Who Wants Training?
Tim Dees
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com
While I had hoped for a better outcome, it’s looking like there really were some errors on the police side of the equation in the May Day riot in Los Angeles. A preliminary report from LAPD indicates that the officers on scene did not know who the incident commander was. The order to fire rubber bullets at the crowd was given by a police captain in a command post several blocks away, while a deputy chief was apparently on the scene or very close at the time that order was given.
A better perspective on the incident can be inferred from two press releases by the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which is the labor association for LA police officers. These announcements list a series of recommendations for training and policy changes that would prevent future incidents from going wrong, and state that training has suffered in favor of keeping up staffing on the street in the undermanned department.
The list of recommended training and policy changes sounds more like it came from management than labor. It includes recommendations for a basic school for officers newly assigned to the LAPD Metro Division, quarterly training for all those assigned to Mobile Field Force operations, and annual training on crowd control for command officers. No demands for more overtime pay, better health benefits, or extra protective equipment — just teach the people who have to do the job how to do it best. That doesn’t sound all that unreasonable to me.
This situation is hardly unique to the LAPD. It’s been a problem nationwide for as long as anyone can remember. Training is always the first victim when the budget is cut or manpower priorities get reassessed. When managers are asked to provide more training, a common response is, “We can’t afford training.” Of course, when an incident like May Day occurs and lawyers are standing in line to file their excessive force and personal injury lawsuits against the department, training looks cheap.
Training is a form of insurance, but one that is much more difficult to analyze on a return-on-investment (ROI) basis. If you train officers in emergency vehicle operations, it’s likely that you will have fewer accidents, fewer injuries, and fewer patrol cars deadlined for damage. But it doesn’t mean you won’t have any, and that’s where the ROI problem comes in. How many accidents did you prevent by spending $100,000 in personnel and materiel costs on the driving course? You can compare this year’s numbers to last year’s, but most agencies aren’t big enough to have a statistically meaningful sample to evaluate. There’s also the problem that one bad accident can make the training appear worthless if a detractor wants to use it that way.
Training is also a big element in risk management. Risks can, in fact, be managed by several methods. Using vehicle accidents as an example, you can eliminate the risk by not driving cars or allowing your people onto the street, but it’s hard to do police work that way. You can transfer the risk by paying an insurance company to assume it for you, but an insurance company that charges you less than it’s likely to cost them won’t be in business long. You can reduce the risk by forbidding officers to engage in any risky driving practices, but cops will be cops. If you hire a guy that doesn’t want to go after the bad guy and catch him, you’ve probably made a bad personnel decision. The balance of all the risk management methods while preserving operational capability is usually to have workable policies in place, ensure that the policies are enforced by supervisors, and to train all of the workforce in the policies and proper driving techniques, making sure that one dovetails with the other. This model applies to just about any other operational facet of policing or anything else.
By the way, if you think that risk management is a big yawner, make it a point to hear my friend Gordon Graham some time. You’ll not only learn a lot, but you’ll enjoy yourself. However, I digress.
It is also difficult to “sell” training to some people. There are too many officers that already know more than they want to, and can’t be bothered with learning anything new. If compelled to go to training, they will sit there like rocks, glaring at the instructor when they’re not doodling or reading a magazine. If the training involves any kind of physical exertion, they will suffer or manufacture an injury. These folks often have more time on the job than their supervisor, and that intimidates the supervisor from doing what he should do to remedy the situation.
Selling training to too many senior management types is even harder. These are folks that haven’t been on the street for two presidents, and they find the idea of doing anything that resembles police work pretty laughable. They’ll condemn an officer who mishandles a firearm or can’t perform CPR properly, but they may have not seen a pistol range or a Resuci-Anne since disco died. You can argue that those skills aren’t part of their job anymore, but I disagree. One of the reasons that the military doesn’t have as many of the leadership problems that policing has is because even the guy with four stars has to show basic proficiency now and then. If he carries a firearm, he has to qualify with it. He has to pass a physical fitness test (how many fat generals have you seen lately?). Someone will remind me which former Marine Corps Commandant replied, when asked what his job was: “I am an infantry rifleman, presently assigned as commandant of the United States Marine Corps.” I admire someone with that kind of focus on the basic mission.
It’s tragic that law enforcement has largely come to regard training as a luxury, rather than a necessity. Donald Rumsfeld rightfully took heat when he told a soldier, “You have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.” We can have the police agencies we want, a least in terms of quality, but they won’t happen just because we want. Training requires some creativity and effort, but it can be done. Roll call sergeants can build training into every briefing, but they often don’t bother because it’s too much trouble with no tangible reward. Work schedules can be arranged to provide a training day once or twice a month, but there has to be something to present those days. That requires that people be motivated to produce the training. Most of this comes down to a leadership issue. If the top dog not only demands that his subordinates provide training, but takes an active role in it himself, everyone else is going to lead, follow, or get out of the way.
It is clear to me that anytime the rank and file are making a better case for training than is management, something is seriously wrong, and it isn’t wrong in just Los Angeles.
We did our own training at my last department. I was on a shift that did not have any rank on it for 3 out of our 6 day rotation. We had a lot of young guys. We all agreed that we wanted to be proficient with our equipment so whenever we had the time we’d practice, troubleshoot and brainstorm different situations. That was some of the best and most useful training I’ve had.
One aspect of “training” not mentioned in my experience; most of our “trianing” is a “dog and pony” show. A lot of boss’s just want you to sign off for liability reasons. All hype and no substance. Any “real” training in my experience is up to the individual to do on his/her own time and expense.
I think Officer training is vital to a workable and able bodied force. It almost sounds like sheer laziness when there in no incentive to be the best and do the best job you are capable of doing, because you have confidence in the training you have received. This in my mind makes for a better LEO all the way around. th u
Attitude towards training is the key to the effectiveness of any training program. If the officers are not allowed any input into what training they think they need, then they will not be willing to always put forth their best effort at any other training. When you allow officers to make suggestions and are open to them it breeds higher morale in regards to training, and a greater sense of ownership in the program.
However, no matter the industry if there is direct link to cost savings or income generation, training is always looked down upon. Money talks.
The wrong training will get you hurt also, nake you training focus on the problem(s) that you are dealing with. Trying to be a Jack of all trades and Master of none is also not the answer.