleteness and accuracy 15. Prepare Inisdeneanor cuplaint forns for warrant authorization 149. Never inquiries concerning prisoner 147. Book prisoners by capleting arrest forns 262. Check stolen status on property through LElN 254. Clidi up over obstacles 57. Verify the identity of deceased persons 247. Clidi through openings (e.g., windows) 251. .1in across distacles 137. Check weapons in and out of detention facility 284. Direct traffic using flare pattern or traffic cone patterns 33. Visually estiInate speed of vehicles 48. Conchct cuunnnity relations prog‘n (e.g. safety progras, crile prevention, tours, C.8. watch) 35. Cast inpressions at crine scene (e.g. plaster casts, silicone, etc.) 254. Stand continuously for nore than one-half of the work shift (e.g., guard duty or point control) 98. Arrange for attaining blood a- urine sales for sobriety tests 18. issue citations for non-traffic offenses (e.g. appearance tickets, ordinance violations) 210. investigate unusual odors 243. in down fron elevated surfaces 248. Pull self up over obstacles 13. enear out cuplaints or warrants 25. Patrol area cmtaining labor pickets, narchers or denonstrators 52. Participate in raids 199. Flush fuel spills 56. Exaine dead bodies for wounds and injuries 143. Check individual naking bond for wants and warrants 168. Evaluate citizen cqlaints regarding tickets or other nincr offenses 158. Test and evaluate police equipoent 54. Search dead bodies for personal property 16. Confer with prosecutor or city attorney regarding warrant authorizatim 28. Enforce court issued order (e.g. writs) 135. Interrogate suspects or witness with use of polygraph results Consensus X 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 80 .95 .73 .87 .73 .67 1.82 .94 .67 .67 .98 .82 .67 .77 .82 .9 .67 .9 .98 1.02 .71 .94 .68 .81 .81 .66 .98 .94 .97 .93 .84 .58 .8 .70 .78 Performers X PP? 999 332 sash: 82° N'uN-u H_H ”nnnynnnn 9 P” a 33 .fi 9 9 3g "99?? ”338% NNMN I 6-— .53 N 3 2.79 2.81 2.81 2.83 2.93 2.5 80 1.25 .81 .92 .65 .64 1.10 1 .72 .65 1.11 .87 .98 .82 .96 .93 .66 .92 .73 3.16 1.17 1.85 1.82 .9 .56 .85 .73 1.12 .68 A 1.5 19 18 9'58" u 16 21 18 21 17 21 16 24 16 16 Non-Perforlers X as" NNN .- “a“ NNNNPNNNN mac-80.53383 ~w a N u a 2.62 2.91 N S ””93”“ 321%: r P??? 21 38133 «a 23; MN . I P on 50 .81 .48 .67 .65 .67 .96 .83 .37 .7 .45 .49 .48 .5 .49 .76 .66 3.16 .73 .51 .39 3.16 .49 .49 .64 .86 .88 .94 .49 $982 99 Table 4-8 cont. Tasks Consensus Perfonners Non-Performers it 50 X 50 N x so N 145. Return prisoner’s property 2.78 .74 2.76 .81 17 2.8 .60 10 285. Clock speed of vehicles using speedcuneter 2.78 .92 2.77 .93 26 3 3.16 1 146. Inventory prisoner’s personal property 2.78 .68 2.79 .77 19 2.75 .43 8 252. Physically push novable objects 2. .79 2.79 .82 24 2.67 .47 3 42. Release confiscated property 2. .79 2.81 .57 11 2.75 .90 16 218. Perforn first line naintenance on patrol vehicle 2. .87 2.91 .79 22 2.2 .98 5 69. Review crine lab reports to glide investigations 2. .79 3 1.47 7 2.7 .64 20 244. Break through door using force 2. .67 2.82 .=< 11 2.81 .53 16 244. flip over obstacles 2. .77 2.84 .87 19 2.75 .43 8 29. Serve subpoenas 2. 1.46 2.94 1.14 16 2.64 .88 11 6. Take into custody person detained by citizen 2 .98 3.86 .97 18 2.33 .47 9 5. Plan strategy for naking arrests 2. .76 2.89 .81 18 2.78 .63 9 142. Place holds in prisoners and notify departuent holding warrant 55. Track person fre- scene 8" o .85 2.9 .89 20 2. u n 'u u (e.g., footprints in snow or end) 2. .84 2.95 .76 19 2.63 .86 8 138. Suard prisoners detained outside jail 2. .85 2.95 .92 24 2.57 .49 7 276. Testify in liquor board hearings 2. .76 3 3.16 2 2.84 .78 25 189. Review other officers’ incident reports for cnleteness and accuracy 23. Locate and observe crowd agitators 344. Check railroad crossing for simal violations (e.g., going around gates, train blocking crossing) 287. Cufort enotionally upset persons 178. Test operating condition of accident vehicle equip-ent 2.8 286. Observe traffic control device to deternine if .89 3.89 1.1611 2.69 .58 16 1.88 3.17 1.1412 2.6 .95 15 88 888 8 822223333 MN .8 32 . .87 10 2.65 .68 17 .83 2.88 .85 26 3 3.161 ~r’ 88 Q .83 3 .93 14 2.77 .7 13 functiming properly 2.89 .99 3.45 .98 22 2.2 .75 5 154. Conchict parent juvenile conferences 2.89 .87 3.4 .8 18 2.59 .77 17 159. Request equipneut repair 2.93 .77 2.92 .78 26 3 3.16 1 47. Arraign defendant in court 2.93 .77 3 .97 15 2.83 .37 12 89. Minister roadside sobriety test 2.93 .98 3 1.42 23 2.5 .5 4 196. Transport nental patients 2.93 1.89 3 1.08 24 2.33 .94 3 282. Advise property runners or agents of potentially hazardous conditions 2.93 .9 3.86 1.03 18 2.67 .47 9 19. Discuss cases with prosecutors or city . attorneys folluuing legal proceedings 2.93 1.89 3.11 1.15 18 2.56 .83 9 17. Recuend the issuance of an arrest warrant 2.93 1.05 3.18 1.15 17 2.5 .67 10 211. Direct actions of public service personnel arriving to assist 2.96 .64 3 .73 19 2.88 .33 8 72. Contact meillance of indiviihials or locations 2.96 .74 3.86 .83 16 2.82 .57 . 11 226. Assist elderly or disabled persons with nobility problens .67 3 .69 .58 6 275. Testify in parole or probation hearings .86 3.43 1.85 . .73 20 46. Prepare witnesses for court testinony .72 3.22 1.43 63. Verify reliability and credibility of witnesses .54 3 .55 70. Oeternine whether recovered property is linked with a previous crine 71. Trace stolen goods 3 3 283. Renove vehicles obstructing traffic 3 .67 3 .69 3 3 unease-anon 8 8 C t huh—ON am can .77 2.88 .83 17 .72 3.27 .75 11 h) N" C 100 Table 4-8 cont. Tasks 76. Talk with families of adult suspects or defendants (advise, inform, notify, counsel) 2. Patrol riot stricken or civil disturbance areas 216. Participate in large scale area search parties 13. Confer with juvenile probate officer 222. Prepare list of wanted persons or stolen vehicles for men use 136. Interview medical personnel to obtain specific information 153. Counsel juveniles 75. Analyze and cauare incidents for similarity of nodus operandi (11.0.) 74. lltilize department records to assist in ' investigation 221. llake entries in indiviihal patrol log 156. Advise parents of children’s violation of traffic luvs 176. Photograph accident scenes 185. Investigate off road vehicle accithnts 192. Verify vehicle title information 209. Escort money, valuables or people to provide security 141. Process evihnce seized at custodial search 154. Place children in protective custody (e.g. child abuse) 294. Advise appropriate agency of traffic engineering needs 225. Establish field contacts (e.g., barcnvners, taxi «rivers, etc.) 294. Remove hazards frn roadvay (e.g., dead animals, debris, etc.) 128. Transpa-t injured persons 26. Control non-violent crnvds 241. Orag or pull heavy objects or persons 213. Patrol locations of beat which are potentially hazardous to citizens (e.g., construction site, attractive nuisance) 288. lbtify public agencies or utilities of d-age to their equipment 280. Check conditions and status of assigned patrol equipment and vehicle 190. Take custody of lost and found prwerty 242. Run up stairs 227. Transpcrt persons needing assistance 215. Advise victins of the procedures to prosecute 256. Receive and evaluate telephme requests for police service 299. Inspect private vehicle for conformance with vehicle code 381. Check vehicles for proper registration (e.g. snmobiles, off road vehicles, etc.) 91. Search for bus 92. Evacuate persons frn dangerous area X ”03‘0“ 3.84 3.04 3.04 3.07 3.87 3.87 3.07 3.87 3.07 3.07 3.87 3.87 Consen svs .77 .82 .72 .67 .61 .84 .79 .77 .86 .77 .77 .81 .72 .81 ‘ .86 .42 .76 .65 .89 .52 .65 Perforners X 3.29 3.33 3.12 3.08 3.17 3.28 3.2 2.83 3.38 .82 .87 .89 62 .94 .78 .63 .81 .91 .85 .81 .92 .75 K .85 .49 .96 .47 .8 .95 .92 1.84 .8 .77 .77 .57 .71 .65 .81 .74 .67 .91 .69 .70 21- nfiou 18 19 16 16 24 16 10 13 21 18 17 12 26 12 18 X .37 .82 .62 .49 3.16 .45 .62 .67 .45 .37 .63 .78 .46 .25 3.16 1.02 .43 .31 .31 3.16 3.16 .37 3... .5 .42 .47 .43 .68 Non-Perforners 6 24 18 17 «on 11 17 14 17 10 15 ‘H”“ 38“ 101 Table 4-8 cont. Tasks Consensus Performers Non-Performers & 8 “MOO-‘2 X 80 X 50 N X 60 66. Review records and pictures to identify suspects 3.15 .78 3.33 .74 15 2.92 .64 238. Pickup and carry heavy objects or persons 3.19 .86 3.27 .91 22 2.8 .4 239. Lift heavy objects or persons 3.19 .86 3.27 .91 22 2.8 .4 291. Direct pedestrian traffic 3.19 .72 3.25 .83 20 3 3.16 295. Assist stranded motorists 3.19 ' .67 3.19 .67 27 - - 344. Determine status of auto insurance 3.19 .77 3.26 .79 23 2.75 .43 212. Secure house or property (e.g., lock, close doors and windows etc.) 3.19 .72 3.2 .75 25 3 3.16 232. Check individuals/businesses for 'cuepliance with licensing requirements (e.g., hunting, liquor, dance permit, vendors, etc.) 3.19 .98 3.26 1.87 19 3 .71 53. Plan strategy for condctimg searches 3.19 .77 3.45 .78 II 3 .71 59. Cmduct on-the-scene suspect identifications (e.g. show-ups) 3.19 .55 3.29 .57 17 3 .45 60. (h-ganize and conduct photo line-ups 3.19 .72 3 .76 7 3.25 .70 93. Secure accident and disaster scenes 3.19 .61 3.27 .68 15 3.88 .49 21. Control hostile groups ' (e.g., demonstrators, rioters, bar patrons) 3.22 .79 3.39 .89 18 2.89 .31 51. Determine need for specialized assistance at a crime scene 3.26 .84 3.28 .87 18 3.22 .79 58. Locate witness to crime 3.26 .58 3.33 .64 21 3 3.16 223. Patrol on foot 3.22 .68 3.3 .78 2O 3 3.16 228. Investigate musual sounds 3.22 .63 3.23 .64 26 3 3.16 286. Review information on criminal activity in area 3.22 .79 3.28 .78 25 2.5 .5 283. Follow suspicious vehicles (e.g., suspects, suspicious person, operator under the influence) 3.22 1.83 3.23 1.05 26 3 3.16 201. Direct actions of officer(s) arriving to assist 3.26 .89 3.32 .97 22 3 3.16 67. Participate in investigations with other lmv enfcrcement agencies 3.22 .74 3.3 .78 24 3 .53 95. Prepare criminal case suary sheet for prosecutor 3.26 .78 3.43 .73 14 3.08 .62 98. Cnlete OOIL arrest reports 3.26 1.14 3.25 1.24 24 3.33 .47 292. Follow suspect vehicle to observe traffic violations 3. .8 3.28 .83 25 3 3.16 273. Present evidence in legal proceedings 3. 1 3.27 1.06 15 3.25 .92 236. Physically restrain crinvds 3. .93 3.5 1.19 12 3.07 .57 231. Notify citizens of daage to their property 3. .57 3.24 .59 25 3 3.6 184. Review accicbnts with accident investigators 3. .75 3.33 .88 18 3.11 .31 186. Remove debris fru accident scene 3. .74 3.18 .78 22 3.4 .49 3. Transport prisoners 3. .94 3.35 .96 26 3 3.16 18. Confer with prosecutor or city attorney prior to testimony regarding case 24. Confront, in a riot formation, you» of .94 3.48 .93 23 2.5 .50 agitated people 3. .77 3.2 .75 5 3.36 .77 34. photograph crime scenes 3. .86 3.45 .89 11 3.25 .83 64. Establish mochis operandi (11.0.) of a suspect 3. .61 3.33 .58 18 3.33 .67 86. Arrest OUIL suspects 3. 1.85 3.33 1.11 24 3.33 .47 100. Collect incident reports by checking off boxes or filling in blanks . 115. Apply first aid to treat for poisoning 119. Apply first aid to treat for diabetic reaction 151. Mprehend juvenile offenders 1.05 3.4 1.16 20 3 .53 .78 3 3.16 4 3.43 .82 .76 3 .63 5 3.36 .77 .72 3.35 .76 23 3.25 .43 8.3 $888 8888 s 33:3:2: “8wa m o 1(32 Table 4-8 cont. Tasks 171. Direct activities at scenes of accident investigations 175. Locate witnesses to traffic accidents 288. Direct traffic using flashlight or illuminated baton 287. Issue traffic citations 288. Record circumstances regarding traffic citation 296. Explain state vehicle laws and procedures to citizens 297. Monitor traffic for violations 183. Follow-up extent of personal injuries resulting from traffic accident 128. Apply first aid to treat for stroke 219. Respond to general infonnation questions from the public 228. Deliver emergency messages (e.g., injuries, death) 255. Request verification of warrants before service 272. testify in criminal cases 279. Evaluate driver’s capability to operate vehicle 44. llediate civil disputes 45. Obtain search warrants and/or make proper return 9. Explain nature of complaints to offenders 121. Apply first aid to treat for heat stroke 12!. Apply first aid to treat for heat prostration 127. Apply first aid to treat for seizure 113. Apply first aid to treat for electric shock 99. Type incident reports 170. Investigate traffic accident scene to identify point(s) of inpact 172. Search accident scenes for physical evidence 238. Check parks and school grounds 237. Run after fleeing suspects 257. Inform dispatcher by radio as to your status 278. Cite or arrest reckless drivers 298. Explain legal procedures to traffic violators 173. Take coordinate measures of traffic accident scenes (e.g., triangulation) 174. Identify persons involved in traffic accident 197. Describe persons to other officers (e.g., suspects, nissing persons) 214. Secure vehicles , 152. Talk with families of juvenile suspects or ibfendants (advise, inform, notify, counsel) 157. Dust and lift latent prints 166. Determine fault in a traffic accident 181. Inspect vehicle for fresh damage Consensus X 3.37 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.37 3.44 3.41 3.41 3.44 3.41 3.48 3.41 3.44 3.41 3.44 3.48 3.48 3.44 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.44 3.44 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.44 3.48 193. Inspect patrol vehicle for weapons and contraband 3.48 224. Physically examine and test doors and windows of dwellings and businesses 229. lfarn offenders in lieu of arrest or citation 68. Exchange necessary informatim with other law enforcement officials 3.44 3.48 3.48 .73 .67 .94 .95 .94 .73 .67 .81 .77 .73 .76 .81 1.85 .82 .79 .99 .83 .87 .91 .74 .91 1.87 .87 .83 .57 .92 .92 1.19 .78 .87 .79 .62 .62 .78 .92 .74 .69 Perforners X 3.44 3.7 3.52 3.41 3.48 3.46 .75 .69 .97 .94 .97 .74 .68 .87 1.83 .73 .77 .84 1.13 .84 .98 .83 1.30 .94 .79 3.16 .99 .92 .91 .57 1.82 I” .71 .7 1.03 .81 .92 .64 .64 .82 .88 .9 .93 .74 32 23 888*3 26 27 Non-Performers X SD N 3.25 .66 8 3 3.16 2 3 3.16 2 2.5 .5 2 3 3.16 2 3 3.16 1 3 3.16 1 3.5 .5 6 3.35 .65 20 'al mucous» 8 foamy-neon h O C D $3388 8:. My?“ 8 new so“ a. a?) J 2.75 .43 3.16 .58 3.16 3.16 .92 .77 .84 .62 .93 .73 .73 .47 1.76 3.16 .49 nun-nun N 6‘- N ”RSRS' uu NNNN 8 ON m—o - 3.16 2 3.16 3.16 .76 .49 .5 3.16 8.0 N- 0‘ IJIQN — .1C33 Table 4-8 cont. Tasks Consensus X SD 43. Mediate family disputes 3.52 .92 111. Apply first aid to treat for gunshot wounds 3.52 .74 117. Apply first aid to treat for overdose 3.52 .83 109. Apply first aid to treat for anpntations 3.52 .74 258. Check for wantsflwarrants on persons through LEIN 3.52 .83 281. Direct traffic using hand signals 3.52 .74 177. Neasure skid marks 3.52 .83 126. Apply first aid to treat for eye injuries 3.52 .83 284. Investigate suspicious vehicle 3.52 .83 I33. Record confessions in writing 3.56 .87 40. Transport property or evidence 3.56 .79 198. Search unlocked businesses and dwellings for signs of illegal entry 3.56 .87 382. Issue verbal warnings to traffic violators 3.56 .68 217. Talk with people on the beat to establish rapport 3.56 .87 125. Apply first aid to treat for convulsions 3.56 .74 164. Determine contributing factors to an accident 3.59 .73 169. Diagram accident scenes 3.59 .91 233. Subdue attacking persons 3.59 .83 205. Interview suspicious persons 3.59 .91 101. Fingerprint prisoners 3.59 .73 I68. Protect traffic accident physical evidence for collection 3.59 .83 289. Inspect operator’s license 3.63 .78 39. Package evidence or personal property 3.63 .82 180. Identify owner of vehicles involved in accident 3.63 .82 163. Request energency assistance for traffic accident (e.g. wrecker, ambulance , salt truck) 3.63 .73 179. Interview persons involved in traffic accident 3.63 .78 161. Take precautions to prevent additional accidents at accident scene 3.63 .67 271. Impound property 3.63 .91 265. Search prenises or property in hot pursuit situations 3.63 .99 I31. Interrogate suspects 3.67 .82 7. Hake custodial traffic arrest 3.67 .98 266. Search premises or property with warrant 3.67 .77 132. Interview conplainants, witnesses, etc. 3.7 1.45 274. Review reports and notes for court testimony 3.7 .81 235. Handcuff suspects or prisoners .3,7 1.48 194. Request back-up assistance 3.7 .9 94. Suarized in writing the statement of witnesses and cnlainants 3.74 .84 65. Determine whether incidents are criminal or civil matters 3.74 .80 162. Collect physical evidence fro accident scenes 3.74 .64 118. Apply first aid to treat for burns 3.74 .84 38. Recover and inventory stolen property 3.77 .68 269. Search movable automobile under independent probable cause 3.78 .96 33. Examine evidence and personal property fron crime scenes 3.78 .74 Perforners X wryyvrwewww suuarzg 38‘ wwuwywwww $2$S$“8$2 “€08.00 O 3’ 9° . $3 $383 a” o o o o I ~o as on 23 :3 :3 wwwwwwww O NNNNNNQ ‘00." 3.77 50 .89 .47 1.85 3.16 .86 .75 1.82 1.11 .84 1.05 .81 .89 .69 .87 .98 .72 1 .84 .89 .82 .8 .78 .85 .84 .73 .79 .68 .87 1.04 . 81 1.03 .77 1.05 .83 1.11 .91 .85 .88 .64 .82 .73 .95 .78 N 25 6 7 1 24 26 15 6 26 I4 25 26 26 23 IO 22 21 21 25 18 24 17 24 23 14 27 24 25 24 23 23 83 ‘°’82 23 Non-Perfonners X 80 N 2.5 .58 2 3.57 .79 21 3.5 .74 20 3.5 .75 26 3 3.16 3 3 3.16 1 3.42 .49 12 3.48 .73 21 4 3.16 I 3.62 .62 I3 4 3.16 2 4 3.16 1 3 3.16 14 3 .71 4 3.47 .61 17 3.6 .8 5 3.5 .5 6 3.5 .76 6 3 1 2 3.44 .5 9 3.38 .86 8 3.33 .47 3 3 3.16 2 3 3.16 2 3 .16 2 3 3.16 3 2.5 .5 2 383 878 8' 4 .82 3 3.25 .43 4 3.54 .75 13 3.33 .47 3 3 3.16 2 3 3.16 3 3 3.16 1 3 3.16 2 3.33 .47 6 3.61 .83 18 3.8 .40 5 4.25 .83 4 3.75 .43 4 1.014 Table 4-8 cont. Tasks Consensus X SD 293. Inspect for vehicle identification n-ber 3.78 .83 123. Apply first aid to treat for puncture wounds 3.78 .87 37. Diagram crime scenes 3.78 .92 122. Apply first aid to treat for Iroken bones 3.81 .86 277. Stop vehicles to investigate, cite or arrest occupants 3.81 .77 234. Subdue subject resisting arrest 3.81 .86 165. Set priorities for action at accident scene 3.81 .86 97. ltrite narrative reports 3.81 1.89 129. Apply first aid to treat for lacerations 3.85 .85 2. Arrest persons without warrant 3.85 .78 278. Search premises or property with consent 3.85 .85 268. Seize cmtraband 3.85 .85 267. Search premises or property incident to arrest 3.89 .87 4. Arrest persons with a warrant 3.89 .98 138. Apply first aid to treat for abrasims 3.89 .87 96. Transcribe field notes for reports 3.89 .79 36. Tag evidence and confiscated properties 3.89 .92 49. Search crime scenes for physical evidence 3.89 .79 134. Take statements of witnesses 3.93 .81 185. Clean lid inspect weapms 3.96 1.14 142. Discharge firearm at person 3.96 .88 188. Apply first aid to treat for heart attacks 4 .82 143. Drmv weapon 4.04 .92 116. Apply first aid to treat for shock 4.44 .84 32. Record location of physical evidence at scene 4.07 .98 an. Docinent chain of custody for evicbnce 4.47 .86 31. Collect evidence and personal property frcm crime scenes 4.47 .77 I. Advise persons of constitutional rights 4.07 .98 167. quete the standard traffic accident report form (00-14) 4.07 .98 264. Conduct frisk patdoun 4.15 .76 263. Conduct field search of arrested persons 4.15 .8 104. Participate in firearms training 4.15 .89 146. Achinister cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) 4.15 .88 107. Aihinister mouth-to-mouth resuscitation 4.15 .76 118. Apply first aid to control bleeding 4.15 .76 Performers x «swoon . 390500 N 0" O ‘28 88233333888883 A---uawuwyawuwuwuww z". 23 4.04 4.05 4.13 4.13 4.16 4.15 4.19 4.2 4.2 4.23 4.29 50 .83 .83 .86 .78 .77 .87 .85 1.1 26 10 I2 16 27 23 24 26 . m 26 22 25 21 23 19 25 25 24 27 25 5 13 22 14 25 22 24 24 25 27 26 25 I5 13 21 i: 3. 381:: awe» 8 ua-wwywwuwuww 8 C - Non-Performers 50 N 3.16 I .89 17 .94 15 .98 11 .83 .94 3.16 .83 3.2 .8 3.16 .75 .83 .83 1 1 3.16 3.16 .87 .93 .89 .82 .58 .75 .589 “Nag—0N“! 8 ”MNafiflNu—N-‘U- 8 C .47 .94 was 3.16 2 3.16 1 .5 2 .86 12 105 TABLE 4-9 ADEOOACY OE TASk 8V nun FIELD Tasks w 1. Advise persons of constitutional rights 2. Arrest persons without warrant 3. Transport prisoners 4. Arrest persons with a warrant 5. Plan strategy for making arrests 6. Take into custody person detained by citizen 7. Hake custodial traffic arrest 8. Request bystanders to assist in an apprehension 9. Explain nature of complaints to offenders 14. Issue citations for non-traffic offenses (e.g. appearance tickets, ordinance violations) 11. Instruct suspect on process for obtaining an attorney 12. Prepare felony cnlaint forms for warrant authorization 13. Svear out cnlaints or warrants 14. Review warrants for capleteness and accuracy 15. Prepare misdemeanor cnlaint forms for warrant authorization 16. Confer with prosecutor or city attorney regarding warrant authorization 17. Recuend the issuance of an arrest warrant 18. Confer with prosecutor or city attorney prior to testimony regarding case 19. Discuss cases with prosecutors or city attorneys folloving legal proceedings 0 28. Confront, in a riot formation, ms of agitated people 21. Caitrol hostile woups (e.g., demonstrators, rioters, bar patrons) 22. Patrol riot stricken or civil disturbance areas 23. Locate and observe crud agitators 24. Cnunicate with management and labor over strike disturbances 25. Patrol area containing labor pickets, marchers or demonstrators 26. Control non-violent crmvds Consensus X 3.33 .98 .70 .94 .98 .76 .90 .98 .83 ..< .99 .87 .90 1.82 .94 .77 .79 1.88 .98 .94 .87 Performers X .97 .78 .96 .97 .81 .97 1.03 .94 .83 .62 1.89 .93 1.15 .75 .89 .82 1.14 .93 .92 18 12 15 23 Non-Performers X .94 3.2 3.16 .83 .63 .47 .43 .79 3.16 .81 .64 .96 .83 .68 I67 .31 .82 .95 .86 .43 -‘O‘O-b—Hw 14 18 11 22 94 15 22 1()6 Table 4-9 Cont. Tasks I 2?. Serve probate orders (e.g., mentals, juveniles, achilt offenders) 28. Enforce court issued order (e.g. writs) 29. Serve subpoenas TI on. Docuent chain of custody for evidence 31. Collect evidence and personal property frou crime scenes 32. Record location of physical evidence at scene 33. Exauine eviihnce and personal property frcm crime scenes 34. Photograph crime scenes 35. Cast impressions at crime scene (e.g. plaster casts, silicone, etc.) 36. Tag evidence and confiscated properties 37. Mar: crime scenes 38. Recover and inventu'y stolen property 39. Package evidence or personal property 40. Transpm-t prmerty or evidence 41. (fitness autopsies 42. Release confiscated property W 43. lfediate fwuily disputes 44. Nediate civil disputes 45. Obtain search warrants and/or make proper return 46. Prepare witnesses for court testimony 47. Arraign defendant in court W0} 48. Conchct cunnity relations program (e.g. safety progras, crime prevention, tours, C.8. watch) 49. Search crime scenes for physical evidence 50. Search fire debris for evidence relating to the cause of the fire 51. Determine need for specialized assistance at a crime scene 52. Participate in raids 53. Plan strategy for conducting searches 54. Search dead bodies for personal property 55. Track person from scene (e.g., footprints in snow or mud) W 56. Exaine dead bodies for wounds and injuries 57. Verify the ibntity of deceased persons Consensus X SD 2.63 .73 2.74 .74 2.81 1.06 4.07 .86 4.47 .77 4.87 .98 3.78 .74 3.33 .86 2.67 1.42 3.89 .92 3.78 .92 3.77 .68 3.63 .78 3.56 .79 2.19 .94 2.78 .79 3.52 .92 3.44 .79 3.41 .99 3 .72 2.93 .77 2867 890 3.89 .79 2.56 .96 3.26 .84 2.7 .97 3.19 .77 2.74 .70 2.85 .84 2.74 .84 2.67 .67 performers X SD 2.8 .65 2.93 .68 2.94 1.14 4.45 .88 4.13 .78 4.04 .92 3.78 .78 3.85 8” 4 3.16 3.88 .91 3.92 .86 3.77 .73 3.64 .83 3.52 .81 1.67 .75 '2.81 .57 3.6 .89 3.46 .84 3.8 .98 3.22 1.43 3 .97 3.57 .73 4 .76 2.86 1.24 3.28 .87 3.13 1.45 3.45 .78 2.81 .73 2.95 .76 2.6 1.02 2.7 .94 I5 15 16 22 132 10 15 18 11 16 15 10 Non-Perforners X 50 N 2.5 .65 12 2.5 .65 12 2.64 .88 11 4.2 .75 5 3.67 .47 3 4.5 .50 2 3.75 .43 4 3.25 .83 16 2.62 1 26 4 I 2 3.67 .94 15 3.8 .44 5 3.6 .49 5 4 3.16 2 2.33 .90 21 2.75 .90 16 2.5 .50 2 3 3.16 1 3.18 .92 17 2.89 .46 18 2.83 .37 12 2.35 .73 20 3 3.16 3 2.45 .80 28 3.22 .79 9 2.53 .88 19 '3 .71 16 2.64 .64 1 2.63 .86 8 2.92 .49 12 2.65 .48 17 107 Table 4-9 cont. Tasks 58. Locate witness to crime 59. Conduct on-the-scene suspect identifications (e.g. shoe-ups) 60. Organize and conduct photo line-ups 61. Review with medical examiner circustances relating to a death 62. Conduct intelligence activities on known or suspected offenders 63. Verify reliability and credibility of witnesses 64. Establish nochis operandi (11.0.) of a suspect 65. Determine whether incidents are criminal or civil matters 66. Review records and pictures to identify suspects 67. Participate in investigations with other law enforcement agencies 68. Exchange necessary information with other law enforcement officials 69. Review crime lab reports to guide investigations 78. Determine whether recovered property is linked with a previous crime 71. Trace stolen goods 72. Conduct surveillance of individuals or locations 73. Organize surveillance of individuals or locations 74. Otilize department records to assist in investigation 75. Analyze and cmupare incidents for similarity of modus operandi (11.0.) 76. Talk with failies of adult suspects or defendants (advise, inform, notify, counsel) 77. Recruit confidential informants £121.88 78. Engage in high speed driving in congested area 79. Engage in hidi speed pursuit or response driving on open road I). Engage in 8in speed pursuit or response driving off road 81. Operate vehicle on ice covered road 82. Operate vehicle on snow covered road 83. Operate vehicle in driving rain 84. Escort emergency vehicles 85. Operate vehicle on dirt covered road W 86. Arrest (IIIL suspects 87. Operate 'breathalyzer' instriuuent to test blood alcohol content 88. Testify in Secretary of State implied consent hearings 89. Minister roadside solw‘iety test 98. Arrange for obtaining blood or urine s-ples for sobriety tests Consensus $0 .58 .55 .72 .77 .74 .54 .61 .80 .78 .74 .72 Performers X 3.33 2.63 50 .64 .57 .76 .78 .83 .55 .58 .88 .70 .78 .64 1.87 .83 .75 .83 .64 .84 1.85 1.47 1.31 1.17 1.17 1.24 1.26 1.19 1.11 .94 .85 1.82 1.17 18 13 18 25 15 17 11 I6 16 21 11 18 13 25 26 16 23 15 23 16 X 80 3.16 .45 On .78 .69 .67 .40 .37 .60 1.19 .5 .5 .62 .71 Non-Performers N 6 17 18 14 9 2 12 7 41 20 IO 16 11 20 108 Table 4-9 cont. Tasks W 91. Search for bolus 92. Evacuate persons frmu dangerous area 93. Secure accident and disaster scenes W 94. Sunarized in uniting the statement of witnesses and cnplainants 95. Prepare criminal case suary sheet for prosecutor 96. Transcribe field notes for reports 97. tirite narrative reports 98. Cuplete OOIL arrest reports 99. Type incident reports 180. Collect incident reports by checking off boxes or filling in blanks 181. Fingerprint prisoners Elm “81111118 182. Discharge firearm at person 183. Dru weapon 104. Participate in firearms training 105. Clean and inspect weapons m 186. Achinister cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) 187. Aduinister mouth-to-mouth resuscitation 188. Apply first aid to treat for heart attacks 109. Apply first aid to treat for aputations 110. Apply first aid to control bleeding 111. Apply first aid to treat for gunshot wounds 112. Minister onygn using resuscitator 113. Apply first aid to treat for electric shock 114. Achinister oxygen using oxygen supply device other than resuscitator 115. Apply first aid to treat for poisoning 116. Apply first aid to treat fcu' shock 117. Apply first aid to treat for overdose 118. Apply first aid to treat for burns 119. Apply first aid to treat for diabetic reaction 128. Apply first aid to treat for stroke 121. Apply first aid to treat for heat stroke 122. Apply first aid to treat for broken bones I23. Apply first aid to treat for puncture wounds 124. Mply first aid to treat for heat prostration 125. Apply first aid to treat for convulsions 126. Apply first aid to treat for eye injuries 127. Apply first aid to treat for seizure 128. Transport injured persons 129. Apply first aid to treat for lacerations 13. Apply first aid to treat for abrasions X 3.96 4.84 4.15 3.96 v.0;- unu ywyryeee sagag‘ 0.... “Nu-”: uuuuuwywuwmwn I on N a. $¢£¢2-8-.~-~ (n) o ‘ a 3.11 ' 3.85 3.89 Consensus SD .52 .65 .61 .M .78 .79 1.89 1.14 1.87 1.85 .73 .89 1.14 .88 .76 .82 .74 .76 .95 .91 Performers X 3.67 4.4 4.85 4.2 4.84 U . NM 2'38 unwzumg..- I O- in: I C 3133 . 3. I . . 8.168%”3“ wwwwwwawwwwwawaum . I ~o on .69 .78 .68 .85 .73 .77 1.1 1.20 .99 1.16 .80 .93 .89 1.15 26 14 25 26 24 18 n 25 15 13 13 21 -‘ ONU‘NHDQ men-unanno- u a =0. 12 8 19 X .43 .60 .49 .87 .89 .5 3.16 .74 .83 .77 .65 .77 .90 .89 .84 .61 .73 .62 1.02 .83 .83 Non-Performers 21 19 12 ~w-—~ 12 14 14 21 28 23 13 28 18 22 23 11 17 17 21 125 1 7 8 109 Table 4-9 cont. Tasks NTERVI INT T1 131. Interrogate suspects 132. Interview conplainants, witnesses, etc. 133. Record confessions in writing 134. Take statements of witnesses 135. Interrogate suspects or witness with use of polygraph results 136. Interview medical personnel to obtain specific information W 137. Check weapons in and out of detention facility 138. Buard prisoners detained outside jail 139. Record injuries to prisoners 140. Investigate injuries to prisoners 141. Process evidence seized at custodial search 142. Place holds on prisoners and notify department holding warrant 143. Check individual making bond for wants and warrants 144. Check legal status of the case of prismers 145. Return prisoner’s property 146. Inventory prisoner’s personal property 147. Book prisoners by conpleting arrest forms I48. Collect interim bond 149. Answer inquiries concerning prisoner W 150. Place children in protective custody (e.g. child abuse) 151. Apprehend juvenile offenders 152. Talk with fwuilies of juvenile suspects or defendants (advise, inform, notify, counsel) 153. Counsel juveniles 154. Conduct parent juvenile conferences 155. Confer with juvenile probate officer 156. Advise parents of child‘en’s violation of traffic Inns W 157. Dust and lift latent prints W 158. Test and evaluate police equiment 159. Request equipment repair 168. Evaluate citizen couplaints regarding tickets or other minor offenses A 161. Take precautions to prevent additional accidents at accident scene 162. Collect physical evidence frcn accident. scenes Consensus SD .82 1.05 .87 .81 .9 .85 .92 .69 .81 .75 .62 .74 .68 .67 .87 .67 .86 .72 .62 .79 .87 .67 .77 .78 .77 .67 .64 Performers X 3.63 3.7 3.5 3 93 50 .81 1.05 1.05 .81 1.5 .94 .93 .92 1.09 .82 .49 .76 .64 .78 .89 .78 .56 .68 .64 24 27 14 27 21 28 17 14 16 18 17 19 '18 21 18 16 IO 18 16 21 26 14 Non-Performers X 4 3.62 .82 .76 .49 .5 .5 .63 .7 I45 .51 .60 .43 .67 . 37 .78 .43 3.16 .79 .49 .fi .76 .5 3.16 .61 3.16 .47 N 3 13 11 17 18 o-‘ONO 3 6 110 Table 4-9 cont. Tasks 163. Request emergency assistance for traffic accident (e.g. wrecker, nbulance , salt truck) 164. Determine contributing factors to an accident 165. Set priorities for action at accident scene 166. Determine fault in a traffic accident 167. Cnplete the standard traffic accident report fonm (00-14) 168. Protect traffic accident physical evidence fw collection I69. Diagram accident scenes 178. Investigate traffic accident scene to identify point(s) of imact 171. Direct activities at scenes of accident investigations 172. Search accident scenes for physical evidence 173. Take coordinate measures of traffic accident scenes (e.g., triangulation) I74. Identify persons involved in traffic accident 175. Locate witnesses to traffic accidents 176. Photograph accident scenes I77. l1nasure skid marks 178. Test operating condition of accident vehicle equipment 179. Interview persons involved in traffic accident 188. Identify owner of vehicles involved in accident 181. Inspect vehicle for fresh damage 182. Issue citatiMs) in traffic accident 183. Follow-up extent of personal injuries resulting fru traffic accident 184. Review accidents with accident investigators 185. Investigate off road vehicle accidents 186. Remove debris fru accident scene I 187. Issue pick-up or wanted notices 188. Prepare list of wanted persons for department use 189. Review other officers’ incident reports for conpleteness and accuracy 190. Take custody of lost and found property 191. Schedule work assignments fo other officers 192. Verify vehicle title information 1 X 3.41 3.37 3.44 3.41 3.44 3.33 3.87 3.52 2.89 3.63 3.63 3.48 3.63 3.3 3.26 3.87 3.22 2.44 2.41 2.85 3.11 2.37 3.87 193. Inspect patrol vehicle for weapons and contraband 3.48 194. Request back-up assistance I95. Identify wanted vehicles or persons I96. Transpo-t mental patients 197. Describe persons to other officers (e.g., suspects, missing persons) 198. Search unlocked businesses and deellings for signs of illegal entry 199. Flush fuel spills 3.7 3.63 2.93 3.44 3.56 2.74 Consensus SD .73 .73 .86 .79 .83 .91 .87 .73 .83 .87 .79 .67 .77 .83 .78 .82 .83 .82 .81 .75 .81 .74 .5 .62 .89 8‘3 .67 .72 .88 8, .82 1.09 .87 .93 Performers X .92 .75 .91 1.83 .81 .69 .81 1.82 .93 .79 .84 .88 .85 .87 .88 .92 '.78 .43 .5 1.16 .57 .5 .9 .91 1.88 .92 25 22 24 22 25 19 21 20 19 21 17 25 25 IO 15 888‘; 11 19 24 26 24 Non-Perforners X 50 N 3 3.16 2 386 88 5 3.67 .94 3 3.4 .49 5 3 3.16 2 3.38 .86 8 3.5 .5 6 3.43 .73 7 3.25 .66 8 3033 I47 6 3.4 .49 IO 3 3.16 2 3 3.16 2 2.82 .62 17 3.42 .49 12 2.77 .7 13 3 3.16 2 3 3.16 2 3.5 .5 4 3.33 .47 3 3.5 .5 6 3.11 .31 9 3.21 .67 14 3.4 .49 5 2.39 .49 23 2.4 .63 25 2.69 .58 16 2.63 .48 8 2.35 .7 23 2.71 .45 7 3 3.16 2 3 3.16 3 3 3.16 1 2.33 .94 3 4 3.16 1 2.82 .94 22 111 Table 4-9 cont. Tasks Consensus X SD 208. Check conditions and status of assigned patrol equipment and vehicle 3.11 .74 281. Direct actions of officer(s) arriving to assist 3.26 .89 242. Advise property owners or agents of potentially hazardons conditions 2.93 .9 283. Follow suspicious vehicles (e.g., suspects, suspicious person, operator under the influence) 3.22 1.03 244. Investigate suspicious vehicle 3.52 .83 205. Interview suspicious persons 3.59 .91 286. Review information on criminal activity in area 3.22 .79 207. Ccmfort emotionally upset persons 2.89 .83 288. Notify public agencies o utilities of dauage to their equipent 3.11 .74 289. Escort money, valuables o people to provide security 3.47 .77 210. Investigate unusual odors 2.7 .81 211. Direct actions of public service personnel arriving to assist ‘ 2.96 .64 212. Secure house or property (e.g., lock, close doors and windoes etc.) 3.19 .72 213. Patrol locations of beat which are potentially hazardous to citizens (e.g., construction site, attractive nuisance) 3.15 .7 214. Secure vehicles 3.41 .62 215. Advise victims of the procedures to prosecute 3.15 .85 216. Participate in large scale area search parties 3 .72 217. Talk with peqle on the beat to establish rapport 3.56 .87 218. Perform first line maintenance on patrol vehicle 2.78 .87 219. Respond to general infornation questions fron the public ' 3.37 .73 224. Investigate unusual sounds 3.22 .63 221. 11ake entries in individual patrol log 3.47 .86 222. Prepare list of wanted persons o- stolen vehicles for one use . 3 .61 223. Patrol on foot 3.22 .68 224. Physically exonine and test doors and windows of nhnellings and businesses 3.44 .92 225. Establish field contacts (e.g., baronners, taxi oivers, etc.) 3.11 .42 226. Assist elderly or disabled persons with mobility prdnlems 3 .67 227. Transpot persons needing assistance 3.15 .65 228. Deliver emergency messages (e.g., injuries, death) 3.3 .76 229. llarn offenbrs in lieu of arrest o- citation 3.48 .74 zoo. Check parks and school pounds 3.48 .57 231. Notify citizens of daage to their property 3.22 .57 232. Check individuals/businesses for conpliance with licensing requirEmeuts (e.g., hunting, liquor, dance permit, vendors, etc.) 3.19 .98 Performers X SD 3.12 .77 3.32 .97 3.46 1.43 3.23 1.45 3.5 .84 3.64 .89 3.28 .78 2.88 .85 3.12 .77 3.14 .83 28B 897 3 .73 3.2 .75 3.28 .8 3.46 .64 3.24 .81 3.11 .87 3.65 .87 2.91 .79 3.37 .73 3.23 .64 3.88 .91 2.94 62 3.3 .78 3.46 .93 3.33 .47 3 .69 3.15 .65 3.39 .77 3.48 .74 3.48 .57 3.24 .59 3.26 1.87 21 16 19 19 Non-Performers X 50 N 3 3.16 2 3 3.16 5 2.67 .47 9 3 3.16 1 4 3.16 1 3 1 2 2.5 .5 2 3 3.16 1 3 3.16 2 2.83 .37 6 2.64 .48 11 2.88 .33 8 3 3.16 2 2.89 .31 9 3 3.16 3 2 3.16 2 2.94 .62 18 3 .71 4 2.2 .98, 5 3 3.16 1 3 3.16 3 3.11 .57 9 3 3.16 7 3 3.16 I 2.93 .25 15 3 .58 6 2.75 .43 4 3 3.6 3 .71 8 112 Table 4-9 cont. Tasks Consensus Perfo'mers Non-Perfo'mers X 50 X 50 N X 50 N MSIfl TMINIIS M0 DEFBISIUE TACTICS 233. Subdue attacking persons 3.59 .83 3.62 .84 21 3.5 .76 6 234. Subdue subject resisting arrest 3.81 .86 3.83 .87 23 3.75 .83 4 235. Handcuff suspects or prisoners 3.7 1.88 3.76 1.11 25 3 3.16 2 236. Physically restrain croeds 3.26 .93 3.5 1.19 12 3.07 .57 15 237. Run after fleeing suspects 3.48 .92 3.6 1.02 20 3.14 .35 7 238. Pickup and carry heavy objects o persons 3.19 .86 3.27 .91 22 2.8 .4 5 239. Lift heavy objects or persons 3.19 .86 3.27 .91 22 2.8 .4 5 240. 8reak throudn doo- using force 2.81 .67 2.82 .83 11 2.81 .53 I6 241. Drag or pull heavy objects or persons 3.15 .89 3.28 1.04 18 2.89 .31 9 242. Run up stairs 3.15 .65 3.14 .71 21 3.17 .37 6 243. Jnmp down fron elevated surfaces 2.7 .81 2.75 .89 20 2.57 .49 7 244. Jnuup over obstacles 2.81 .77 2.84 .19 2.75 .43 8 245. Bade through marshes, snap land o- waterways 2.26 .75 2.6 .49 5 2.18 .78 22 246. Perfom duties wlnile wearing heavy equiouent (other than gun belt) 2.19 .77 2.17 .9 6 2.19 .73 21 247. Climb thrown openings (e.g., wimdovs) 2.67 .77 2.71 .82 21 2.5 .5 6 248. Pull self up over obstacles 2.7 .66 2.75 .7 20 2.57 .49 7 249. Poll self througln openings 2.63 .73 2.63 .81 19 2.63 .48 8 250. Climb up over obstacles 2.67 .82 2.68 .87 22 2.6 .49 5 251. Jnnp across obstacles 2.67 .82 2.71 .96 17 2.6 .49 10 252. PhySically push novabIe‘objects 2.78 .79 2.79 .82 24 2.67 .47 3 253. Cruel in confined areas (e.g., attics) 2.52 .79 2.41 .84 17 2.7 .64 10 254. Stand continuously for more than one-half of the ‘ wo‘k shift (e.g., guard duty or point control) 2.7 .71 2.56 .79 16 2.91 .51 11 T 255. Request verification of warrants before service 3.3 .81 3.32 .84 25 3 3.16 24 256. Receive and evaluate telephone requests for police service 3.15 .76 3.26 .74 23 2.5 .5 4 257. Inform dispatcher by radio as to your status 3.44 .92 3.44 .94 25 3.5 .5 2 258. Check fo- wants/warrants on persons through LEIN 3.52 .83 3.58 .86 24 3 3.16 3 259. (knerate telephone console o switchboard 2.52 .92 2.53 1.49 17 2.5 .5 10 260. Operate LEIN terminal to update data 2.37 .91 2.29 1.16 14 2.46 .5 13 261. Iknerate LEIN terminal to check persons and ' property 2.41 .83 2.38 .99 16 2.45 .5 11 262. Clneck stolen status on property throudn LEIN 2.67 .98 2.65 1.11 24 2.71 .45 7 11 263. Conduct field search of arrested persons 4.15 .8 4.19 .79 26 3 3.16 1 264. Conduct frisk patdoen 4.15 .76 4.15 .76 27 - - - 265. Search premises or property in hot pursuit situations 3.63 .99 3.82 1.84 17 3.3 .78 10 266. Search premises or property with warrant 3.67 .77 3.79 .77 14 3.54 .75 13 267. Search premises o' property incinhnt to arrest 3.89 .87 4.85 .84 21 3.33 .75 6 268. Seize contraband 3.85 .85 3.92 .84 25 3 3.16 2 269. Search movable autonobile under independent probable cause 3.78 .96 3.7 .95 23 4.25 .83 4 278. Search premises o- pronerty with consent 3.85 .85 3.91 .85 22 3.6 .8 5 271. Iqound property 3.63 .91 3.72 .87 25 2.5 .5 2 P! IN T 272. Testify in criminal cases 3.3 1.05 3.38 1.13 21 3 .58 6 273. Present evidence in legal proceedings 3.26 1 3.27 1.46 15 3.25 .92 12 1.1.3 Table 4-9 cont. Tasks 274. Review reports and notes for court testimony 275. Testify in parole or probation hearings 276. Testify in liquor board hearings 277. Stop vehicles to investigate, cite or arrest occupants 278. Cite or arrest reckless drivers 279. Evaluate driver’s capability to operate vehicle TRAFFIC QQNIROL 280. Direct traffic using flashlight or illuminated baton 281. Direct traffic using hand signals 282. Clock vehicles using radar 283. Remove vehicles obstructing traffic 284. Direct traffic using flare pattern or traffic cone patterns 1:~. Clock speed of vehicles using speedometer 286. (Inserve traffic control device to determine if functioning properly 287. Issue traffic citations 288. Record circumstances regarding traffic citation 289. Inspect operator’s license 290. Advise appropriate agency of traffic engineering needs 291. Direct pedestrian traffic 292. Follow suspect vehicle to observe traffic violations 293. Inspect for vehicle identification number 294. Rnove hazards frou roadeay (e.g., dead animals, debris, etc.) 295. Assist stranded motorists 296. Explain state vehicle laws and procedures to citizens 297. Monitor traffic for violations 298. Explain legal procedures to traffic violators 299. Inspect private vehicle for conformance with vehicle code 380. Check railroad crossing for signal violations (e.g., going around gates, train blocking crossing) 301. Check vehicles for proper registration (e.g. snowmobiles, off road vehicles, etc.) 302. Issue verbal warnings to traffic violators 343. Visually estimate speed of vehicles 304. Determine status of auto insurance 3.37 3.37 3.41 3.15 Consensus SO .81 .86 .76 .77 1.19 .82 .74 .87 .67 .67 .92 I” .95 .94 .78 .86 .72 .8 .83 .79 .67 .73 .67 .78 Performers X 50 .83 1.85 3.16 .77 .71 .84 .97 .75 .91 .69 .66 .93 .98 .94 .97 .78 .96 .83 .83 .83 .8 .67 .74 .68 .7 .67 .87 .91 .69 .92 .79 N 24 7 2 16 26 22 25 17 28 26 27 26 26 25 18 Non-Perfonners X SD N 3.33 .47 3 2.85 .73 20 2.84 .78 25 2.57 1.76 7 3 3.16 1 3 3.16 2 3 3.16 1 2 .63 5 3 3.16 2 2.55 .66 11 3 3.16 1 2.2 .75 5 2.5 .5 2 3 3.16 2 2.7 .46 10 3 3.16 7 3 3.16 2 3 3.16 I 3 3.16 I 3 3.16 1 3 3.16 1 2 3.16 2 2.78 .42 9 2.65 .68 17 2.67 .47 3 3 3.16 14 2 3.16 3 2.75 .43 4 114 TABLE 4-10 DIFFERENCES OF TASK TRAINING RATINGS RANK ORDERED AMONG DUTY FIELDS: Total < 3.0 Duty Field All DUTY Number of Tasks Tasks Tasks FIELD Tasks N 3 < 3.0 Z < 3.0 Physical Training & Defensive Tactics 22 13 59.1 12.8 Jail Operations 13 12 92.3 11.8 Driving 8 8 100.0 7.8 Criminal Investigation 22 8 36.4 7.8 Case Prosecution 8 7 87.5 6.9 Patrol Operations 40 7 17.5 6.9 Traffic Control 25 6 24.0 5.9 Arrest & Detention 11 5 45.5 4.9 OUIL Enforcement 5 4 80.0 3.9 Office & Clerical 6 4 66.7 3.9 Crime Scene Search 7 4 57.1 3.9 Civil Disorders 8 4 50.0 3.9 Police Communications 8 4 50.0 3.9 Miscellaneous 3 3 100.0 2.9 Preservation of Evid. 13 3 23.1 2.9 Civil Process ‘ 2 2 100.0 2.0 First Aid 25 2 8.0 2.0 Crime Prevention 1 1 100.0 1.0 Court Functions 3 1 33.3 1.0 Interview & Interro. 6 1 16.7 1.0 Juvenile Process 7 1 14.3 1.0 Testifying In Court & Admin. Hearings 8 I 12.5 1.0 , Motor Vehicle Accident Investigation 26 1 3.9 1.0 Collection & Conflict Mediation 2 0 0.0 0.0 Emergency Preparedness - Disaster Control 3 0 0.0 0.0 Field Notetaking And Report writing 7 0 0.0 0.0 Fingerprinting & Palmprinting 1 0 0.0 0.0 Firearms Training ‘ 4 0 0.0 0.0 Latent Prints 1 0 0.0 0.0 Search & Seizure 9 0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL TASKS 304 102 100 Z 115 mm The driving duty field received poor task training evaluative mean scores when calculated for all 27 sample respondents. In fact, consensus, performer, and non-performer category findings displayed that every driving duty field task was rated below the standard criterion; however, a special data analysis was conducted for the driving duty field since OPA provided a new driving training program for one of the three basic police academy sessions included within the sample. Table 4-11 illustrates the difference in task training ratings for those graduates who were not provided the new OPA driving training program and for those that were. The findings are indeed significant. The graduate group who did receive the new program rated the driving training for seven out of the eight (88%) duty field tasks as being adequate for job preparation, whereas the other group not receiving the program provided extremely poor task training ratings for all 8 tasks. 116 TABLE 4-11 DRIVING DUTY FIELD: COMPARISON OF GRADUATES RECEIVING TRAINING UITH GRADUATES WHO DID NOT —.—— Previous Training New Training Program Program (N = 17) (N a 10) DUTY FIELD TASKS X SD x SD Engage in high speed driving in 1.41 .60 3.9 .70 congested area Engage in high speed pursuit or 1.47 .70 4.1 .70 response driving on open road Engage in high speed pursuit or 1.53 .70 3.3 1.20 response driving off road Operate vehicle on ice covered 1.47 .61 3.3 .90 road Operate vehicle on snow cOvered 1.47 .61 3.3 .90 road Operate vehicle in driving rain 1.53 .70 3.3 1.10 Escort Emergency vehicles 1.59 .60 2.9 1.22 Operate Uehicle on dirt covered 1.53 .61 3.1 1.34 road Qraguate Comments and Rgcommendationg The sample provided sixty-seven written responses pertaining to tasks which in their judgment need the most improvement and/or attention within the OPA training program. The responses were organized by duty field and can be found in Appendix B. A content analysis was performed which resulted in both quantitative and qualitative findings. Twenty-two duty fields received task training comments or recommendations. One unclassifiable duty field comment was made about job-stress. Of the sixty-seven responses, 22% (14) of the statements addressed tasks which were not included in-the 102 tasks found to have mean scores 11? below the standard criterion level. The two duty fields receiving the greater number of graduate critiques were Driving (56%) and Physical Training and Defensive Tactics (33%). The remaining duty fields grouped in four statistical bands according to the number of graduates providing critiques per duty field. Case Prosecution, OUIL, and Patrol Operations each received written responses from 15% of the graduates. Field Notetaking and Report writing, Police Communications, and Traffic Control each received 11%, whereas Arrest & Detain, Civil Disorders, Collection and Preservation of Evidence, Conflict Mediation, Crime Scene Search, Criminal Investigation, and Jail Operations accounted for 7% of the sample responding. The remaining seven duty fields receiving critiques were at the 4% response level. A summary of quantitative findings are found in Table 4-12. 118 TABLE 4-12 PERCENTAGE OF SAMPLE INDICATING NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT BY WRITTEN RESPONSE FOR DUTY FIELDS Percent Sample DUTY FIELD % N=27 DRIVING .56 15 PHYSICAL TRAINING AND DEFENSIVE TACTICS .33 9 OUIL ENFORCEMENT .15 4 PATROL OPERATIONS .15 4 CASE PROSECUTION .11 3 FIELD NOTETAKING AND REPORT WRITING .11 3 POLICE COMMUNICATIONS .11 3 TRAFFIC CONTROL .11 3 ARREST & DETAIN ‘ .07 2 CIVIL DISORDERS .07 2 COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE .07 2 CONFLICT MEDIATION .07 2 CRIME SCENE SEARCH .07 2 CRIMINAL IWESTIGATION .07 2 JAIL OPERATIONS .07 2 CIVIL PROCESS .04 1 CRIME PREVENTION .04 1 FINGERPRINTING & PALMPRINTING .04 1 FIREARMS TRAINING .04 1 LATENT PRINTS .04 1 SEARCH q SEIZURE .04 1 TESTIFYING IN COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS .04 1 OTHER: STRESS ON AND OFF JOB .04 I COURT FUNCTIONS 0 0 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS-DISASTER CONTROL 0 0 FIRST AID 0 0 INTERVIEW & INTERROGATION 0 0 JUVENILE PROCESS O 0 MISCELLANEOUS 0 0 MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION 0 0 OFFICE AND CLERICAL 0 0 O O Total Response 119 Qgglitagive Findings The qualitative value of the comments and recommendations provided by the sample should be considered according to their own merit and in consideration of other supportive data. The comments and recommendations are organized by duty field and are reported in Appendix B for independent review and evaluation. The statements provided by the sample were derived by asking OPA graduates: What needs to be improved in the basic police academy program in order to adequately prepare recruits to perform this task? In answering this question, please consider the adequacy of the following factors: quality of instruction, subject matter/course content, learning conditions, facilities, written resource material, etc. The majority of responses focused on specific tasks with some responses addressing tasks more generally within an overall duty field. . Many written responses had important similarities worth noting. For example, the graduates provided training feedback by making direct reference to a particular police experience they encountered. Those experiences apparently presented occupational challenges the officer believed the training did not adequately prepare him/her to satisfy. Criticisms centered around two primary deficiencies which are, the basic police training failing to provide adequate job knowledges and job skills that are essential to successful police performance. Recommendations followed suit by asking to increase training time for certain subjects and the need to incorporate additional practical training 120 exercises to help develop basic police skills. Training content and different instructional approaches and techniques for correcting the training deficiencies were often recommended. The training feedback as a whole provided by the graduates was given in a positive constructive spirit. Summary The analysis of results is based upon a sample of twenty-seven OPA graduates who received a questionnaire by mail and responded. Of sixty OPA graduates receiving a questionnaire, 45% responded. The sample can be described as varying in age considerably with the average.age being 28.3 years old. The sample is predominantly caucasian (96%) and 66% of the sample reported they had some law enforcement related experience before entering the OPA program. The average educational level of the sample is 13.6 years. The patrol assignment and experience of the sample was measured in several ways for descriptive purposes. The majority of OPA graduates were employed with either a municipal (37%), township (29)%, or sheriff (25%) law enforcement agency with 37% of the total sample performing their police responsibilities in a suburban patrol area. The distribution of types of patrol areas overall were broadly represented within the sample. Most (74%) graduates had between 14 to 24 months of patrol experience since graduation with the remainder having approximately one year experience. OPA graduates reported that 67% of them work one person vehicle assignments and 27% work two person 121 vehicle assignments. The sample on the average works alone on patrol approximately 72% of the time with only two respondents reporting they worked any less than 50% of their time alone on patrol. OPA graduates job attitudes were found to be very favorable. All but one graduate reported they found police work to be either fairly interesting (33%) to very interesting (63%). The analysis further established that the respondents believed their police employment utilized their natural talent from fairly to very well, with most reporting quite well (48%), or very well (30%). One respondent did answer that his job utilized his natural talent very little. The collection and analysis of training evaluations from the sample began by asking for general evaluative judgments and ending with very specific and detailed judgments. The majority (70%) of the sample rated the overall basic police training program prepared them to perform patrol tasks from quite well to very well. The remaining 30% rated the overall training no less than fairly well. However, as the respondents-were requested to provide more specific task training ratings, the findings revealed many potential curriculum inadequacies. In fact, 102 (34%) of the 304 tasks rated by the total sample resulted in mean scores below the adequate training standard criterion level. Task training evaluations were ranked ordered to prioritize potential curriculum inadequacies. The task training evaluations were ranked ordered by three 122 categories: consensus, task performers and task non-performers. As implied, the consensus category represent evaluative mean scores calculated for the entire sample. Task performer category represent mean scores calculated for those in the sample reporting they had performed the task, whereas non-performer category respondents had never performed the task. A comparison of the latter two categories resulted in some meaningful differences. The task performers reported an overall higher confidence in the OPA training program by rating 20 (20%) of the 102 tasks found inadequate by the non-performers as being adequate. Task performers further disagreed by indicating four other additional tasks should be rated inadequate which were held to be adequate by non-performers. In either case, a significant number of tasks received substandard criterion ratings suggesting insufficient training is being provided for many important police duty field areas. Although seven duty fields were found not to have any task mean scores below the criterion standard, twenty-three (77%) duty fields did have tasks which fell below the standard. Two duty fields which had a significant higher proportion of tasks below the standard criterion are Physical Training & Defensive Tactics (12.8%; based on 102 substandard tasks) and Jail Operations (11.8%). Driving (7.8%), Criminal Investigation (7.8%), Case Prosecution (6.9%), Patrol Operations (6.9%), Traffic Control (5.9%) and Arrest & Detain (4.9%) were secondary duty fields receiving 1 123 a large proportion of substandard task training ratings. Fourteen of the remaining duty fields reported some substandard criterion training ratings. Four duty fields were rated below the standard criterion level for every task within their field. Those duty fields are: (1) Driving; (2) Miscellaneous; (3) Civil Process; and (4) Crime Prevention. Other duty fields having a disproportionate amount (50% or more) of duty field tasks rated as substandard are: Jail Operations (92%); Case Prosecution (88%); OUIL (80%); Office Clerical (67%); Physical Training & Defensive Tactics (59%); Crime Scene Search (57%); Civil Disorders (50%); and Police Communications (50%). _A special analysis was conducted for the driving duty field since OPA provided a new driving program for one of the three basic police academy sessions within the sample. A comparison of evaluative mean scores across eight tasks revealed that those graduates (10) who had been trained under the new driving program rated seven (88%) of the eight tasks as being above the standard criterion. The subsample (17) attending the previous training program indicated they were significantly less prepared to perform each of the eight driving tasks and the training received for each task was inadequate. Graduates provided sixty-seven written responses about duty field tasks which need the most improvement in the police academy program. Written responses were generally supported by other findings, however it was found that 22% 124 of the responses were not included within the 102 rank ordered tasks listed for inadequate task training. The qualitative findings were noted in summative terms. Remarks often critiqued the training for not providing certain essential job knowledges and skills necessary for satisfactory police performance. Recommendations frequently called for increases in training for certain subject areas and additional practical training exercises. Some recommendations proposed suggestions about changing, or adding, new training techniques and subject matter to improve the OPA basic training program. CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS SUMMARY Eurpose Basic recruit curricula are vulnerable to becoming outdated, unrealistic and ineffective. The rapid occupational changes, combined with the apparent absence of systematic comprehensive curriculum evaluation methods designed specifically for the police occupation, have resulted in much criticism and uncertainty about the actual effectiveness of recruit training in preparing the new officer to adequately perform realistic police work. The relevancy of the police recruit curricula have traditionally been developed, monitored and maintained by subjective professional judgment in a piecemeal fashion. The need to systematically and comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of recruit training to protect against curriculum slippage and obsolescence is indeed evident. The potential personal and social cost possibly resulting from ineffectively preparing officers to perform important police work has to be considered too critical to be either ignored, or neglected. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the Oakland. Police Academy (OPA) basic training curriculum to determine if recruits are being effectively prepared to adequately perform important entry-level patrol officer job-tasks. The 125 ' l Ill.'l.|l 126 evaluation is a curriculum product assessment. The study findings were used to identify and prioritize potential curriculum strengths and weaknesses in order to facilitate curriculum planning and change for OPA program improvement. The research is directed at answering the following evaluation research questions: 1. Does the OPA curriculum in reality effectively prepare police officers to adequately perform important entry-level job-tasks? 2; Which job-tasks are addressed by the curriculum more or less effectively than others for the purpose of determining which tasks need additional curriculum attention and consideration? 3. What recommendations can be suggested by OPA graduates concerning how the curriculum can be improved for the purpose of increasing the training programs effec- tiveness to prepare recruits for realistic police work? Method A sample of OPA basic recruit training graduates were selected by surveying all graduating recruits from three different OPA basic training sessions who had experience working as a polfice officer. The basic recruit sessions were selected so as to provide a sample of officers who have a similar recruit training program of study and have a reasonable amount of experience working as patrol officers from which to evaluate the effectiveness of the training to prepare them to adequately perform important entry-level job-tasks. Twenty-seven recruits responded accounting for a 127 45% return rate. The follow-up survey instrument collected information pertaining to the respondent’s related biography, general job attitude, evaluative task training ratings for 304 tasks, along with written comments and recommendations about what needs to be improved within the OPA basic training program. Quantitative and qualitative variables were measured mainly by frequency counts. Task training evaluation ratings were organized and rank ordered by duty fields and individually by mean scores for the purpose of prioritizing potential curriculum weaknesses. Evaluation ratings were further analyzed by categorizing and comparing task mean scores by primarily three ways: (1) entire sample; (2) those officers who have performed the task rated; and (3) those officers who have never performed the task rated. An adequate training standard criterion level was established to determine which tasks are receiving insufficient training in the academy and therefore need curriculum attention. A1 general content analysis of written responses was conducted with the specific content being organized by duty fields and reported in detail for independent evaluation. 8333.115 The majority (70%) of the sample (N=27) rated the overall basic police training program prepared graduates to perform patrol tasks from quite well to very well. The remaining 30% rated the overall training no less than fairly well. However, when the respondents were requested to provide more specific task training ratings, the findings 128 revealed that many potential curriculum inadequacies existed. When calculated for the entire sample, of the 304 entry-level tasks rated, 102 (34%) resulted in mean scores below the adequate training standard criterion level. A comparison of task training mean scores between respondents who have performed the task and those who have not, disclosed some meaningful differences. Task performers reported an overall higher confidence in the OPA training program by rating 20% of the 102 tasks found inadequate by the non-performers as being adequate. Task performers further disagreed by indicating four additional tasks should be rated inadequate, which were held to be adequate by ‘non-performers. In either case, a significant number of tasks received substandard criterion ratings suggesting insufficient training is being provided for many important police duty field areas. Seven duty fields were found not to have any task training mean scores below the standard criterion. Twenty-three (77%) of the duty fields did have task mean scores which fell below the standard. Two duty fields which had a significant higher proportion of tasks receiving substandard mean ratings are Physical Training & Defensive Tactics (12.8%; based on 102 substandard tasks) and Jail Operations (11.8%). Driving (7.8%), Criminal Investigation (7.8%), Case Prosecution (6.9%), Traffic Control (5.9%) and Arrest & Detain (4.9%) were secondary duty fields having a large proportion of substandard task training ratings. Fourteen of the remaining duty fields reported some 129 substandard criterion training ratings. Four duty fields were rated below the standard criterion level for every task within their duty field. Those duty fields are: (1) Driving; (2) Miscellaneous; (3) Civil Process; and (4) Crime Prevention. Additional duty fields receiving a disproportionate amount (50% or more) of duty field tasks rated as substandard are: Jail Operations (92%); Case Prosecution (88%); OUIL (80%); Office Clerical (67%); Physical Training & Defensive Tactics (59%); Crime Scene Search (57%); Civil Disorders (50%); and Police Communications (50%). The driving duty field established a case of remittance as being a serious training problem duty field because of a special analysis. The analysis revealed a subgroup of graduates (10) participating in a new OPA driving program rated 88% of the Driving duty field tasks above the adequate training criterion level. An analysis of sixty-seven written responses indicating which tasks need the most improvement in the police academy program disclosed that 22% of the responses did not match with the 102 tasks which were identified as receiving inadequate training. Remarks by graduates often critiqued the training program for not providing certain essential job knowledges and skills which are necessary for satisfactory police performance. Recommendations frequently called for increasing training for certain subject areas and additional practical training exercises to develop basic police skills. Some recommendations included suggestions about changing, or adding, new training techniques and subject matter to 130 improve the OPA basic training program. CONCLUSIONS As result of the analysis, certain important conclusions can be made about the OPA graduate population and the evaluative concerns the study has researched. However, the conclusions should be viewed with some scientific caution due to the samples’ return rate statistical strength being 45%. Population 1. The population age ranges considerably with most (74%) officers being 24 years and older in age. 2. The population is fairly well educated with most officers having some college education. 3. A substantial proportion (66%) of OPA graduates reported they have had some law enforcement related experience before entering the basic police program. 4. OPA graduates work in diverse types of patrol areas (urban, suburban, rural, or some combination) with a substantial proportion (67%) working alone on patrol most of the time. 5. A pronounced number of OPA graduates have favorable job attitudes. They found police work to be fairly to very interesting and believed the occupation made good use of their natural talents. . Trainin valuati n 1. A substantial majority (70%) of graduates gave an overall OPA evaluation rating indicating that the training they received prepared graduates to perform 131 patrol tasks from ”quite well' to I'very well.‘ When rating tasks independently, graduates reported that the basic police training received was less than effective for adequately preparing them to perform a significant proportion (102) of the 304 important entry-level job-tasks listed. , The findings clearly identified that many job-tasks are addressed by the curriculum more or less effectively than other job-tasks. Task performer and non-performer training evaluation ratings did differ considerably concerning the recruit training effectiveness to prepare officers to adequately perform police job-tasks. However, it was generally found that task performer ratings indicated a higher confidence in the training program effectiveness to provide adequate job preparatory training. Seven duty fields were found not to have any task training mean scores below the adequate training standard criterion. Those duty fields are: Conflict Mediation; Emergency Preparedness - Disaster Control; Field Notetaking And Report Writing; Fingerprinting & Palmprinting; Firearms Training; Latent Prints; and Search & Seizure. A substantial majority (77%) of the 30 duty field categories were found to have at least some curriculum weakness. Several duty fields were identified as having apparent curriculum weaknesses. Physical Training & Defensive 132 Training Tactics and Jail Operations duty fields experienced a higher proportion of the 102 tasks below the adequate training standard criterion level within their duty field than any other duty fields. Other duty fields receiving a relatively large proportion of substandard task training ratings are: Driving; Criminal Investigation; Case Prosecution; Patrol Operations; Traffic Control; and Arrest & Detain. Every task within four duty fields was rated below the adequate training standard criterion level. Those duty fields are: Driving; Miscellaneous; Civil Process; and Crime Prevention. Other duty.fields identified as having a disproportionate amount (50% or more) of duty field tasks rated as substandard are: Jail Operations; Case prosecution; OUIL; Office Clerical; Physical Training’& Defensive Tactics; Crime Scene Search; Civil Disorders; and Police Communications. Written comments and recommendations identified several duty fields which a greater number of graduates reported tasks needed improvement and/or attention. Those duty fields are: Driving, Physical Training and Defensive Tactics, Case Prosecution, OUIL, Patrol Operations, Field Notetaking and Report Writing, Police Communications, Traffic Control, Arrest & Detain, Civil Disorders, Collection and Preservation of Evidence, Conflict Mediation, Crime Scene Search, Criminal Investigation, and Jail Operations. 133 8. The new OPA recruit driving program was found to be a very meaningful improvement over the preexisting driving program for preparing graduates to adequately perform police driving tasks. 9. Written comments and recommendations indicate curriculum weaknesses may extend beyond those tasks evaluated below the adequate training standard criterion level. A meaningful proportion (22%) of OPA graduate written comments and recommendations pertaining to tasks which in their judgment need the most improvement and/or attention addressed tasks other than the 102 receiving substandard training ratings. 10. Written remarks often critiqued the training for not providing certain essential job knowledges and skills necessary for satisfactory police performance. 11. Recommendations indicate a need for an increase in training for certain subject areas and additional practical exercises to develop basic police job performance skills. It is apparent from the findings derived by the study that three key evaluation research questions were satisfactorily answered. Those questions were: 1. Does the OPA curriculum in reality effectively prepare police officers to adequately perform important entry-level job-tasks? 2. Which job-tasks are addressed by the curriculum more or less effectively than other job-tasks for the purpose of determining which tasks need additional curriculum attention and consideration? 3. What recommendations can be suggested by OPA 134 graduates concerning how the OPA curriculum can be improved for the purpose of increasing the training programs effectiveness to adequately prepare recruits for realistic police work? In brief summation, the OPA curriculum in reality does effectively prepare police officers to adequately perform a majority (202) of entry-level job-tasks; however, for approximately 34% (102) of the important job-tasks officers may have to perform, graduates responding reported they were not adequately prepared by the basic training academy program to do so. The study did rank order job-tasks to identify which job-tasks are addressed by the curriculum more or less effectively than other job-tasks. Finally, graduates recommendations were recorded concerning how the OPA curriculum might be improved for future academy sessions. RECOMMENDATIONS The study has resulted in the development of several recommendations which address potential applications of the research findings and the need to do further related research. Ultimately the pragmatic value of this study will be measured by its contribution to discovering more effective ways to comprehensively evaluate police training programs for the purpose of improving patrol officer performance. 1. Oakland Police Academy should begin improving their recruit training program by doing additional curriculum research and planning for those duty field tasks which were ranked below the adequate training standard. To 135 do this, OPA must determine for themselves which tasks are most critical for needing curriculum improvement. It is suggested that the inadequate task training rank ordered list (Table 4-8) be used as a curriculum improvement priority indicator. Written comments and recommendations can provide enlightening supplemental quantitative and qualitative information for consideration. The MLEOTC’s job analysis study rank ordered listing of tasks according to their 'consequence of inadequate performance' rating can be used as another key resource. Once tasks are prioritized and finalized for curriculum research, OPA should conduct a task analysis for each task and develop performance objectives. Performance objectives should reflect the adequate task performance proficiency level the recruit should be able to demonstrate before graduating from the academy. OPA should utilize the the findings of the study as baseline data to be compared to future curriculum evaluation findings for measuring program improvement. However, OPA must be willing to conduct another task inventory follow-up study after implementing the curriculum revisions responsive to correcting the training deficiencies noted in this study. As a result, OPA can determine if the curriculum changes were effective in correcting past deficiencies and identify if any new curriculum deficiencies exist. An 136 ongoing systematic evaluation process will safeguard the integrity of the program to provide competent police officers and will protect against serious curriculum slippage due to continual changes in job performance requirements. OPA/MLEOTC should develop a suggested probationary officer curriculum outline for field training officers (FTO) responsible for training and developing rookie officers fresh out of the police academy. The FTOs’ should be provided information about which entry-level job-tasks rookie patrol officers have the most difficulty performing. Such a curriculum outline will prevent rookies from learning primarily by trial and error/success, but will instead encourage FTOs’ to provide on the job training targeted at developing many necessary entry-level competencies not likely provided by the basic police academy program. The fulfillment of the recommendation will enhance the fundamental importance of the PTO program’s role and capability to provide a competent, proficient and effective work force. Each Michigan basic police training program, including college preservice programs, should conduct a task inventory follow-up curriculum evaluation study in order to collectively share their findings with other basic police programs for the purpose of improving the 13? overall training system. Certainly each basic police training program has curriculum strengths and weaknesses that are not similar to other programs. Each program is unique in some meaningful way. If each basic training program conducted a follow-up study they could document their curriculum strengths and weaknesses for the purpose of program comparison and improvement. The comparison could serve as a means to identify which basic training program best prepares recruits to perform particular duty field tasks. Those programs having specific subject area strengths could share their curriculum strengths with other basic programs. Such a cross-pollination of curriculum strengths would benefit the entire basic police training system, the police profession and the public they serve. As an added note, the MLEOTC should be the agency spearheading the training evaluation effort for the purpose of improving the state’s basic police training system’s effectiveness to produce competent police officers. However, if the MLEOTC is disinterested in earnestly evaluating the effectiveness of the MLEOTC curriculum, it is recommended that the basic police training coordinators collectively take on the responsibility for actively evaluating and improving the basic police training system. MLEOTC should evaluate the effectiveness of their 138 current basic recruit curriculum before making new curriculum revisions. The findings of the study clearly indicate that much of the current MLEOTC curriculum operating within the OPA program does not need any revision. This is very likely true for much of the MLEOTC curriculum across all basic police academies. Hence, to subjectively expend valuable limited resources to revise areas within the curriculum which actually need little if any revision would be fiscally negligent. Fiscal and personnel resources should first be directed at those areas within the curriculum which need the most immediate and critical attention. Additional research should be conducted to compare the differences of training effectiveness for the MLEOTC recruit academy curriculum to prepare officers to meet entry-level performance requirements among different types of police agencies. Such research may reveal that the curriculum effectiveness is inadequate for certain types of agencies, but not for other types. Hence, theapossibility does exist that there is a need to provide additional and/or specialized training for agencies which have important unique duties and responsibilities which are not being adequately addressed within the basic academy system. For example, sheriff deputies may have to be provided specialized training for civil process procedures and jail 139 operations, whereas municipal and township officers do not. It is very possible small police agencies need patrol officers which are more adept than large agency officers in performing criminal investigations. Small agencies tend to be less specialized and therefore often require patrol officers to conduct crimimal investigations beyond the preliminary report stage. Many other important entry-level training requirement differences need to be explored. DISCUSSION Interpretation gf Results The findings of the investigation suggest that the OPA basic training curriculum does not effectively prepare new officers to adequately perform a significant proportion of important entry-level police job-tasks. However, the study findings infer far more meaningful implications than a list of identified and prioritized training deficiencies. More importantly, the findings suggest that the traditional police practice which primarily utilizes subjective professional judgments for developing and maintaining a basic recruit training curriculum is generally ineffective and unreliable in preparing rookie officers to adequately perform realistic entry-level patrol work. As a result, there is a definite need for developing and applying analytical follow-up curriculum evaluation techniques to ensure that sufficiently effective job preparatory recruit training is being provided and maintained. 140 One goal of the study has been to bring about improvement over past curriculum evaluation models and methodologies which have been used to assess police curriculas. This has been reasonably accomplished. Previous studies have suffered in pragmatic quality. When studies have identified curriculum deficiencies they have described the deficiencies only in the most general terms (major work functions). When deficiencies are stated in the most general terms, those responsible for making curriculum modification decisions are not certain exactly where to begin. Out of their frustration, they may not do anything. The problem is compounded since past studies have consistently failed to give a sense of relative priority as to where the limited training resources would best be applied to revise the curriculum. The evaluation methodology utilized within this study does prioritize curriculum deficiencies and identifies them more precisely for decision-makers. The findings derived from the study have surfaced evidence that the task inventory follow-up curriculum evaluation methodology can be extremely useful. The instrument efficiently collected task training evaluation ratings for 304 tasks categorized within 30 duty fields. The methodology is quite comprehensive. Tasks were easily rank ordered according to their training evaluation ratings for prioritizing training deficiencies. Instead of only relying on the graduate’s recall ability, the methodology takes 141 advantage of the graduate’s task recognition which enhances the instrument’s comprehensiveness, reliability and validity. The specificity of the task listing safeguards against the incumbent providing over generalizations about the quality of the training received. In addition, incumbent job experience, as well as analyzing task training ratings by task performers, counteracts the likelihood of obtaining naive evaluative judgments which may be misleading. The methodology is therefore considered a valuable curriculum product evaluation tool worthy of further research development and use. The special analysis of the driving duty field illustrated the potential benefit for continually using the methodology for measuring changes in job performance resulting from curriculum revisions. The instrument collected information from two subsamples which differed regarding driving training. One group was provided classroom training, while the second group was provided classroom training plus actual practical driving exercises in order to develop driver skills. The analysis demonstrated that the methodology was able to reliably collect and convey that those recruits receiving some additional training and practical exercises were better prepared to perform patrol driving tasks. The findings indicate the instrument and methodology has validity in identifying and discerning training differences among groups receiving similar but unequal training. Such a quality of evaluation discernment is fundamental for accurately 142 measuring the impact of curriculum changes. Some precautionary factors need to be considered relating to the tasks identified as receiving insufficient training in the OPA program. One is that many of the tasks rated inadequately have not been part of the MLEOTC mandatory curriculum requirements. The MLEOTC has yet to totally revise the curriculum since conducting the first phase of the job analysis study in 1981. OPA cannot therefore be held accountable for many of the training deficiencies identified. In addition, the MLEOTC mandatory curriculum generally does not have clearly stated performance objectives to help guide basic police academy administrators and trainers to assess if their recruit training is adequately meeting the minimum job performance requirements. Basic police academies must therefore continue to operate their programs with considerable uncertainty about what level of job skills and knowledges they need to inculcate within recruits to adequately prepare them to perform police work. This researcher believes that many of the training deficiencies identified within the OPA program can be found within other Michigan basic police academy programs. That is not to say that exactly all the same deficiencies exist within other recruit programs, rather generally the same deficiencies probably do exist to a reasonable degree. The predominant reason is that all academies are required to comply with the MLEOTC by incorporating their state mandated basic recruit curriculum. The research findings have 143 probably identified training deficiencies as much within the MLEOTC recruit curriculum as it has within the OPA police recruit program. Each basic police academy program suffers to some equal degree from the inherent weaknesses embedded within the MLEOTC curriculum. When interpreting the data, it is important to keep in mind that tasks are rarely if ever totally independent of other tasks. Many tasks require the same basic performance skills and knowledges as other similar tasks. In certain instances the successful performance of one or more tasks is a prerequisite condition to the successful performance of another task. These performance interrelationships among tasks have some positive and negative ramifications for curriculum planning and improvement. For example, improving the curriculum for one task which results in satisfactory performance may also improve the performance for other related tasks. On the other hand, improving the training for a single task, without giving due consideration for the need to improve training for the prerequisite tasks, may result in the continuation of inadequate performance despite the positive curriculum adjustment. Hence, tasks identified within the study as receiving insufficient training oftentimes reflect more than simplistic curriculum problems which can be easily corrected. The performance interrelationships among related tasks must therefore be thoroughly considered and planned for when revising the curriculum. Certain study findings about the population raise some 144 striking questions and concerns. For example, it appears most OPA graduates work alone on patrol most of the time after a relatively short period following graduation from the academy. If this is true, the implication is clear that rookie officers have to be prepared to competently perform entry-level patrol tasks upon graduation, since it is unlikely they will have the guidance and company of a seasoned officer to assist them on many occasions. Perhaps it is a great and dangerous myth that most police departments today make sure they keep the rookie officer under a seasoned officer’s wing until s/he is ready to fly on their own. Instead, most rookies may be forced out of the nest before they are ready to solo in the real world of policing. This may account for why so many OPA graduates reported they were ill prepared to perform such a large proportion of patrol officer tasks. The finer and most critical points of police performance may not be learned by structured apprenticeship, rather by trial and error/success. The potential consequences identify the need to research thoroughly the integration and probationary process the rookie officer undergoes to become an. independently operating patrol officer. The findings from such research would help provide information about how to develop effective field training officer programs. The police occupation can benefit from follow-up analytic curriculum evaluation studies. Such studies will help assure a competent and effective work force by safeguarding against curriculum obsolescence resulting from 145 occupational and social changes influencing police performance requirements. The falsely practiced traditions, notions and myths about how to effectively prepare police to perform their work will unfortunately pervade, unless those responsible for providing police training have the courage to seriously evaluate the quality and effectiveness of their programs. APPENDI CES APPENDIX A OAKLAND POLICE ACADEMY PROGRAM APPENDIX A OAKLAND POLICE ACADEMY PROGRAM OF STUDY ADMINISTRATION SECTION Program Orientation Classroom Notetaking Examinations Examination Review Director’s Time MLEOTC Administrative LEGAL SECTION Introduction to Constitutional Law Law of Arrest Detention and Custody Admissions and Confessions Search and Seizure Court Function Law of Evidence Criminal Law Juvenile Law INVESTIGATION SECTION Criminal Investigation Vice Investigation Narcotic and Dangerous Drugs Crime Scene Search Collection and Preservation of Evidence Interview and Interrogation Fingerprinting and Palmprinting Latent Print Mock Crime Scene Stolen Motor Vehicle SPECIAL SUBJECT SECTION Human Relations Police Courteous and Ethics Handling Abnormal People Social Services EXTERNAL RELATIONS SECTION Jurisdiction of Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Michigan Corrections/Parole/Probation 186 MLEOTC MANDATED HOURS NN0&”H 00380-5." 10 IO nopawoonmo ION-AID (ON OPA HOURS 08081300301 NO~bbAO~O~UIOJO OJ-D-bm CON 147 GENERAL POLICE SECTION History and Philosophy of Law Enforcement 2 2 Juvenile Offender ' 4 4 Firearms 28 30 Police First Aid 14 18 Field Notetaking and Report Writing 4 6 Blockade and Roadblock Procedure 1 1 Radio Communication 2 2 LEIN and Other Systems 2 2 Patrol Techniques 10 14 Civil Disorder 9 9 Mechanics of Arrest and Detention 4 4 Domestic Complaints 3 4 State Liquor Law Enforcement 3 3 Emergency Preparedness - Disaster Control 3 4 Stopping Vehicle and Occupant Control 6 6 Physical Training and Defensive Tactics 38 42 TRAFFIC SECTION Motor Vehicle Law 10 10 Driver License 2 3 OUIL 2 3 Motor Vehicle Accident Investigation ' 18 18 Traffic Direction and Control 2 2 Techniques and Methods of Traffic Enforcement 2 4 OPTIONAL 14 Driver’s Training see 0 12 Tracking Dogs’ ' 0 3 Role of the Social Worker 0 1 Stress Seminar 0 3 320 374 *** Only one OPA session received the practical driver’s training program. APPENDIX B INSTRUMENT 1118 Officer Alfred J. Brauns Belleville. Police Department 6 Main St. Belleville. MI 48111 August 1. 19:33 Dear Officer Brauns: As a graduate of the Oakland Police Academy you are one of our most valuable sources for evaluating and improving our basic police program. We sincerely need your help to assist us in making our police training program the very best it can be for future police recruits and the public they will serve. Officer Brauns. would you please help us in our endeavor by taking the time to diligently complete and prudently return the enclosed training evaluation instrument? We need your professional input. We have enclosed a stamped envelope for your convenience and we need your resopnse no later than September 1st. 1983. However. please complete and return the evaluation instrument as soon as possilbe. Thank you. Please be assured that all the information you provide will be held in confidence. I would like to thank you in advance for your important cooperation and contributions which will make this project a worthy success. Sincerely . Joel Allen Director Oakland Police Academy 1’49 Q.WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS POLICE TRAINING EVALUATION? A. This study will collect professional judgments regarding the adequacy of the basic police training program to prepare recruits to perform important entry-level police job tasks. The purpose of the study is to identify the strengths and weaknesses within the training curriculum so the curriculum can be improved in order to better prepare future police recruits for police work. G..WH I ASKING AL TH SE G ESTI ? A. The Oakland Police Academy - (Why?) Because we care about the quality of training we provide to police recruits. police agencies and the public they serve! ' . Q. OW I A TH STI ON ? A. The evaluation instrument is divided into three sections: (1) Background Information. (2) Task Training Rating. and (3) Training Recommendations. Detailed instructions are provided at the beginning of each section. Start at the beginning by reading all instructions carefully. working from section to section. and respond to the items with your best professional judgment. 0.. A T R A Y NEC A Y?! A. You bet! This is the opportunity for you to tell Oakland Police Academy how adequately you were prepared to perform common and important entry-level police work. Now that you have police experience you can provide valuable feedback regarding how well trained you were for meeting the police job conditions and requirements you have experienced since your academy graduation. The information you supply will assure future police officers will receive the training they need to perform the professional duties and responsibiIities of a police officer. G.H W N HAV T HP T THE EVALUATI QN? A. Please complete the evaluation promptly as possible so that your responses will be part of our analysis and final report. The evaluation should be mailed no later than August 8th. 0.. WHAT DO I 20 WITH THE EVALUATI QN WHEN I AM FI NISHEQ? A. Place the evaluation in the envelope provided. seal it. and then mail. Your responses will remain confidential. 150 SECTION ONE BACKGROUND INFORMATION NAME NAME OF YOUR AGENCY TELEPHONE 4* WHERE YOU CAN BE REACHEDI QI RECTI ONS : Write the appropriate response to each question. 1. YOUR PRESENT AGE 2. YOUR SEX (check one) Male __ Female _ 3. YOUR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION CATEGORY American Indian Black Caucasion (white) Oriental Spanish Surname Other (please check) 4. YOUR AGENCY 13: (please check) Municipal Township Sheriff University! College State Police Other 5. YOUR PRESENT JOB TITLE IS: 6. DO YOU WORK WITH THE FULL AUTHORITY OF A POLICE OFFICER? (please check) yes no 7. WHAT TYPE OF PATROL AREA DO YOU WORK IN“? (Which best describes?) Urban= inner city (high population) Suburban= residential (moderate population density) Rural= agricultural/ forest (low population density) Urban Suburban Rural Urban / Suburban Suburban/ Rural Urban/ Rural Urban/ Suburb an/ Rural (please check) 151 15'. MONTHS OF EXPERIENCE AS A POLICE PATROL OFFICER 9. HAVE YOU COMPLETED PROBATION? (check one) Yes No 10. YOUR PRESENT TYPE OF PATROL ASSIGNMENT 18’? (Check most appropriate]l One Person Vehicle Two Person Vehicle Motorcycle Foot Other (specify) 11. PERCENT OF TIME YOU SPEND WORKING BY YOURSELF ON PATROL: ‘2 .CI-IECK TI-IE BOX(ES) THAT DESCRIBE YOUR PRIMARY RESPONSIBILI" n Y(IE S) IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS: Patrol Criminal Investigation Traffic Enforcement Accident Investigation Community Relations Warrant Service Evidence 8. Property Control Civil Processes Dispatching Identification Bailiff/Court Officer Vice Investigation Narcotics Investigation Marine Other (specify) 13. YOUR LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE BEFORE BEING TRAINED AT OCC POLICE ACADEMY Forest or Park Ranger Game Warden Security Guard Military Police Municipal/ Township Police Police Reserve Private Investigation Sheriff’s Department State Police Railroad Airport Other (specify) NONE THE FOLLWING RELATE TO YOUR OVERALL FEELINGS ABOUT YOUR JOB IN GENERAL 14.1 find my job: Very dull Fairly dull So-So Fairly interesting Very interesting 15. My job utilizes my natural talents: Not at all Very little Fairly well Quite well Very well 16. Overall. the basic police training I received at Oakland Police Academy prepared me to perform important tasks at my job site: Very litte Fairly well Quite well Very well *****************§*****41'i*‘lt‘lt‘lt-NI’****************************§******#§** SECTION TWO TASK TRAINING RATING DIRECTIONS Simply check if you have ever performed the task in the space provided. If you have NEVER performed the task. DO NOT check. Next. provide a training evaluation rating which best indicates how adequately OCC Basic Police Academy prepared you to perform this task at the entry-level. Entry-Level means the level of performance that is expected by your employer for a NEW EMPLOYEE (Police Rookie). MAKE SURE YOU PROVIDE TASK EVALUATION RATINGS FOR EVERY TASK - EVEN IF YOU HAVEN’T EVER PERFORMED THE TASK !!! READ THE KEY CAREFULLY AND DO BOTH STEP ONE AND STEP TWO ' FOR EVERY TASK!!! CHARGE !! 1.513 Step 1 Check Tasks Performed Step 2 FIELD PERFOIWNCE EVALOATIOt SCALE In preparing me to perform this task, the basic police training recieved was: 1 2 3 4 5 Totally Very Inadequate Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Adequate Excellent — 633:5! 8 DETAIN l. Advise persons of constitutional rights............................... 2. Arrest persons without warrant........................................ 3. Transport prisoners 4. Arrest persons with a warrant......................................... 5. Plan strategy for making arrests...................................... 6. Take into custody person detained by citizen.......................... 7. Make custodial traffic arrest......................................... 8. Request bystanders to assist in an apprehension....................... 9. Explain nature of complaints to offenders............................. 10. Issue citations for non-traffic offenses (e.g. appearance tickets, ordinance vnolatnons 11. Instruct suspect on process for obtaining an attorney................. EASE PROSECUTION . 12. Prepare felony complaint forms for warrant authorization.............. 13. Swear out complaints or warrants...................................... 14. Review warrants for completeness and accuracy......................... 15. Prepare misdemeanor couplaint forms for warrant authorization......... 16. Confer with prosecutor or city attorney regarding warrant authorization......................................................... 17. Recommend the issuance of an arrest warrant........................... 18. Confer with prosecutor or city attorney prior to testimony regarding case........................................................ 19. Discuss cases with prosecutors or city attorneys following legal proceedings.................................................... CIVIL DISORDERS 20. Confront, in a riot formation, groups of agitated people.............. 21. Control hostile groups (e.g., demonstrators, rioters, bar patrons).... 22. Patrol riot stricken or civil disturbance areas....................... 23. Locate and observe crowd agitators.................................... 24. Communicate with management and labor over strike disturbances........ 25. Patrol area containing labor pickets, marchers or demonstrators....... 26. Control non-violent crowds.................,.......................... CIVIL PROCESS 27. Serve probate orders (e.g., mentals, juveniles, adult offenders)...... 28. Enforce court issued order (e.g. writs)............................... 29. Serve subpoenas....................................................... QQLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF EVIDENQL 30. Document chain of custody for evidence................................ 31. Collect evidence and personal property from crime scenes.............. 32. Record location of physical evidence at scene......................... 33. Examine evidence and personal property from crime scenes.............. 34. Phototgraph crime scenes.............................................. 35. Cast impressions at crime scene (e.g. plaster casts, silicone, etc.).. 36. Tag evidence and confiscated properties............................... Check lf Performed Training Evaluation Rating 37. Diagrm crime SceneSllIIIIIIIIICIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIOIIIIIOIDIIIIOI. 38. Recover and inventory stolen OFODOPIY................................. 39. Package evidence or personal property................................. 40. Transport property or evidence........................................ 41. Nitness autopsies..................................................... 42. Release confiscated property.......................................... CONFLICT MEDIATION 43. Mediate family disputes............................................... 44. Mediate civil disputes................................. ..... .......... COURT FLNCTIBfS 45. Obtain search warrants and/or make proper return...................... 46.-Prepare witnesses for court testimony................................. 47. Arraign defendant in court........................... ................ CRIME PREVENTIOO 48. Conduct community relations program (e.g. safety programs, crime prevention, tours, C.8. watch)........................................ CRIME SCENE SEARCH 49. Search crime scenes for physical evidence............................. SO. Search fire debris for evidence relating to the cause of the fire..... 51. Determine need for specialized assistance at a crime scene............ 52. Participate in raids.................................................. 53. Plan strategy for conducting searches................................. 54. Search dead bodies for personal property.............................. 55. Track person from scene (e.g., footprints in snow or mud)............. CRIMINAL IWESTIGATICN 56. Examine dead bodies for wounds and injuries........................... 57. Verify the identity of deceased persons............................... 58. Locate witness to crime............................................... 59. Conduct on-the-scene suspect identifications (e.g. show-ups).......... 60. Organize and conduct photo line-ups................................... dl. Review with medical examiner circumstances relating to a death........ 62. Conduct intelligence activities on known or suspected offenders....... 63. Verify reliability and credibility of witnesses....................... 64. Establish modus operandi (M.O.) of a suspect.......................... 65. Determine whether incidents are criminal or civil matters............. 66. Review records and pictures to identify suspects...................... 67. Participate in investigations with other law enforcement agencies..... 68. Exchange necessary information with other law enforcement officials... 69. Review crime lab reports to guide investigations...................... 70. Determine whether recovered property is linked with a previous crime.. 71. Trace stolen goods.................................................... 72. Conduct surveillance of individuals or locations...................... 73. Organize surveillance of individuals or locations..................... 74. Utilize department records to assist in investigation................. 75. Analyze and compare incidents for similarity of modus operandi (M.O.). 76. Talk with families of adult suspects or defendents (advise, inform, notify, counsel)..................................... 7?. Recruit confidential informants....................................... DRIVING 78. Engage in high speed driving in congested area........................ 79. Engage in high speed pursuit or response driving on open road......... 80. Engage in high speed pursuit or response driving off road............. 81. Operate vehicle on ice covered road................................... 82. Operate vehicle on snow covered road.................................. 83. Operate vehicle in driving rain....................................... 84. Escort emergency vehicles............................................. 1.555 85. Operate vehicle on dirt covered road.................................. OUIL ENFORCEMENT 86. Arrest OUIL suspects.................................................. 87. Operate 'breathalyzer' instrument to test blood alcohol content....... 88. Testify in Secretary of State implied consent hearings................ 89. Administer roadside sobriety test..................................... 90. Arrange for obtaining blood or urine samples for sobriety tests....... EMERGENCY PREPAREONESS-DISASTER CONTROL 91. Search for bombs...................................................... 92. Evacuate persons from dangerous area.................................. 93. Secure accident and disaster scenes................................... FIELD NOT ETAKINS MOREPORT URITINO 94. Summarized in writing the statement of witnesses and complainants..... 95. Prepare criminal case summary sheet for prosecutor.................... 96. Transcribe field notes for reports.................................... 97. Urite narrative reports............................................... 98. Complete OUIL arrest reports.......................................... 99. Type incident reports................................................. 100. Collect incident reports by checking off boxes or filling in blanks.. ELOOERPRINTINO & RALMPRINTINO 101. Fingerprint prisoners................................................ FIREARMS TRAINING 102. Discharge firearm at person...;...................................... 104. Participate in firearms training..................................... 105. Clean and inspect weapons............................................ FIRST AID 106. Administer cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR)...................... 107. Administer mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.............................. 108. Apply first aid to treat for heart attacks........................... 109. Apply first aid to treat for amputations............................. llO. Apply first aid to control bleeding.................................. 111. Apply first aid to treat for gunshot wounds.......................... 112. Adainister oxygen using resuscitator................................. 113. Apply first aid to treat for electric shock.......................... 114. Adeinister oxygen using oxygen suppy device other than resuscitator.. 115. Apply first aid to treat for poisoning............................... 116. Apply first aid to treat for shock................................... 117. Apply first aid to treat for overdose................................ 118. Apply first aid to treat for burns................................... 119. Apply first aid to treat for diabetic reaction....................... 128. Apply first aid to treat for stroke.................................. 121. Apply first aid to treat for heat stroke............................. 122. Apply first aid to treat for broken bones............................ 123. Apply first aid to treat for puncture wounds......................... 124. Apply first aid to treat for heat prostration........................ 125. Apply first aid to treat for convulsions............................. 126. Apply first aid to treat for eye injuries............................ 127. Apply first aid to treat for seizure................................. 128. Transport injured persons............................................ 129. Apply first aid to treat for lacerations............................. 130.-Apply first aid to treat for abrasions............................... INTERVIEU & INTERROGATION 131. Interrogate suspects................................................. 132. Interview complainants, witnesses, etc............................... 133. Record confessions in writing..................... ..... .............. 1.565 134. Take statements of witnesses................................... ..... . 135. Interrogate suspects or witness with use of polygraph results.. ...... 136. Interview medical personnel to obtain specific information........... JAIL OPERATIONS 137. Check weapons in and out of detention facility...... ..... ............ 138. Guard prisoners detained outside jail................................ 139. Record injuries to prisoners......................................... 14D. Investigate injuries to prisoners.................................... 141. Process evidence seized at custodial search.......................... 142. Place holds on prisoners and notify department holding warrant....... 143. Check individual making bond for wants and warrants.................. 144. Check legal status of the case of prisoners.......................... 145. Return prisoner’s property........................................... 146. Inventory prisoner’s personal property............................... 147. Book prisoners by completing arrest forms............................ 148. Collect interim bond................................................. 149. Answer inquiries concerning prisoner................................. JUVENILE PROCESS 150. Place children in protective custody (e.g. child abuse).............. 151. Apprehend juvenile offenders......................................... 152. Talk with families of juvenile suspects or defendants (advise, inform, notify, counsel).................................... 153. Counsel juveniles.................................................... 154. Conduct parent juvenile conferences.................................. 155. Confer with juvenile probate officer................................. 156. Advise parents of children’s violation of traffic laws....... ...... .. LATENT PRINTS - 157. Dust and lift latent prints.......................................... MISCELLANEOUS 158. Test and evaluate police equipment................................... 159. Request equipment repair............................................. 16D. Evaluate citizen complaints regarding tickets or other minor offenses............................................................. MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIOI 161. Take precautions to prevent additional accidents at accident scene... 162. Collect physical evidence from accident scenes....................... 163. Request emergency assistance for traffic accident (e.g. wrecker, ambulance , salt truck).............................................. 164. Determine contributing factors to an accident........................ 165. Set priorities for action at accident scene.................... ...... 166. Determine fault in a traffic accident................................ 167. Complete the standard traffic accident report form (UD-10)........... 168. Protect traffic accident physical evidence for collection............ 169. Diagram accident scenes.............................................. 17D. Investigate traffic accident scene to identify point(s) of impact.... 171. Direct activities at scenes of accident investigations............... 172. Search accident scenes for physical evidence......................... 173. Take coordinate measures of traffic accident scenes (e.g., triangulation)................................................ 174. Identify persons involved in traffic accident........................ 175. Locate witnesses to traffic accidents................................ 176. Photograph accident scenes........................................... 177. Measure skid marks................................................... 178. Test operating condition of accident vehicle equipment............... 179. Interview persons involved in traffic accident....................... 180. Identify owner of vehicles involved in accident...................... 5 3.5'7 181. Inspect vehicle for fresh damage..................................... 182. Issue citationts) in traffic accident..................... ........ ... 183. Follow-up extent of personal injuries resulting from traffic accident.............................................u............... 184. Review accidents with accident investigators......................... 185. Investigate off road vehicle accidents............... ....... ......... 186. Remove debris from accident scene.................................... OFFICE AND CLERICAL 187. Issue pick-up or wanted notices...................................... 188. Prepare list of wanted persons for department use.................... 189. Review other officers’ incident reports for completeness and accuracy............................................................. 190. Take custody of lost and found property.............................. 191. Schedule work assigments for other officers.......................... 192. Verify vehicle title information..................................... PATROL OPERATIOOO 193. Inspect patrol vehicle for weapons and contraband.................... 194. Request back-up assistance........................................... 195. Identify wanted vehicles or persons.................................. 196. Transport mental patients............................................ 197. Describe persons to other officers (e.g., suspects, missing persons)..................................................... 198. Search unlocked businesses and dwellings for signs of illegal entry.. 199. Flush fuel spills.................................................... 200. Check conditions and status of assigned patrol equipment and vehicle. 201. Direct actions of officer(s) arriving to assist...................... 202. Advise property owners or agents of potentially hazardous conditions. 203. Follow suspicious vehicles (e.g., suspects, suspicious person, operator under the influence)........................................ 204. Investigate suspicious vehicle....................................... 205. Interview suspicious persons......................................... 206. Review information on criminal activity in area....................,. 207. Comfort emotionally upset persons.................................... 208. Notify public agencies or utilities of damage to their equipment..... 209. Escort money, valuables or people to provide security................ 210. Investigate unusual odors............................................ ‘ 211. Direct actions of public service personnel arriving to assist........ 212. Secure house or property (e.g., lock, close doors and windows etc.).. 213. Patrol locations of beat which are potentially hazardous to citizens (e.g., construction site, attractive nuisance).............. 214. Secure vehicles...................................................... 215. Advise victims of the procedures to prosecute........................ 216. Participate in large scale area search parties....................... 217. Talk with people on the beat to establish rapport.................... 218. Perform first line maintenance on patrol vehicle..................... 219. Respond to general information questions from the public............. 220. Investigate unusual sounds........................................... 221. Make entries in individual patrol log................................ 222. Prepare list of wanted persons or stolen vehicles for own use........ 223. Patrol on foot...................I..............................:.... 224. Physically examine and test doors and windows of dwellings and businesses........................................................... 225. Establish field contacts (e.g., barowners, taxi drivers, etc.)....... 226. Assist elderly or disabled persons with mobility problems............ 1.5E3 227. Transport persons needing assistance................................. 228. Deliver emergency messages (e.g., injuries, death)................... 229. Uarn offenders in lieu of arrest or citation......................... 230. Check parks and school grounds....................................... 231. Notify citizens of damage to their property.......................... 232. Check individuals/businesses for compliance with licensing requirements (e.g., hunting, liquor, dance permit, vendors, etc.).... PHYSICAL TRAINING AND DEFENSIVE TACTICS 233. Subdue attacking persons............................................. 234. Subdue subject resisting arrest...................................... 235. Handcuff suspects or prisoners.....s................................. 236. Physically restrain crowds........................................... 237. Run after fleeing suspects........................................... 238. Pickup and carry heavy objects or persons............................ 239. Lift heavy objects or persons........................................ 240. Break through door using force....................................... 241. Drag or pull heavy objects or persons................................ 242. Run up stairs........................................................ 243. Jump down from elevated surfaces..................................... 244. Jump over obstacles.................................................. 245. Uade through marshes, swamp land or waterways........................ 246. Perform duties while wearing heavy equipment (other than gun belt)... 247. Climb through openings (e.g., windows)............................... 248. Pull self up over obstacles.......................................... 249. Pull self through openings........................................... 250. Climb up over obstacles.............................................. 251. Jump across obstacles................................................ 252. Physically push movable objects...................................... 253. Crawl in confined areas (e.g., attics)............................... 254. Stand continuously for more than one-half of the work shift (e.g., guard duty or point control)...................... ......... ... POLICE CMNICATILNS 255. Request verification of warrants before service...................... 256. Receive and evaluate telephone requests for police service........... 257. Inform dispatcher by radio as to your status......................... 258. Check for wants/warrants on persons through LEIN..................... 259. Operate telephone console or switchboard............................. 260. Operate LEIN terminal to update data................................. 261. Operate LEIN terminal to check persons and property.................. 262. Check stolen status on property through LEIN......................... SEAR H & SEIZURE 263. Conduct field search of arrested persons............................. 264. Conduct frisk patdown................................................ 265. Search premises or property in hot pursuit situations................ 266. Search premises or property with warrant............................. 267. Search premises or property incident to arrest....................... 268. Seize contraband..................................................... 269. Search movable automobile under independent probable cause........... 270. Search premises or property with consent............................. 271. Impound property..................................................... TESTIFYING IN COURT AND ADMINSTRATIVE HEARINGS 272. Testify in criminal cases............................................ 273. Present evidence in legal proceedings................................ 274. Review reports and notes for court testimony......................... 275. Testify in parole or probation hearings.............................. 276. Testify in liquor board hearings..................................... 1.559 TRAFFIC CONTROL 277. Stop vehicles to investigate, cite or arrest occupants............... 278. Cite or arrest reckless drivers......................... ...... . ...... 279. Evaluate driver’s capability to operate vehicle................ ..... . 280. Direct traffic using flashlight or illuminated baton................. 281. Direct traffic using hand signals.................................... 282. Clock vehicles using radar........................................... 283. Remove vehicles obstructing traffic.................................. 284. Direct traffic using flare pattern or traffic cone patterns.......... 285. Clock speed of vehicles using speedometer............................ 286. Observe traffic control device to determine if functioning properly.. 287. Issue traffic citations.............................................. 288. Record circumstances regarding traffic citation...................... 289. Inspect operator’s license..............l............................ 290. Advise appropriate agency of traffic engineering needs............... 291. Direct pedestrian traffic............................................ 292. Follow suspect vehicle to observe traffic violations................. 293. Inspect for vehicle identification number............................ 294. Remove hazards from roadway (e.g., dead animals, debris, etc.)....... 295. Assist stranded motorists............................................ 296. Explain state vehicle laws and procedures to citizens................ 297. Monitor traffic for violations....................................... 298. Explain legal procedures to traffic violators........................ 299. Inspect private vehicle for conformance with vehicle code............ 300. Check railroad crossing for signal violations (e.g., going around gates, train blocking crossing)...................................... 301. Check vehicles for proper registration (e.g. snowmobiles, off road vehicles, etc.)...................................................... 302. Issue verbal warnings to traffic violators........................... 303. Visually estimate speed of vehicles.................................. 304. Determine status of auto insurance................................... 160 *fl-i-i'ftftfl'ft‘lt*****************§*****§§*******§ft*****ft*‘lt-fi-SHHHE*{rfifi‘ltfi-‘lt‘ltsll-‘Rfir‘lr‘i-fi-{r SECTION THREE TRAINING- RECOM ME NDATIONS DIRECTIONS: GOOD WORK! This is the last section for you to complete and this is what you are to do. Select three tasks from Section II which you believe need the most improvement in the basic police academy. After you have selected the tasks. list them on the following outlines and provide the information requested for each task. Be as brief and to the point as possible. If you need more space to make your comments you can make your comments on another sheet of paper and enclose them in the envelope. Make sure you appropriately label your answers on any additional sheets of paper inserted. Once you have completed this section and you still have some additional information you want to provide regarding the basic police training you have received please feel free to comment. Enclose a letter or whatever else is necessary to express your thoughts. OAKLAND POLICE ACADEMY THANKS YOU FOR YOUR VALUABLE CONTRIBUTION WHICH WILL DE FINITELY ASSIST US IN PROVIDING THE VERY BEST POLICE TRAINING POSSIBLE!!! KEEP AT IT YOUR ALMOST DONE!!! 161 TASK SELECTED TASK NUMBEth What needs to be improved in the basic police academy program in order to adequately prepare recruits to perform this task? In answering this question. please consider the adequacy of the following factors: quality of instruction. subject matter/course content. learning conditions. facilities. written resource material. etc. APPENDIX C GRADUATE COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX C ARREST & DETAIN TASK 7: Make custodial traffic arrest (1) In my job, making an arrest during a traffic stop is the most common arrest situation; however, during the academy we had only one night of actual training in making traffic stops and arrests. Much more time is needed on this subject. Traffic stops are common, but each one is different. A little old lady who is stopped for a defective taillight may turn into a monster if not handled correctly. And when an officer has to make an arrest of the driver when there are four passengers inside the car, the officer better know what he is doing. TASK 10: IgsOe citation for non-traffic offenses (appearance tLgket) (l) The academy needs to cover the step by step process for issuing appearance tickets. The student should be shown a ticket and demonstrated how to complete it. The appearance ticket Judicial process needs explanation. Do you need a prosecution report? Can you hold the person to fingerprint on an appearance ticket? Is an appearance ticket an arrest? All these questions and related areas of concern I was unsure of when I graduated from the academy. TASK 12-19: CASE PROSECUTION (1) No commentary provided. (2) Not much was was covered as far as how to obtain warrants. I have found that it is a big part of what we do as patrol officers. For me it was learning by mistakes in writing the report and going to the prosecutors office for a warrant. (3) Tasks 13, 14, 16 and 19. Especially emportant if in a small department where they do not have designated officers to follow up reports by obtaining warrants. Should know what information prosecutor needs to issue warrnat; how to swear out a warrant in court; what witnesses and/or evidence will 162 163 be needed for prelimnary exam and trial; and, preparing a case for court. Should include practical as as theoretical exercises. TASK 12: Prepare felony complaint forms for warrant authorization (I) The instructors covering the subject were quite good. They seemed to impress upon you the importance of getting a warrant, but didn’t go into detail about how to obtain one. They basically stated the process you go through to obtain a warrant, but did not really say what you, as a police officer, had to do to prepare yourself for each of these steps. The cases I was involved in were usually turned over to the detective bureau. The urgency of some cases require my personal and imediate action. when these cases came up I usually found myself stumbling through the process and constantly needing help. After a few cases I did learn the ropes. I think some of this trial and error learning could be avoided by using a hypothetical case and having the recruit simulate going through the warrant process. TASK 20-2é: QIUIL DISORDER§ (I) More time is needed for instructon. Too much emphasis was given by the instructor on cracking heads together. what is needed is more information on the basics; marching around outside wasn’t much help. (2) , I list this topic only because my class spent only about 3-4 hours on it. Actually, with society going through the economic and politicla adjustments at present, I don’t see much need for this kind of training. The political and economic climate is far from what it was like in the 1960’s and 70’s; therefore the training we recieved was adequate. If things do change, I see the plice officer facing a different kind of civil disturbance. Today’s police officer will be facing terrorist groups which have evolved from groups like the SLA. There will not be campus riots, but there will be nuclear extortion. There will be groups who will poison water supplies, plant bombs, conduct kidnaapings and many other terrorist activities. Unlike Europe and Latin America, so far the U.S. has escaped much of this activity. I do belived the police officer should be prepared for these kind of activities in the future. 164 TASK 27-29: CIVIL PROCESS (1) Basic Instruction of this Subject: A. what is a warrant, summons, subpoena, etc. 8. what are the various types. C. who can serve them. 0. when can they be served. E. who are process servers and what is their authority and function. All officers will sooner or later come into cotact with civil process and therefore they should have a fundamental understanding of the subject. Other examples are custody papers, court orders, etc. QQLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE TASK 41: witness Autopsies (1) I feel that students should observe an autopsy, narrated by a medical examiner. I believe this is necessary to expose students to a dead body (I was a bit shocked my first time). Also, a body can be the most important piece of evidence in an investigation. It would help a the student to know what can be expected from an autopsy. (2) An autopsy was not witnessed by our class. I realize that it is not terribly important, but it is interesting. TASK 43-44: CCNFLIL'JT MEDIATION (1) Although the profession is law enforcement, all police officers find themselves engaged in many more activities than ”crushing crime." It would therefore be helpful to expose the recruitss to some of these situations they are likely to encounter. Ther experience of the veteran officers and the 'classic cases' should be presented to the students. Experienced actors or officers could role play the various situations placing the rookies in the position of the responding officer(s). These include husband-wife disputes, landlord-tenant disputes, neighbor vs. neighbor, intoxicated subject or confused senior citizen, etc. The student will find this method of instruction more helpful and he will retain more learning this way as opposed to reading, viewing a film, or discussing the situations. The 165 actors/officers can “throw a curve“ now and then to keep the recruit on his toes. (see Task 43) TASK 43: Mediation of Fpmily Disputes (I) I feel that for a recruit to be successful at the start of his job with a police department he must be able to use the medium of verbal communication and make it work in any type of situation. Regarding the task that was selected above I recall that the instruction was there but it did not go into the situation deep enough. I fell that the only way for a recruit to get a handle on what it would take to mediate a family dispute would be having academy students play act a situation involving a dispute between family members and have one or two of the recruits act as police officers and mediate the sutuation. Other students in the class would watch and see what they would do in the given situation and then constructively criticize what the 'officers' did wrong, or did right. Talking about the handling of family disputes would give the recruit a basic knowledge of what to do, but the acting out of the situation would give a quasi “hands on training.‘ Also a good aspect to include in this block of training would be the civil aspects of these situations because most often the family trouble situation is totally civil in nature. There is no way to say that this should be done in a family situaition or that should be done in family situaition. The situation itself dictates as to what should be done. . ' Included also would be instruction in what types of social agencies could be recommended to the family in order to receive help if special help is needed (i.e. shelters for battered wives, AA, Alanon, County centers for alchohol or substance abuse, county family crises centers). COURT FUNCTIONS CRIME PREEENTION TASK 4g; Conggct community relations (I) The academy did not provide any information, or materials, about how to start neighborhood watches, crime prevention, etc. Although academy class time would not be necessary to cover the topic, handouts could be provided for reference. 166 TASK 59-5§:.§R1n§ SCENEOSEARCH r (1) Need more practical exercises in search methods. TASK 50: Search fire debris for evidence (1) Some procedures or tactics to use to investigate automobile arson should be provided. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION TASK 65: Determine whether incidents are criminal/civil (1) Many of the complaints I’ve handeled, or assited in handling have involved recently decriminalized matters, or in the case of spouse abuse, have involved criminalized matters. Family fights, spouse abuse, civil/criminal matters. I feel how to determine if matters are civil or criminal should be covered in more detail and the should be given more information on where to obtain up-to-date written material about changes in this area. TASK'77: Recruit confidential informants (I) The outcome of certain situations is usually the result of a citizen’s action. Since my hiring, I have seen the verteran officers break a case by relying on a confidential informant; however, it is difficult for one to recruit a confidential informant if the person does not know how to go about it correctly. Just with a few hours of training an officer how to recruit a confidential informant may be very helpful in an officers future; it would not only help the officer solve cases, but it would also make the officer look good. TASK 7§-§5: DRIVING (1) I realize that resources and facilities are limited in training recruits driving skills they will need as a police officer, but I feel more training is needed as a large portion of an officers work is done in and with an automobile. 167 (2) Take more than one day for this subject. So much of the officers work is with the patrol vehicle. Have a chapter on when to engage in high speed pursuits and when to know to terminate them. I (3) I have been in five (5) high speed pursuits since I have been on the department. I have not crashed as of yet, but I sure wish the extra week of pursuit driving that is offered at Macomb Police Academy was offered at OCC. Most of my time is spent driving around the township, and although I think I’m a good driver, it would have been good to have a driving program. (4) I would add at least three (3) days to the academy schedule to instruct recruits on high speed driving. with the current publicity on police accidents it is my belief that this subject should be demonstrated in the field and not in the class room. while I realize that there is a budget problem in this type of training, I still believe that it should be included, if not made mandatory, in all police academy classes. (5) A driving course should be part of the academy training. (6) At the time I attended O.P.A., the facilities were limited and it was impossible to adequately cover the topic of high-speed driving. This has been a controversial topic and there are more and more suits going through the courts involving police officers and high-speed crashes. Because of this I believe there should be more time devoted to high-speed driving, both in an urban setting and rural setting. All cadets should be exposed to high-speed chase situations where they are subject to the stresses resulting from keeping contact with the fleeing vehicle, the distraction of the emergency equipment, remaining in radio contact with the base and avoiding the other traffic. This could be done both in the daylight and night. It could also be done on a skid pad to simulate icy or wet pavement. when my class (81-2) attended O.P.A. the problems and the liability were covered, but there was no actual I'hands-on" experience. If this could be overcome, it would in my opinion, be very helpful to rookies. (7) 168 My first medical emergency run was a medical emergency (lady in labor). I have driven fast before, but never with lights and siren. It was January and the roads were slick. I was going South, hit a patch of ice and ended up going North. I would like to see a pursuit driving course initiate into the basic police academy. I drive what I call common sense - defensive driving. You can’t help anyone_if you fail to get to the scene. (8) Need a defensive driving program for the academy. (9) Unfortunately we did not have any kind of driving when I attended the police academy. There are driving techniques pertaining to felony stops which I had to learn and which I do not consider just common sense. Proper techniques used during a felony stop may save a life. The importance of advising dispatch of the stop, requesting proper back-up assistance, proper positioning of the vehicle and officer, utilizing the P.A. and microphone, and giving orders must be practiced. I found that many of the tactics shown at the academy did not allow the student to practice as part of the training. I found by doing the tactic myself, I was better able to comprehend and for a longer duration. (10) Need practicla driving exercises, especialy pursuit tactics and options. (11) Our academy did not have an actual driving exercise in the driving class. Precision driving is a very important police need which is not being currently met. Emphasis should be placed on calmness and not killing yourself because your so wrapped up in the chase. One must consider the risks and dangers of losing their own life as well as others. (See TASK 79) TASK 79: Engage in high speed driving in congested area (1) I now understand that an additional week has been added to the basic acdemy for driving. This is something that we should not have missed. I understand that there may not have been adequate materials and time for previous classes. Since one officer has been involved in a tragic accident which resulted in a double fatality our officers would just 169 as son not bother chasing a vehicle that would require a high speed pursuit. (2) Need actual hand on performance driving training; especially pertaining to accident avoidance. Advice on hihg speed driving should be patterened after Shoot - Don’t Shoot (eg. Fast Pursuit - Not Fast). (3) Practice is required, without it high speed driving is too dangerous; especially the first chase. (4) If it wasn’t for military police experience I would have had no experience or idea how to drive in a pursuit situation. If possible a course in pursuit driving would be extremely helpful. (I) Recruits should be instructed about giving tests. Also, proper report writing pertaining to O.U.I.L. arrests should address notations about road conditions, lighting conditions, suspect appearence and weather conditions. The classic examples illustrating a vehicle being operated by an intoxicated driver should be covered. (2) Need more training in identifying OUILs’. There are some good films available. More field test training is needed. P.B.T. instruction can be learned in 30 minutes. TASK 86: Arrest O.U.I.L. suspect (1) Officer should be able to identify the O.U.I.L. offender from the non-offender. The officer needs to know more than the fact that someone may be O.U.I.L. at any time of the day. You need to have some information about what you should do once you have identified an O.U.I.L. driver. Case reports are important and you should be able to document what happened prior to driving and after the arrest. Information should be given on how to develop and perform the arrest (i.e. account for person, car, speach, odors, and general non-verbal clues). The officer needs help with being provided some kind of plan before conducting the 170 arrest. Officer needs to understand liquor law violations as they relate to traffic stops. Also, how does an officer deal with the O.U.I.L. driver who doesn’t cooperate? My first incident was totally different from what I expected. There is more to an O.U.I.L. stop than meets the eye. For example, the possible ramifications of letting the O.U.I.L. driver go might result in a person injury. Officer needs to know how to use his discretion. TA§K p7: Operate brgathalzzer (1) with the new laws it would be easier and better if each officer did conduct his own test for court. EMERQENCY PREPAREDNESS-DISASTER CONTROL FIELD NOTETAKINQ AND REPORT NRITINQ TASK 94: Spmmgrigg in writing the statemgnts of witnesseg and complainants (I) Not enough can be said about the importance of being able to condense witneess and complainants statements into complete and to the point paragraphs. Report writing is probably one of the most important aspects of an officers job. Everything that transpires during a tour of duty goes down on paper and if the officer is unable to satisfactorily complete his paperwork he will be lost later when he must refer back to his report for information needed for court, etc. The instruction received in the academy was satisfactory but I feel quite a bit more time should be spent on this task. The importance of the written report should be drilled into the recruits mind. Instruction stressing the fact that all elements of the crime (situation) should be included in the report. Their report should have exact statements for witnesses and'complainants, but sometimes the witness or complainant rambles on and on about a situation which if written in a report would be wortheless statements. The old adage 'just the facts ma’am' most times can be applied to the written report. The instruction was there but just covered the basics when the subject could have been developed more deeply without being an advanced class. TASK 97 Writg narrative reports (1) More actual basic report writing addressing content, form and clarity. 171 (2) This subject is crucial. Many rookies at our department have lost their jobs because they could not grasp report writing. Most of our writing deals with interviews and investigations, not fill in the blank type reports. Report writing speed and detailed content is very important. PrOper academy training will aid rookies in that they will not have to spend so much time on the job trying to write satisfactory reports. However, the writing problem may only be at my police agency. FINQERPRINTING & PALMPRINTING TASK 101: Fingerprinting prisoners (1) Fingerprinting prisoners was a problem area for me since on occasion I had to print a prisoner 2 or 3 times until I obtained a full set of readable prints. Of course this is sometimes expected with uncooperative or intoxicated prisoners, but I even had problems with the very cooperative prisoners. when I was required to print these people again, I felt embarrassed and unprofessional. As you know some people are easier to print than others due to their flexibility, finger size, etc. I think you should be able to find recruits in the class that print differently and then use these recruits as printees. Another factor is that the equipment our department has is different than what the academy uses. This usually caused under inking or over inking of the finger. This is one adjustment made by the recruit upon reaching his department. TASK 102-10§: FIREARMS TRAINING (I) Need to change entire firearms program. Need different instructors. TASK 104: Participate in firearms training I (I) The survival vs. survival would be good for the basic academy. For right now the only officer able and willing to take the course are those who are truly concerned about their own survival and the welfare to the citizen. Of course some offices are not given time off from their work to attend any class beyond basic academy. It would be a decent idea to have all officers take this course in order to find out what their reactions may be like in a firefight situation. 172 FIRST AID INTnglew p INTERROGATION TASK 137-149: JAILOQPERATIONS (1) The running of our jail is very interesting. There was a lot of information that was passed over. (2) Most important factors: A. NO weapons in jail 8. Medical care obtaine BEFORE lodging subjects C. Record all injuries and care rendered D. Checking for warrants and pending cases before releasing subjects E. Filling out arrest forms for EACH charge F. THOROUGHLY search subjects before lodging - can be done at jail before entering main area. I have found the following contraband: several knives, drugs in containers and sewn in clothing and guns (seldom). G. Signing out prisoners for court H. Returning prisoners with court paperwork - EVERY time - even if nothing happened. (2) Did not explain jail operations well enough. Need an experienced jail officer to instruct this section of the program. TASK 157: Dusting and lifting latent prints (1) when I first started my job, I felt inadequate in my latent print abilities. I usually ended up requesting another officer to come to the crime scene to dust and lift the prints that I had found. Not knowing how the case may evolve, I was afraid that if I tried to lift the print I may ruin it. If the case did develop to the stage where there was a suspect, this one print may prove all important. I did not want to take this risk, so I called for assistance. After this happened a few times I finally decided that I would do some training on my own. I spent several hours dusting and lifting prints from different locations and objects. Only after the extra trainng did I feel sufficient in dusting and lifting prints. If I recall correctly we only had the opportunity to lift one print while in the academy. I believe maybe requiring 173 the recruit to lift at least 5 prints from different objects and surfaces would greatly improve the recruits proficiency. JUVENIL PROCESS LAT PRINTS MISCELANEOQS MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION OFFICE AND QLERICAL TASK 19§-232: PATROL OPERATIONS (1) Overall I felt that almost all topics were covered quite well; however, I think the program would improve in areas like patrol operations, traffic stops, arresting of persons, etc. if there was more hands on activity. Time permitting, training should cover step by step the mechanics of searching a fresh breaking and entering of a business when only two (2) or four (4) officers are available to investigate and secure a building. TASK 195: (Identify wanted vehichles or people) when recieveing the description of a perpetrator or wanted vehicle it should be emphasized in the academy what information is important and what information is not needed. Patrol operations should include different methods (pros & cons) of response to various kinds of crimes. TASK 19¢: Transport Mental Patients (1) Advise the recruits of how these people often react -- that their actions are usually extreme. In my opinion they should be handcuffed and watched very carefully. TA 07: Comfort Emotionall U set Persons (1) This task was not covered at all. Sometimes you’ve just got to let the emotionally upset people cry on your shoulder, etc. ASK 9° warnin ffenders A good deal of time was spent on telling officers that most tasks are dictated by department policy. I believe aolittle 174 more information should be provided as to just how much discretion officers have. Although teaching discretion is difficult, and much of it is common sense, instruction should provide some practical choices for officers instead of having them wonder about what can they do? This was never addressed. The legal section of the academy is very good. Continue with the teaching method which gets all involved by direct questioning of each student. Keep them alert as well as making them continually think about, 'How would I answer that question?- Not every offender should be issued a violation. Show how a warning may be more appropriate. TASK 233-254: PHYSICA TRAININQLAND DEFENSIVE TACTICS (I) I believe the physical training and defensive tactics training was excellent, as well as the instructors. However, some of the tasks covered in the survey were not covered at all in the academy such as: climbing, pulling objects, etc. It would be helpful to have these things into the program. (2) I would like to see the Lamb method of defense brought into the program. I have not had to use it much but the time I did it worked well. Takedowns and alot of other defensive moves were not practiced and have been rarely used. (3) At our police department the most common way of subduing prisoners who resist is the carotid restraint hold. I did not recieve any training on this hold at the academy. (4) An obstacle course which required climbing, balance, etc. would be a good confidence builder for the academy and recruits. TASK ***: Disarming Suspects (5) This wasn’t included in the training. what do you do with people threatening sucide, or kids with knives -- it certainly doesn’t do any good to shoot them! Also, weapon retention was not covered!!! «TASK ***: Physical Combat 175 (6) Physical combat is another area which is weak. I believe the inservice eight hour Suvival course could satisfy the academy as a good standard for students. TASK 235: Handcuff suspects or prisoners (1) More emphasis.is needed for actually apprhension of suspects. Not enough handcuffing techniques covered. I found if you don’t subdue someone properly your handcuffs can become a weapon used against you. (2) Obviously, handcuffing is an often used procedure by an officer. An officer will seldom, if ever, feel secure until a criminal is correctly handcuffed. In the academy, very little time was spent on this subject. I believe much more time is needed, along with a close eye on each officers movements. - (3) More emphasis should be placed on handcuffing prisoners. Speed, proper safety techniques and position of the handcuffs in case are all important. The training at the acadey was too brief. POLICE COMMUNICATIONS TASK 257: Inform dispatch by radio.as to your status (1) As both a dispatch and police officer I have often witnessed police officers, including veterans, conduct a traffic stop without calling it in and advising on status. Sometimes this happens even during priority runs, which result in a second car being dispatched when it is unnecessary. TASK 261: Operating LEIN (1) while the classroom information on the uses and capabilities of LEIN is good, I think some practical use should be provided. LEIN is such a utilized instrument that better knowing how it works and performs would enable the officer \ to know what to ask for while on steet patrol. Many smaller departments,yse their personnel to peform many functions and therefore they would benefit from officers being able to 176 operate the LEIN terminal. Need hands on experience. (2) At the time of the academy I felt the LEIN training was a waste of time. After having the opportunity to work inside the communications rooms several days I realized the importance of the computerized system. Now I appreciate the information that can be obtained. I believe that a bit more time on what information can be obtained through LEIN, and maybe how to obtain the information, needs to be stessed in the academy more stringently. S RCH & SEIZURE TASK 263: Conduct field search of arrested persons when students team up with partners during physical training, have partners search one another while they are in street clothes or their uniforms. Let the searches try to hide numberous simulated guns or knives on their person and see how many searches miss or recover placed items. The instructor could also serve as the searchee. You can also take this idea one step further and hide guns in the passenger area of a vehicle and let students search the vehicle within a given time limit. TESTIFYING IN COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS TASK 272: Testify in griminal case (1) More actual role play is needed with cross examination by a lawyer. Do this in a class session with all students participating as 'officer' at least once. TRAFFIC CONTROL TASK Q77: Stop vehicles to investigate, cite or arrest gccupants (I) D The instruction given along the lines of this topic was right on target with the mock traffic stops and arrests. The only thing that could be improved at the present is a wider variety of stop situations and allow each recruit to act out each situation. I77 TASK 2&2: Clock vehicle using radar (1) Since traffic is a large portion of police work and because most agencies use the radar instrument, I believe that to be trained and certified in the use of radar would be greatly beneficial to the new officer. I understand that the actual classroom instruction is not too lengthy and much of the certification requirements is based on time spent using the radar unit on patrol. If this could be taught near the end of the training program it could be completed after a short period of time working on the road. I have been working on patrol for one and a half years now and have yet to have been certified for radar. working and other obligations often make it difficult to get to the training programs. TASK 303: Visually estimate speed of vehigles (1) Since my department spends much of its time on park patrol on Oakland County Parks we are expected to enforce the posted spped limit of 15 MPH. we do not have radar and must rely on our vehicle speedometer. It is relatively easy to visually estimate whether an automobile is traveling at 15 MPH or 30 MPH. The problem that exists is whether a police officerf can legally judge the speed of a moving vehicle with out any mechanical assistance? I have stopped vehicles that I judged were speeding. I based my estimate of speed on: (1) Trail of dust; (2) stones being tossed up by the tires; (3) the amount of bouncing the tires do as the vehicle travels over the gravel road; and, (4) sound. Yet, I have not issued a citation to anyone I stopped based on visual estimate. Each time the driver admitted to speeding at least 5 MPH over the posted limit. Is my method of determining the speed correct? Can a police officer issue a traffic citation bsed on visual estimation? How accurate is visual estimations? Are certain speeds easire to estimate than other speeds? what type of training is necessary in order to visually estimate speeds? OTHER TASK N/A: Stess - on and gff the Jog (1) Stress today is at a all time high. More classes and job awareness programs would be helpful. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A. Books Ammerman, Harry L. and Pratzner, Frank C. r Qgppgp1_1gp_ggg_lgglgpgg . Vol.2. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, March, 1977. Bloom 8- 8- WM . cited by Lee J. Cronbach, 'Course Improvement Through Evaluation'. rri ul m n v I i , pp. 319-333. Edited by Arno A. Bellack and Herbert H. Kliebard. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1977. Blum, Richard H. Egllgg_§glgg;lgp . Springfield, Illinois: ' Charles C. Thomas, 1964. Cronbach, Lee J. 'Course Improvement Through Evaluation'. r' val t , pp.319-333. Edited by Arno A. Bellack and Herbert M. Kliebard. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1977. Earl. Howard H- Wining Sprinofieid. Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1973. Ban-nadir. Allen 2- Wm - Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1963. Kl iebard, Herbert H. 'The Tyler Rationale'. 211.112.1521.!!! gng_§gplgggigp , pp. 56-67. Edited by Arno A. Bellack and Herbert H. Kliebard. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1977. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. Eggjgg;_51afil Vol. 11. Santa Cruz, California: Anderson - Davis Publishing Co., 1976. Parker. Alfred E- WW: . New York: The Macmillan Company, 1928. Roberg, R. gnggglpg_flgllgg_figlg . San Jose, California: Justice Systems Development, Inc., 1976. Swodors. Charles B-e Jr- W - washington D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1970. 178 179 Seitzinger, Jack. A l v I l m ntati n f a s emi n l i a c' i n i l f nf T i ‘n . wayne State University, Ph.D., 1974. Stake, Robert E. 'The Countenance of Educational Evaluation'. i l m n v I i , pp. 372-90. Edited by Arno A. Bellack and Herbert M. Kliebard. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1977. 8. ARTICLES Prien, Erich P., and Roman, Uilliam U. 'Job Analysis: A Review of Research Findings.‘I figgggppgl_flgzgnglggz , Terman, Lewis M. 'A Trial of Mental and Pedagogical Tests in a Civil Service Examination for Policemen and Fir-mon'- i2ucosl_9£_ennlisd_flszsbnlnsz - (March C. STATE ACTS Michigan. ’ i 293 - assists: - (1965>- ‘ '0. GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT Bolinger, et.al. 'Police Training Evaluation: A systemic approach.‘ Toledo/Lucas County Criminal Justice Supervisory Council, 1975. Kuhn, Bern J., et.aI. 'Composite Report of Administrative Procedures, Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Program Development Study, A Report to the Michigan Law Emforcement Training Council', Grant #177 from U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office oqu.E.E.A., March, 1968. Michigan Law Enforcement Officers’ Training Council, 'Michigan Patrol Officer Selection and Training Standards.‘ State of Michigan, 1981. Michigan Law Enforcement Officers’ Training Council, 'Statewide Job Analysis of the Police Patrol Officer Position.‘ State of Michigan, 1979. Office of Criminal Justici Education and Training, i ti - ' ' ‘ ' . U.S. Government: Uashington D.C., 197B. 180 E. UNPUBLISHED REPORTS AND PAPERS Houghtaling, Timothy C. 'A Review of the College Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Training Program in Michigan.“ Michigan State University, 1976. Moore, Brian E. l'Occupational Analysis for Human Resource Development: A Review of Utility of the Task Inventory,‘I Research Report No, 25, ONR Contract No. N-00014-75-00616 with the University of Texas, 1976. Michigan Law Enforcement Officers’ Training Councl, 'Law Enforcement Training in the United States: A Survey of State Law Enforcement Training Commissions.‘ State of Michigan, 1972. ‘ Van Beveren, Leslie letter to Michigan Basic Police Academy Coordinators. October 19, 1983, MLEOTC, Lansing, Michigan. . Michigan Law Enforcement Officers’ Training Council, 'Project COSTER, Phase I Report', 1975. Michigan Law Enforcement Officers’ Training Council, Unpublished Staff Report, 1976. Plog, Deborah M. 'Assessment of Michigan’s Basic Police Training System.‘ State of Michigan, 1981.