The Sisyphus Comments

White Paper: Is This the Best Way to Develop, Deliver and Manage Criminal Justice Training?

A discussion of issues related to alternative training delivery methods for criminal justice personnel

Background

During the recent General Assembly session, Delegate Watkins Abbott, of Appomattox, introduced budget language that tasked the Department of Criminal Justice Services to conduct a study of alternative training delivery method for criminal justice officers. For the purposes of this study, alternative training delivery methods included any methods other than the traditional academy instructor/classroom, practical exercise, and practice-oriented skill training methods. This included computer-based training, electronic classroom, any form of distance training, TV or video format used as the primary mode of delivery (not videos used as an aid and/or part of regular instruction) such as LETN, teleconferencing, college or university courses, or any other form of non-conventional academy training. During the past two months, agency administrators and academy directors throughout the state received a survey from the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) concerning this issue. DCJS will also be conducting seven public forums at locations throughout the state to gather additional information for this study. The forums will consider whether methods such as distance learning and community colleges class exemptions can be used as an alternative methods to deliver criminal justice training to both in-service and entry level criminal justice personnel.

Alternate Training Methods Already Available For In-service Training

The use of alternative delivery methods for in-service training in not a new concept in Virginia. For many years, DCJS and academies throughout the state have actively supported the use of alternative delivery methods for in-service training. In fact, pending changes to the in-service training requirements were designed to encourage the use of technology and to streamline the approval processes for alternative training delivery methods. Several academies recently participated in a successful pilot program to develop the use of on-line in-service training programs. Existing in-service training regulations provide for the use of a variety of alternative delivery methods including:

1. Interactive CD-ROM courses
2. On-line training courses
3. Satellite presentations
4. LETN
5. Completed college courses

The use of these alternative delivery programs as a compliment to existing in-service classroom training opportunities have proven to be a benefit in a variety of manners including:

1. Reduction in the need for classroom instructional support
2. Officers remain available for emergency service while participating in on-line programs
3. Training courses are available 24 hours per day – 7 days per week
4. Increased availability of career development training to all interested persons
5. Availability for use as a remedial training tool
6. Pre-course knowledge enhancement training
7. Significant reduction in training man-hours required to meet mandated in-service training requirements
8. Increase knowledge retention

During the past two years, several academies have developed active on-line training programs that cover a wide variety of in-service topics including:

1. Delivery of prerequisite training requirements in such areas as instructor development, firearms instructor certification and crowd control
2. Forty hour in-service courses for law enforcement and jailor/court services personnel
3. Stand alone cultural diversity, legal updates, flying armed and bloodborne pathogens training
4. Combination CD-ROM course content and on-line testing for weapons of mass destruction and terrorism training

Despite the many benefits of using these alternate training methods for in-service instruction, discretion must be exercised when selecting which training topics are suitable for delivery using these methods. Each course should be evaluated prior to using alternative methods of delivery to insure that the material can be delivered effectively. The quality of the delivery and the integrity of the training program should be the primary consideration for agency administrators and training personnel. Issues such as reduced training costs and the reduction of training man-hours should be considered ancillary benefits.

Additionally, training professionals should resist the temptation to believe that all training delivery methods are suitable for all students. Experience has demonstrated that, although the vast majority of students rate their on-line training experience as positive, some students simply do not learn well in a non-traditional learning environment. Placing a ?square peg? student in a ?round hole? training environment defeats the ultimate purpose of training which is to impart knowledge in a manner that will help the student retain a high percentage of the information. In the case of on-line training, the programs are typically reading intensive. A student who experiences difficulty retaining information that he has read will not benefit from participation in an on-line program, regardless of the benefit to the employing agency.

Finally, each academy or agency must do a cost benefit analysis before starting any type of alternative delivery training program. Some programs, such as interactive CD-ROM training, involve a nominal one time investment. However, the information contained in these programs is often very generic or may quickly become dated. On-line training programs provide the opportunity to tailor the curriculum to fit the needs of the academy?s member agencies but it also has some pitfalls. The primary hurdle that must be overcome is the cost. The training agency must either purchase or lease a dedicated server and contract to have the server hosted on the internet. The training delivery software that provides the infra-structure for the programs normally costs $10,000 – $15,000 per year. Finally, the academy must either hire or contract with personnel who are qualified to design course content and administer the on-line training software. Despite these issues, six of the ten regional academies, with a combined population of over 10,000 officers, are currently operating on-line training programs. Obviously, the 275 agencies whose officers benefit from participating in an academy that operates an on-line training program believe that benefit is worth the expense.

Academies throughout the state normally have 4 – 6 months to transition a newly hired individual into a fully functioning criminal justice officer. This includes instilling the knowledge and skills necessary to serve in one of the few occupations in which society bestows the legal authority to restrict a citizen?s freedom and use deadly force in the performance of their duties. Over the years, our profession has done remarkably well in the effort to accomplish this task. We have developed comprehensive entry level programs that instill knowledge, skills, ethics and values in recruit officers. This is accomplished through the use of a systematic approach where every aspect of the training program is strictly controlled, including the training environment, course content, instructional methods and the evaluation processes. Each class builds upon the foundation that was laid by the preceding classes and, in the end, the student should be prepared to deal effectively with the complexities of the profession. If any component of the system is removed or replaced with a block of instruction that doesn?t accomplish the expected goals for a given class, all future classes and the overall quality of the program may be impacted.

In this period of dwindling resources, agency administrators are being forced to re-examine the methods, effectiveness and costs of existing programs. Naturally, one might ask if it would be practical to adopt some of the alternative training delivery methods that have been successful for in-service training to the entry level training environment.

One such concept that has been periodically suggested over the years is to grant entry level training exemptions to recruits who have completed college courses. Problems arise when administrators mistakenly begin to view ?education? and ?training? as synonymous processes. While these two processes share some common ground in that the goal of both is to impart knowledge, there is a vast difference in approach that is used to accomplish this goal. Educational institutions tend to approach the learning process from a theoretical perspective that is intended to stimulate thought and broaden a student?s perspective on a given issue. Training academies take a more practical approach to the learning process. For example, while a constitutional law professor may encourage an examination of the logic and points of law involved in a given court ruling, a training academy would tend to focus on the impact of the ruling on law enforcement procedures. While both approaches have merit, they are not interchangeable.

However, at first blush, this may be an attractive concept to an administrator who envisions reduced training costs and a shorter training academy. Unfortunately, after examining the practical aspects of implementing this concept, it becomes apparent that the agency will not realize either of these benefits. Regional academies receive recruit officers and deputies from many different agencies with a wide variety of employment policies and educational requirements. As a result, unless all of the students in a given class had successfully completed a given college course and were exempted from a given block of instruction, the academy would still have to conduct the class as part of the normal curriculum. In fact, most of the college courses that have been mentioned as examples of college courses that would be eligible for exemption credit (i.e constitutional law, cultural diversity etc.) would be lecture formatted courses. As such, the number of students attending the course does not have a significant impact on the cost of delivering the course.

Another consideration is that exempting certain students from scheduled blocks of academy training would actually cause logistical problems for the employing agency. Students who receive an exemption from a class would have to be scheduled for some other departmental assignment while their classmates attend the regularly scheduled block of instruction at the academy. It may also present problems for the exempted student later in the academy when the student will be required to pass practical examinations. The evaluation criteria for the practical examinations are based on the instruction that the non-exempted students received at the academy, not the instruction that an exempted student received at an alternative training site.

To this point we have discussed the practical problems that would be created by exempting recruit officers from entry level training based on completed college courses. However, there are other intrinsic issues that must be considered. Criminal justice agencies, through their respective training academies, are expected to prepare a recruit officer with little or no job experience for one of the most responsible and demanding professions in our society in approximately six months. As such, the entry level academy is more than a place to instill information in the new recruit officers. The academy also serves as an indoctrination center to teach the new recruits to function in a quasi-military environment. During the entry level training session, the academy staff endeavors to instill discipline in the recruits with an emphasis on following orders from superior officers and working within a chain of command. These concepts may be entirely foreign to a new recruit whose job experience is limited to serving as a lifeguard at the local pool during the summer. While attending the academy, each recruit is instilled with an understanding of how teamwork and esprit de corps can positively impact the accomplishment of organizational goals. Finally, during entry level training, recruit officers form the foundation for a network of law enforcement contacts that will serve them throughout their career. These relationships are forged through the sharing of challenging experiences. Students who attend entry level training under a training option frequently lament that they never really have a sense of ?belonging? to the class because they are not present to share in all of the experiences of their class. Fortunately, only previously certified officers currently qualify for a training option, so they have already experienced the positive aspects of sharing an entry level training experience. This would not be the case if students were exempted from training based on previously attended college courses.

In 1983, DCJS adopted the first performance based training system for entry level training throughout Virginia. Recruit officers were required to demonstrate proficiency in each of the tasks (training objectives) that were identified during a job task analysis (JTA). Eventually, a similar system was developed for entry level jailor/court services and dispatcher recruits. In 1998, DCJS completed an updated JTA that identified a revised list of over 1700 mandated ?training criteria? for entry level law enforcement training. DCJS is currently in the process of revising the jailor/court services curriculum. Training academies throughout the state are required to document that each recruit officer received instruction on each mandated criteria and subsequently demonstrated proficiency in each criteria by successfully completing a written or practical testing instrument. In most college environments, this type of instruction and evaluation system would be inconsistent with present course protocols.

Although most community colleges have some standards established for recording attendance, students report that adherence to attendance requirements vary widely depending on the professor. Professors also exercise broad discretion in the evaluation and grading systems that are used. College level education professionals also tend to cherish their academic freedom and may not willingly embrace the aforementioned training and evaluation requirements. In addition, professors who instruct entry level training equivalent courses may be included in the liability loop during civil actions where an officer?s training is called into question.

Assuming that the issues discussed above could be worked out, another area of concern would be compliance monitoring of the participating educational institutions. Under current regulations, representative from DCJS inspect the facilities and records of each certified academy in Virginia every third year. If an academy is found to be deficient in some area, the academy is usually given sixty to ninety days to correct the deficiency. The academy must correct the deficiency and be in full compliance prior to being re-certified. In addition, DCJS field coordinators are required to monitor training at all certified training facilities. The addition of numerous educational institutions to this process would definitely over-tax the present DCJS resources, which are barely able to manage the existing work load. These are just a few procedural issues that should be considered before moving forward with this concept.

Agency administrators might also give some consideration to some other issues that they may take for granted under the current training system. Under the existing system, agency administrators enjoy significant control over the content and operation of the training facilities, regardless of whether they are a member of a regional academy or operate an independent training academy. Administrators have access to lesson plans and course handouts upon request. This may not be the case if entry level students are permitted to take entry level training equivalent college courses as a substitute for academy training. It is not uncommon for some universities to employ professors who use the classroom as a forum to promote a personal political agenda that may be inconsistent with the goal of training entry level criminal justice officers. Administrators may have little or no control over the course content, professional experience or political inclination of the professor. Although this may create a healthy environment for discussion in an academic environment, it would not foster a healthy learning environment for criminal justice officers who are trying to master the basics of their chosen profession.

The final issue to consider regarding entry level training equivalent college courses is how will DCJS determine which courses will meet the test for credit? One student related an experience he had while attending criminal justice classes at a major mid-western university. He enrolled in a constitutional law class that ended up having nothing to do with criminal procedures. The entire course was built around Supreme Court cases regarding interstate commerce and employment related issues. The point being that his college transcript would show that he successfully completed a constitutional law class and, unless additional documentation were required, one might assume that he could be exempt from the constitutional law issues in entry level training.

Conclusion

During previous discussions of the entry level training equivalent college credit issues, proponents have pointed to Florida and other states who have successfully integrated criminal justice training into their community college system. However, what they fail to consider is that, over thirty years ago, Virginia made a choice to develop a system of regional and independent academies to provide criminal justice training throughout the state. The state and local governments have a significant investment in this system and these academies continue to provide outstanding training and value when compared to other states.

One of our chiefs is fond of saying, ‘If you want to ride the train, you have got to buy a ticket.?” Fortunately, the cost of the ticket for training an entry level criminal justice officer in Virginia is very reasonable by any standard. However, the only way to insure that the entry level training program continues to accomplish the desired goals is to require recruit officers to attend all of their mandated training at the academy. Remember, most recruit officers have only one opportunity to attend entry level training during their careers. The foundation of knowledge and skills that will be laid during entry level training will support their development throughout the balance of their careers.