Screening candidates for law enforcement employment is a matter of risk assessment. The agency views risk from the lens of vicarious liability (i.e., the legal responsibility one has for the hiring of unqualified personnel). Were the applicant to be hired and a civil suit result from an officer’s intentional or negligent action, the agency, and its executive director, would likely be named as parties in that suit. In a much broader sense, there is inherent risk associated with hiring an individual who is inept at protecting the public. Any mistakes the officer makes reflect on the integrity of the agency. In order to try to find the best applicants, law enforcement agencies often employ a multiple hurdles selection process.
A multiple hurdles approach is a conventional preemployment practice used by most agencies; it requires applicants to pass each stage of the hiring process to advance to final consideration for employment. Failure to satisfactorily clear any hurdle will generally remove the candidate from further consideration. While some agency policies differ in their manner of execution, there are established norms within the profession. This article describes each stage of the multiple hurdles approach in the law enforcement screening process, then concludes with an examination of public policy recommendations that might allow agencies to further evaluate their preemployment process.
Multiple Hurdles Approach
Most police agencies utilize the multiple hurdles approach as a risk assessment mechanism, thus increasing the likelihood of selecting the best candidate for police work. Ultimately, each element of the hiring process has a hurdle the candidate must clear to advance. Thus, the collective criteria that comprise the multiple hurdles hiring process are their own individual risk assessment. Each hurdle or stage provides actuarial information about the risk or benefit posed by each candidate and assists police executives in predicting whether the candidate will be successful in a law enforcement setting. Each stage should be a fair assessment of the type of skills necessary to be successful in today’s law enforcement setting.
The individual hurdles function as mini-risk assessment tools, and the entire set of hurdles should inform the overall hiring decision. Collectively, this risk assessment tool has been used to narrow the focus of desired police officer characteristics and has been shown to reduce discrimination claims. Each subsequent hurdle in the process is designed to be more intrusive, more time- consuming, and thus, more expensive. In contrast to a multiple hurdles approach, a compensatory approach would allow a high score on one hurdle to compensate for a low score on another.
As previously mentioned, there are numerous items that agencies utilize in the selection process. Although not exhaustive, established norms of multiple hurdles for selection include (a) personality inventories, (b) physical tests, (c) targeted interviews, (d) unstructured interviews, (e) paper-and-pencil honesty tests, (f) cognitive ability tests, (g) weighted application blanks, (h) polygraph and other credibility assessment tests, (i) personal and work references, (j) drug tests, and (k) medical examinations. These elements must be fair, valid, and relevant to police work and must contain some measure of reliability to enhance an agency’s hiring process.
Employment Advertisement
Law enforcement agencies announce hiring in a variety of ways. Some advertise in digital and print media, whereas others post vacancies on their government entity website. Recruiters attend police association meetings and visit universities that offer criminal justice, law, and psychology majors. With the U.S. involvement with the war on terrorism, numerous agencies have placed high demand on recently discharged veterans. Meta-analysis results suggest that prior military experience is unrelated to subsequent law enforcement performance. However, civil service systems in many jurisdictions give veterans bonus points on written exams. Large agencies have recruiting divisions dedicated to attracting qualified personnel to the police profession and to their agency. Within this context, agencies often engage in affirmative action efforts to encourage female and minority applicants to consider a career in law enforcement. These efforts can greatly contribute to the development of a diverse workforce.
Screening Interview and Records Queries
Once an applicant and an agency connect about a job opening, the candidate usually completes an initial application. Some applications are completed online, but more often they are conducted at the hiring agency’s recruiting office. This provides the recruiter a chance to meet the applicant, and the interview is complemented with a quick go-no go query as to whether the candidate has engaged in disqualifying behaviors. Most hiring agencies have a list of behaviors they consider disqualifying, including recent or excessive illegal drug use, felony arrests or felony crime involvement, driving while intoxicated convictions, domestic violence convictions, and certain civil judgments (e.g., bankruptcy). If an applicant admits to engaging in a disqualifying behavior, he or she is generally disqualified without further consideration. Some disqualifiers are permanent (e.g., certain felony crimes, certain types of drugs used). Many, however, are time-delimited, only temporarily barring the applicant from consideration (e.g., driver license suspensions, minor recent drug experimentation). If the candidate denies engaging in disqualifying behaviors, he or she moves on in the hiring process.
Extensive research goes into investigating and reviewing the driving and criminal history of each applicant. This is accompanied by criminal and civil records checks. The purpose of these inquiries is to determine whether the applicant has been arrested for, or convicted of, any crime, including certain traffic-related violations. Many misdemeanor crimes are not immediately disqualifying, while certain others are. For example, it is common practice to immediately disqualify an applicant for any domestic violence conviction because persons convicted of such crimes cannot carry a firearm. Civil records checks allow employers to identify early on if there are areas for potential concern (e.g., past or pending bankruptcy, delinquent child support payments, pending civil lawsuits). Along with protecting the agency and society, police executives save time and money by identifying unqualified applicants early in the process.
Written Aptitude Testing
Police screening research has shown that scores on cognitive ability tests are a good predictor of future job performance, especially performance in the academy. Coping with stressful situations is one of many facets of law enforcement. In today’s evolving society, agencies seek and pursue individuals capable of not only handling the physical demands of police work but also those who possess the intellect to learn the law, navigate technology, and solve complex issues. Core competencies such as mathematical and verbal reasoning are integral skill sets to the police profession and can be tested in a variety of formats. For example, the National Criminal Justice Officer Selection Inventory is a common aptitude test that can be used to predict candidate success in law enforcement settings. The National Criminal Justice Officer Selection Inventory tests areas such as problem-solving, reading comprehension, mathematics, and writing ability. These skills are essential to successfully completing most police academies and are needed to be successful in the law enforcement profession.
Conventional modalities for testing include paper and pencil, pen essay, and computerized assessment. Cognitive ability tests are used because most police officers enter the profession as street cops, and reading and math acuity become valuable skills in such areas as report writing and accident reconstruction. Language reasoning should also be assessed, as it contributes to the effectiveness of interpersonal communication and courtroom testimony. Defense attorneys are quick to point out the inaccuracies of a weak investigation, while prosecutors desire an officer that possesses a strong command of job knowledge.
As officers gain tenure, they often desire to specialize in select areas of criminal investigations. Larger agencies offer disciplines in crime scene investigations, narcotics investigations, computer forensics, financial crimes, and many other specialties. As a risk assessment tool, base-level performance protects both officer and agency from vicarious liability. Academic screening tests also ensure the public that the officer possesses the necessary faculties to function adequately and safely in the job.
Physical Agility
One critical aspect of police applicant screening is the physical agility test. Pushing cars from intersections and chasing fleeing criminals on foot are not unusual endeavors for the average police officer. When it comes to physical agility testing, the choice of methods is agency-specific. Some agencies use standardized calisthenics and running tests to assess an applicant’s minimum competency level. Obstacle courses may be implemented, with the addition of work-related scenarios the agency considers relevant to the job function. These work-related tasks include such things as jumping out of the seated position in a police car and sprinting; climbing walls, ladders, or steps; and crawling under low walls.
Concerns have been raised about the fairness of physical agility testing, particularly in the realm of female screening. Some law enforcement agencies have even suspended physical agility testing while engaged in federal lawsuits over the equality of such requirements. These lawsuits contend the test is biased against female applicants, with a lesser percentage of females passing than their male counterparts. To better assess agility, many police agencies send proctors through rigorous programs (e.g., the Cooper Institute) that certify officers as law enforcement fitness specialists. The programs enhance the testing by identifying standardized agility protocols, therefore allowing the agency to better mitigate risk-related issues such as injury prevention. Advanced courses teach instructors to measure the body mass index of a candidate and implement nutritional strategies designed to prepare the candidate for the physical challenges of the test.
A key issue in physical agility testing is whether the agency is trying to measure physical ability versus physical fitness. The use of physical ability tests assumes that there are certain minimal standards that an officer has to meet to properly perform the job. For example, an officer who can’t drag a 150-pound dummy 20 ft might not be able to save a person trapped in a burning car. With physical ability tests, separate sex or age norms are not used because there is a minimum standard that must be met.
In contrast, physical fitness tests determine things such as the cardiovascular fitness. In such cases, it is not unusual for an agency to use separate sex and age standards.
Firearms Proficiency Training
Some agencies hire lateral transfer candidates from other law enforcement agencies. These are people already trained and certified as police officers in the state in which they are applying. At this point in the hiring process, many agencies will require the lateral applicant to qualify with his or her service weapon. Firearms qualification courses often include shooting at varying distances (e.g., 3, 5, 7, 15, and 25 yards) with additional combat courses that address shoot-no shoot scenarios. Some agencies may require the lateral transfer candidates to demonstrate familiarity and proficiency with a standard police issue shotgun.
Personal History Questionnaire/Background Booklet
During the initial testing phase, the candidate will be asked to complete a personal history questionnaire. These are lengthy booklets that cover many aspects of the candidate’s life and commonly begin with listing the applicant’s immediate family members and their contact information. Background investigators will normally contact these family members and ask specific questions about the candidate’s upbringing, his or her associates, and habits—both good and bad. To further the scope and depth of the background investigation, many agencies will conduct criminal history checks on immediate family members. The candidate will usually need to list all addresses where they have lived, including academic institutions and military installations. Background investigators will interview the applicant’s friends, neighbors, even teachers at institutions where he or she went to school. Previous work history will be verified as well as any work-related disciplinary actions the applicant received while at the place of employment. The background questionnaire usually asks about current debt and asks the candidate to obtain a recent credit check from one of the large credit reporting companies. Applicants with large debt may be disqualified, particularly if he or she has a history of delinquency in repayment.
The background questionnaire will often have the applicant list all illegal drug contact, experimentation, and use. The applicant will be asked to list all criminal acts they have committed. Potential law enforcement employers often ask about alcohol use and gambling frequency. Both of these can be predictive of future problems. The applicant will usually have to sign a waiver and release of information form that allows investigators access to his or her personal education and employment records. These are often notarized for legal reasons.
Personal History Booklet (PHB) Review
A recruiter or background investigator will schedule an appointment where the candidate will return the PHB and allied documentation. Often this documentation includes a copy of his or her high school diploma, official transcripts from colleges attended, a credit history check, military service verification such as a DD-214, financial loan paperwork, and any civil court records (e.g., name changes, marriage certificates, divorce documentation, liens, judgments, and civil suits). The agency representative will review the PHB with the applicant and ensure all required documentation accompanies the package. Most agencies will not accept incomplete packages and will return the PHB to the applicant, oftentimes suspending the process until the documents are complete.
Background Investigation
Once the agency has accepted the application package, it schedules a background investigation, depending on the hiring needs. The depth and breadth of the background investigation can vary considerably. Larger law enforcement agencies, including federal, state, and large municipalities may employ full-time background investigators. These officers specialize in conducting background investigations, and this is their primary duty. Because they are familiar with these specialized investigations, they are efficient at getting them completed in a timely manner.
The background investigator will often start by conducting a more in-depth criminal records check, including records on national and local databases. The investigator will contact the local law enforcement agencies in jurisdictions where the applicant has lived, worked, or attended school and ask these agencies to check local inhouse databases for any contact with the applicant. One of the reasons for conducting a credit check is that it often provides clues as to where a person has lived or worked. Background investigators then use the credit history to help locate law enforcement agencies, friends, neighbors, and teachers to interview.
The investigator will also conduct extensive driving history checks. Driving records inform agencies about past driving citations, accidents, and arrests. One of the predictors of potential problem performers in law enforcement is a past history of rule breaking, and having numerous driving citations is considered as such. Most hiring agencies will be allowing employees to operate agency-owned motor vehicles, and a history of being aggressive- or citation-prone will drive up the cost of insurance. Many agencies are not willing to accept the risk of someone with a poor driving history nor are they willing to pay additional insurance premiums because of bad driving habits.
The investigator will contact as many former employers as possible to verify what the candidate listed in the PHB and is usually most interested in reviewing employment applications for additional leads: length of employment, promotions, performance evaluations, and disciplinary actions. The investigator will compare this information to what the subject listed in the PHB. All of these will help the investigator assess the applicant’s work performance and work attitude, as well as his or her honesty. Applicants have been known to omit prior places of employment where they received negative disciplinary actions or from which they were terminated.
Once the records check portion of the background investigation is complete, the investigator often plans field and telephonic interviews using what he or she learned through the records check. The investigator may start with immediate family members including spouses, parents, and siblings as well as people with whom the applicant has lived, including roommates and former military coworkers. They schedule appointments with friends, prior employers, coaches, teachers, guidance counselors, and sometimes former coworkers. They seek to verify what the applicant has stated in the PHB and identify any possible areas of concern. Ultimately, the psychologist conducting the suitability assessment will use information gleaned in this stage to help guide the clinical interview and inform the assessment. Background investigators may travel to other cities to meet with these potential sources of information, depending on the recruiting budget.
Once the records check and personnel interviews are complete, the background investigator will start to finalize the report. It is not unusual for the investigator to contact the applicant for clarification and additional information. It is helpful to the investigator, and the investigation, for the applicant to take an active role in getting the information the background investigator needs to complete his or her task. If the applicant does not help, the background report may not get completed. Once the background report is complete, the investigator usually gives it to his or her supervisor to review. Supervisors will sign off on the report and forward it to the recruiting office where they often then schedule a follow-up interview and credibility assessment test.
Credibility Assessment Interview
The hurdle many applicants find most concerning is the credibility assessment interview and test. This stage usually consists of some form of veracity verification test. These tests, which include polygraph and EyeDetect (i.e., ocular-motor detection of deception), are not without controversy. Their utility and validity have been, and continue to be, the subject of polemic arguments. Proponents extol the benefits of increased disclosure, deterrence, and diagnostic value. Opponents claim the false-positive rates (i.e., where a truthful subject fails the test) are unacceptable. Still, many agencies will require an applicant to submit to some form of credibility assessment test that he or she must pass.
The polygraph is the oldest of the validated credibility assessment tools in current use. Polygraph screening has been used to screen law enforcement officers since around 1945. Modern polygraph instruments measure movement associated with breathing, relative blood pressure changes, sweat gland activity, and blood pulse volume changes. They include other sensors to help gauge level of cooperation. The underlying theory of the polygraph is that physiological changes happen in response to test questions, and the magnitude of those changes is commensurate with the salience of the test question. The salience of the question depends on the degree to which the question challenges the subject’s goal of passing the test. The physiologic responses load differentially on groups of questions, as a function of truth-telling or deception.
There are several variants of polygraph testing, but the most common version is called the Comparison Question Testing format. Within the family of the Comparison Question Testing, there are several polygraph techniques and differences between the variants are often minor. A polygraph technique consists of two parts: the data collection portion and the test data analysis phase. Validity studies have to report both phases of the technique to properly identify it. The data collection phases for techniques can differ in terms of the number and scope of the test questions. From a validation perspective, better tests generally result from fewer, more distinct questions. The test data analysis phase is the part where the collected data get analyzed. This can be done by the human polygraph examiner as well as by a computer algorithm. While there are a number of test data analysis models in use, the better performing models tend to be less subjective and thus have greater interrater reliability.
Polygraph screening test questions should target actuarial behaviors (i.e., those behaviors that are related to good or poor police performance). However, some agencies try to address values-based behaviors that are not predictive of performance. Police administrators and decision makers should endeavor to identify past behaviors that predict performance and develop their polygraph questions that address each behavior. For example, questions targeting work-related disciplines and acts of physical domestic violence would seem appropriate performance predictors.
Comparison Question Testing format screening polygraph techniques have peer-reviewed reported accuracy in the 80% range. They are well above chance at detecting deception, though far from perfect. End users should be cautious about making hiring decisions based on the results of a polygraph test alone since there are many variables that affect the ultimate accuracy of any particular test. Positive results (i.e., failed test) should be followed up with additional discussion, investigation, and testing, ideally with a different credibility assessment tool.
The base rate of deception is often an overlooked consideration in credibility assessment testing. Base rate is the probability any given individual in a testing population will be positive for the issue of concern. In credibility assessment testing contexts, this means the number of people in the testing population who are lying with regard to the target issues. As referenced in numerous studies, target issues can vary considerably. If young U.S. adults are being tested for drug experimentation in their lifetime, a higher base rate of that activity would be expected, compared to engaging in espionage or terrorist activities, for example. If that group is then applying for a job with very strict guidelines for lifetime drug experimentation, a higher base rate of deception could be expected. If espionage or sabotage among that same group was being tested, a much lower base rate of engaging in those behaviors would be expected and thus a lower base rate of deception with regard to those targets. Since all credibility assessment testing is imperfect, base rates can play a big role in the types of errors made. If testing a low base rate behavior, such as espionage or sabotage, the majority of the positive (i.e., failed) results should be false positive. Operationally defined, this means people who had not engaged in the behavior still failed the test. Alternatively, if a high base rate behavior was tested, such as denial of alcohol use by U.S. college students, most of the errors would be false negative, indicting the lies passed undetected.
Using an alternative technology in a successive-hurdles model can help adjust the base rates to improve subsequent credibility assessment testing. EyeDetect is one proven technology that can be used in the early stages of the hiring process as a stand-alone credibility assessment tool. EyeDetect can also be used to adjust the base rates for subsequent testing, for example, with polygraph. Adjusting the base rates of subsequent testing reduces the types of errors made, depending on the testing goal. EyeDetect works by having the subject read a series of questions; the subject then answers yes or no by pressing a button or computer key. During the reading exercise, the EyeDetect measures a number of reading behaviors, physiologic measures, and answering behaviors. The software combines these measures and produces a credibility score ranging from 0 to 99, with increasing values being more indicative of truth-telling. Peer-reviewed studies of EyeDetect show accuracy in the mid-80% range. Research also suggests that combining two different screening technologies, such as polygraph and EyeDetect, can reduce desired errors to around 2%.
Follow-Up Interviews
Once the credibility assessment testing phase is complete, a recruiter meets with the candidate to discuss any issues that arose during the background investigation or credibility assessment testing. Sometimes the background investigator or recruiter may have to conduct additional interviews to assess the issues raised. This often means the candidate is invited back for follow-up credibility assessment testing. If there are outstanding issues and concerns, most supervisors will not allow a candidate to move forward unless all information gathering avenues have been exhausted. That means the background package will sit in limbo until the issue is resolved.
Conditional Offer of Employment
At this phase, someone senior within the hiring authority will usually review the entire application package. If this person feels the candidate is acceptable, a conditional offer of employment will be made (i.e., the offer depends upon successful completion of the medical and psychological assessment phases). This is done in order to be compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, which provides protection against discrimination for people with disabilities. The act applies to federal, state, and private employers with 15 or more employees; it expressly prohibits employers from asking applicants about medical history during the pre-offer stage in order to prevent potential employers from asking questions that might reveal a disability that could be used to disqualify the applicant from the hiring process. The Americans With Disabilities Act also prohibits potential employers from requiring applicants to undergo medical examinations and from asking questions that could disclose a disability before offering them a job. Employers usually wait until they are ready to extend a bona fide employment offer before asking the candidate to submit to medical and psychological queries.
Psychological Suitability Assessment
The hiring agency is likely to have the candidate assessed for psychological suitability for law enforcement work. Police work can be extremely stressful and requires good interpersonal relation skills. The work can place the officer in highly dangerous situations that require fast and correct decision-making skills. This psychological evaluation can also be a very stressful stage of the hiring for the applicant due to the potentially subjective nature of the decision-making process. The psychologist should be familiar with police work, have expertise in assessing maladaptive behaviors, and be proficient with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Examinations should be designed to identify psychopathology and personality disorders that would be incompatible with law enforcement work. Items such as impulse control, ability to deal with supervision, and motivation to choose law enforcement as a career are core features on most psychological suitability inventories. The examinations usually consist of a series of standardized psychological tests and a clinical interview. The psychologist will usually review the background investigation, the PHB, the credibility assessment testing reports, standardized psychological test results, and notes from the clinical interview when writing the report. The psychologist oftentimes works in conjunction with the polygraph examiner and background investigator to ensure a unity of effort and proof of screening concept.
Numerous psychological tests have been developed in an effort to screen out candidates with psychological issues that could make them a danger to themselves or others. Although many assessments are available to test psychopathology, two commonly used inventories in law enforcement selection are the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory-2 and California Personality Inventory. The Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory-2 consists of 567 true/false items and is commonly used to test an individual’s suitability for high-risk public safety positions. Although widely utilized, concerns have surfaced regarding the validity of specific scales relating to the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory-2. Elements that enhance psychological inventories continue to evolve, yet the primary agent of responsibility lies with the mental health professional. Along with credibility assessment, psychological suitability remains an integral area of screening that police administrators rely on for final hiring decisions.
Medical Suitability Assessment and Drug Testing
At this stage, a medical professional usually conducts an examination to determine whether the applicant is medically suitable for the job. Typically, a detailed job description is provided to the medical professional so that he or she can determine whether the applicant is capable of performing the critical job tasks. These physical examinations can be quite extensive and often include vision and hearing testing, cardiovascular assessment, including an electrocardiogram, dermatological examinations, endocrine system assessments, hematology–oncology screening, musculoskeletal assessments, respiratory system assessment, infectious disease assessment, and a neurologic evaluation. In addition, candidates typically are required to undergo drug testing.
Approved for Hire: Selected/Not Selected
At this point, all aspects of the candidate’s background investigation are assembled and reviewed. Some agency executives choose to take on this task themselves, while others delegate it to a trusted subordinate. If the candidate is deemed sufficiently trustworthy, he or she will be considered approved for hire. Often agencies will develop lists of qualified candidates they keep for a specified period of time and will often approve more people than they need. As availabilities arise throughout the life of the list, the agency can contact an approved person to make a job offer. Some agencies will conduct mini-background investigations to fill in the time between when the person was approved and when that person gets his or her job offer.
Final Thoughts
Executives within police agencies are continually seeking the best methodology for screening candidates. Now policy makers face difficult issues surrounding vicarious liability and negligent hiring, often affecting external stakeholders. Translated, this means each element in the preemployment process must remain valid, fair, and impartial to each applicant, while enhancing the utility of screening methods.
References:
- Aamodt, M. G. (2004). Research in law enforcement selection. Boca Raton, FL: Brown Walker Press.
- Alder, K., (2007). The lie detectors: The history of an American obsession. New York, NY: Free Press.
- Bennett, W. W., & Hess, K. M. (2004). Management and supervision in law enforcement (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
- Miller, L. (2006). Practical police psychology: Stress management and crisis intervention for law enforcement. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.