Two Tier Police Recruitment?

[Sukerkin]

A very intriguing article on a plan to change police recruitment over here in the UK:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21199782

I can see both sides to the argument on this one but my heart says I want police 'leaders' to know what it is like to break up a fight in a pub or know where the drug dealers tend to hang out on which council estates.

 

[Tgace]

I think the solution to changing technology is recruiting and hiring people as non-LE employees who act as specialists under police supervision.

Cops should be led by cops.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[jks9199]

It's much the same in the US; generally, you start out as a beat cop and if you make all the right moves, you may find yourself a chief one day, having filled a number of positions along the way. There are occasional exceptions, where chiefs are appointed from some unusual background, and most sheriffs are elected, and often have no requirement for LE service before election. Let's ignore the exceptions for the moment...

Typically, for someone to make it to chief in the space of a 25 to 30 year career, the progression would run something like this: 4 to 5 years as a patrol officer, maybe some time as a detective or some other specialty. They'll make sergeant fairly quickly -- like inside of 10 years of service. Possibly inside of 5... And they'll keep moving up steadily every few years, supervising in various specialties with increasing sizes of staffs. By 15 to 20 years, in a large agency, they'll be at captain or major, and probably running a division or precinct. Let's be honest: a guy or gal greasing for chief can't spend a lot of time as a grunt... but they started there.

And that's what's important. Because the chief is going to be assessing and held responsible for the decisions that the patrol officer makes in a fraction of a second, under crappy conditions, with limited information... and I, for one, think the chief has to have walked in those shoes to understand it, and a myriad other things about the job. He or she doesn't have to be able to do every job in the department -- but they have to have that basic core understanding. Some may point out that military leaders don't have to start as line soldiers -- but there is a major difference in autonomy at the line level. A private doesn't have to think; they just have to do what they're told. Even junior NCOs aren't expected to think so much as to know how to carry out the task assigned. A rookie cop, walking out of the station for their first shift out of the academy has the autonomy to arrest, or even to kill, to a vastly greater degree -- and I think you just have to have been there to do assess that. (Civilian oversight is a different issue than day-to-day supervision and management.)

 

[oftheherd1]

It's much the same in the US; generally, you start out as a beat cop and if you make all the right moves, you may find yourself a chief one day, having filled a number of positions along the way. There are occasional exceptions, where chiefs are appointed from some unusual background, and most sheriffs are elected, and often have no requirement for LE service before election. Let's ignore the exceptions for the moment...

Typically, for someone to make it to chief in the space of a 25 to 30 year career, the progression would run something like this: 4 to 5 years as a patrol officer, maybe some time as a detective or some other specialty. They'll make sergeant fairly quickly -- like inside of 10 years of service. Possibly inside of 5... And they'll keep moving up steadily every few years, supervising in various specialties with increasing sizes of staffs. By 15 to 20 years, in a large agency, they'll be at captain or major, and probably running a division or precinct. Let's be honest: a guy or gal greasing for chief can't spend a lot of time as a grunt... but they started there.

And that's what's important. Because the chief is going to be assessing and held responsible for the decisions that the patrol officer makes in a fraction of a second, under crappy conditions, with limited information... and I, for one, think the chief has to have walked in those shoes to understand it, and a myriad other things about the job. He or she doesn't have to be able to do every job in the department -- but they have to have that basic core understanding. Some may point out that military leaders don't have to start as line soldiers -- but there is a major difference in autonomy at the line level. A private doesn't have to think; they just have to do what they're told. Even junior NCOs aren't expected to think so much as to know how to carry out the task assigned. A rookie cop, walking out of the station for their first shift out of the academy has the autonomy to arrest, or even to kill, to a vastly greater degree -- and I think you just have to have been there to do assess that. (Civilian oversight is a different issue than day-to-day supervision and management.)[/QUOTE]

Agree with everything you have said except I think your military anology is just a little bit off. If I understand, Inspector grade in Britain is the first supervisor level. That would equate to an NCO in the military. Now understand, my military background was the US Army. I can't speak for how other US military works.

US Army officers do indeed start at an upper mid-supervisory level. However, they get specific military training before being turned loose on the troops. The are taught all basic military skill, then branch specific skills, before being assigned to a unit. Once they get to a unit, the smart ones rely on their NCOs to do an NCOs job, and provide training to the lieutenants to make them more skilled in their military occupation specialty, as well as in leading troops. The really smart ones learn to leave the NCOs to do most things.

During the latter parts of the Vietnam war, the Army decided it would be a really good idea to identify selected people in basic and Advanced Individual Training, and send them to a special NCO school, then promote them to Staff Sergeant (SSG - E6), and turn them loose on the rest of the Army. Many of them knew how little prepared they were to be SSGs. They applied themselves to learning more on the ground, sought advice from peers and seniors, and with some bumbs, pulled it off. Quite a few thought they were their NCO schools gift to the US Army. They didn't do so well, and often screwed things up. It wasn't all their fault. That's pretty much what they had been taught; that they were well educated and fully prepared to do their job.

Several things happened. Those who were working their way up the ladder were dismayed and often disgruntled. Why should they take orders from a SSG who didn't have their experience and ability? The shake and bake NCOs not knowing their job, much less how to do it; things fell through the cracks. Officers found themselves having to get invovled in things they never had to before. The entire NCO corps' reputation suffered. Officers began to think they had to micromanage even senior NCOs. It wasn't pretty. Previously, new officers could learn from NCOs, and count on them to ensure things got done the way they should.

All that to say I agree that leaders should be chosen from those who have done the job, successfully, and have shown leadership ability. The rank and file have more confidence in those who have "done the job." The supervisors have more understanding of the rank and file, and their performance. They know how to recognize good workers, and get mentoring for less good workers. They also know when to let people go if sadly it comes to that. They can more easily cut through any BS, probably having used some of it themselves. Most importantly, they actually know what the job is, having done it. There are some things you just can't teach in a classroom.

A better solution would seem to me to be to identify those thought to be potential command rank candidates, and aid them in getting the education it seems to be felt is needed.

FWIW most police departments in the US require an AA just to be hired. Often, to stay past a certain point, much less to advance, you will probably be required to have an undergrad degree in police work. Higher level management will be more attainable with graduate degrees. Maybe the UK could adapt from that model.

 

[oftheherd1]

I think the solution to changing technology is recruiting and hiring people as non-LE employees who act as specialists under police supervision.

Cops should be led by cops.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

That is often done. But I think there is advantage to having police even in the technical jobs. I feel strongly about that, especially in crime scene investigation and computer forensics. The police mindset, suspicion, and ability to make connections between different types of facts, can aid in solving crimes that those without those traits and experience can't do, or can't do well. I agree, that if that isn't possible for whatever reason, then the police should be involved in guiding all aspects of an investigation.

 

[Carol]

Mindset, suspicion, and ability to make connections between different types of facts -- and being able to apply such a skill to whatever the current environment may be -- is a heavy component of all technical jobs. Geeks are analytics to the core.