The 2020 Homicide Spike—Beyond the COVID-19 Explanation

Elected officials, journalists and some police chiefs have been offering possible explanations for the sudden and historic jump in homicides seen in cities across the country in 2020.  Most of these explanations point to the increased mental and economic stress brought on by COVID-19 and its related government restrictions as substantially contributing to the spike in homicides.  Undoubtedly, millions of American have experienced mental distress brought on by COVID-19 and its related government restrictions, and that may well have contributed to increases in domestic violence and other forms of criminality.  But, when it comes to homicides, do the facts actually support the claim that the 2020 homicide spike can be attributed to COVID-19?

It is vital that we are willing go beyond COVID-19 and examine other possible factors.  The stakes are too high for us to ignore these other factors that may prove to be more uncomfortable to discuss in favor of a narrative based on the pandemic that allows some elected officials and police leaders to avoid any responsibility.  A failure to honestly address the most likely causes of the 2020 spike in homicides may leave our cities, and our most vulnerable communities, to see another year like 2020.     

What Did the Spike Look Like?

While the FBI’s official Uniform Crime Report (UCR) statistics are only available through 2019, the tremendous spike in serious violent crime, especially homicide, is clear based on the homicide data collected by various news outlets throughout the country—particularly in the largest U.S. cities.  This allows us to estimate what the urban homicide trend was for 2020.  And the numbers are disturbing.

Across our cities it appears that, compared to 2019, the homicide rate in U.S. cities increased by somewhere between 21% and 37%, depending on which cities were included in the analysis made by the specific news source. These are incredibly large percentage increases as national homicide rates have never experienced one-year double-digit percentage increases since the federal agencies began tracking these statistics in the 1960s.

We are all aware of the violent unrest witnessed this year in places like Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, and St. Louis, but homicides have skyrocketed in most other cities across the nation as well.  Detroit saw a 20% increase in homicides.  Atlanta experienced a 46% increase in homicides and Chicago experienced a 53% increase in homicides.  Beyond our largest cities, many of our mid-sized major cities experienced substantial increases as well.  Compared to 2019, Kansas City experienced a 28% increase in homicides and Omaha had a 61% increase. 

Even smaller cities were impacted by this violent crime spike.  Grand Rapids, Michigan, which experienced 17 homicides in 2019, saw a record 38 homicides in 2020, an increase of 124%.  Fort Wayne, Indiana had a 43% increase in homicides, Springfield, Missouri increased by 64%, and homicides rose 186% in Spokane, Washington.

Available data shows two common traits across the country.  Ask yourself if these factors apply to your city or cities near you.

First, the alleged perpetrators of homicides in 2020 were overwhelmingly repeat offenders with lengthy criminal records, including prior convictions for violent crimes.  They were not enrolled in school and not lawfully employed before the pandemic hit. They were dangerous repeat offenders who engaged in criminal activity long before COVID-19. 

Second, the neighborhoods, blocks, and addresses where these homicides occurred were not unpredictable, as they tended to be the same locations where violent crime has been high for years if not decades.  

So how exactly did the COVID-19 restrictions impact those who have been charged with perpetrating homicides in 2020?  Where are the cases of law-abiding citizens quickly turning homicidal in the numbers sufficient to explain the homicide spike of 2020?  In most cases, it seems clear that they did not lose a lawful job or experience school closings that impacted them.  The restrictions could not have been the cause of their violent behavior because they were already violent, as their criminal records reveal.  And the restrictions did not usually lead to violence spilling into low-crime areas but, instead, the same vulnerable communities that have been terrorized by crime for years only saw the rate of violence and victimization increase in the very same neighborhoods. 

De-Policing and Criminal Justice Reform

Returning to the popular explanation of COVID-19 and its related government restrictions having to do with the increased stress and economic pressures, it becomes less and less plausible when it is subjected to logical scrutiny.  And more plausible explanations emerge.  

Based on the characteristics of the 2020 spike in homicides already discussed, an economic explanation would only make sense if law-abiding individuals quickly turned to a dramatic life of crime involving homicide.  Or, at the very least, that non-violent criminals quickly graduated to homicidal acts.  Neither of these trends seem common across the country.  

We should ask alternative questions in light of the aforementioned realities across our cities.  Were the cities served by prosecutors seeking to reform their systems of justice by way of shorter sentences for repeat offenders likely to see more deadly violence?  Did the release of violent offenders so as to protect them from contracting COVID-19 lead to increased victimization in the communities to which they returned?  Did elected officials demonstrate an aversion to proactive policing strategies in 2020 that allowed violent criminals to more freely engaged in predatory behavior in their communities?  Is there any correlation between demands to defund the police, low officer morale and increases in homicides?  

Finding honest answers to these questions is crucial to minimize future bloodshed.  And those answers may vary somewhat from city to city.  But they are the questions that must be asked and addressed, rather than giving into the temptation of citing COVID-19 as the primary cause of the 2020 homicide spike in spite of evidence to the contrary. 

In time, we will have more thorough analyses of the numbers—not just of homicides but the nonfatal shootings that also increased in so many cities.  Your jurisdiction will have a clearer picture of the scope of victimization and the pre-existing criminal histories of the perpetrators.  There are not, as of yet, comprehensive statistics showing how many violent offenders suddenly appeared on our city streets in 2020 due to criminal justice reform efforts and concerns of COVID-19 infection among our prison populations.  It is also unclear to what extent a “no contact, no complaint” approach to day-to-day policing allowed them to operate more freely and victimize more of the people in their communities. 

What we do know is that the simple explanation regularly offered, that COVID-19 and its related government restrictions drove otherwise non-violent citizens to engage in homicides, is without data to support it.  Rather, the available data on the alleged perpetrators of these homicides—and common sense—point to causes that are much more closely related to the release of more violent offenders back into the streets coupled with de-policing in the neighborhoods where violent offenders operate.

Law enforcement leaders and elected officials are obliged to examine what happened in their cities in 2020 and what can be done to address the justified fears of those living in the neighborhoods most impacted by violent crime.  We know that a failure to honestly address the most likely causes of the 2020 spike in homicides may leave our cities, and our most vulnerable communities, to see another year like 2020.     

About the Author

Matt Dolan is a licensed attorney who specializes in training and advising public safety agencies in matters of legal liability, risk management and ethical leadership.  His training focuses on helping agency leaders create ethically and legally sound policies and procedures as a proactive means of minimizing liability and maximizing agency effectiveness.  

A member of a law enforcement family dating back three generations, he serves as both Director and Public Safety Instructor with Dolan Consulting Group.

His training courses include Recruiting and Hiring for Law EnforcementConfronting the Toxic OfficerPerformance Evaluations for Public SafetyMaking Discipline Stick®, and Supervisor Liability for Public Safety.

Considering the Military Model for Recruiting and Retention in Law Enforcement

For the last several years, law enforcement agencies have struggled with the challenge of recruiting and, just as importantly, retaining qualified officers.  This problem was exacerbated for years by a healthy economy in which higher paying jobs were seen as a threat to recruiting and retention efforts.  In recent months, the greater threat to recruiting and retention appears to be driven by the toxic national narrative surrounding the profession—including a barrage of negative public commentaries from the media, community activists and elected officials.

Who would want to do this job for 20 or 30 years?  That seems to be the question.  But we may be asking the wrong question.  Instead, why should we assume that the vast majority of our new recruits will stay beyond 5 or 10 years?  And if we grapple with this question, we can look at a more sustainable model for recruiting qualified applicants, knowing that many—or even most—of those officers will not remain in the profession for 20 years or more.

But how would this possibly work?  How can we afford to function with this kind of built-in turnover?  What would this look like?  Fortunately, we have an existing model to which we can look for guidance: the United States Military.

What is the Military Model?

Joining the military means sacrificing personal freedom for a regimented and often dangerous job offering modest financial compensation.  It is a career choice that many parents would not encourage their children to pursue.  And one that, depending on the political climate, may even result in disdain from those civilians whom you serve.  Does that sound familiar to anyone in law enforcement?

A recent survey revealed that only 25% of mothers and 33% of fathers would want their children to join the military.  Military service entails a difficult lifestyle, with strict discipline, a loss of many personal freedoms and the constant risk of engaging in combat.  Many military service members spend a great deal of time away from their families, creating additional personal hardships. In other words, military service members face many career hardships that are similar to those faced by law enforcement officers.

On average, the Department of Defense budgets approximately $15,000 on recruiting costs for each soldier, sailor, airman or marine it plans to hire each year.  After recruiting the individual, the military branches generally spend a few months and between $18,000 and $20,000 on the basic training of the individual—not counting the individual’s salary and roughly $4,000 on equipment.  After basic training, the new recruit completes his or her job specialty training course, which could range in costs from another $18,000 for cooks and supply clerks, to more than a million dollars for enlisted aircrew members.  

After all that effort and expense, most military recruits will leave at the end of their first enlistment.  According to official Department of Defense studies, the majority of both officers and enlisted members of the military will leave the service when their first contract is over. First-time re-enlistment rates vary from year to year and from one service branch to another, but for several decades now only about 22% to 40% of first-enlistment service members re-enlist for a second term of service (22% Marines, 25% Navy, 26% Army, and 40% Air Force).  The Department of Defense spends millions of dollars in retention efforts, with most of this money spent on re-enlistment bonus incentives.  Nevertheless, military leaders also accept the fact that military service takes great personal sacrifice –a sacrifice most are not willing to make for their entire adulthood. 

The available research reveals that the primary reason that service members do not re-enlist is that they have grown tired of the personal sacrifices and rigors of military life.  They were willing to make that sacrifice for their nation for a time, but not for their whole adult life.  They want to regain their personal freedoms and be home more often with their families. It is not fear of danger that drives their decisions, as retention tends to be higher during periods of war. And it is also not a financial decision, as most first-enlistment service members enter lower-paying jobs or become college students upon first leaving the military. They are simply burnt out with respect to the stresses that military service entails.  While military leaders undoubtedly wish things were different, they also understand that this is the nature of military service. It plans and operates under this reality.          

The military has adapted to the idea that many who enlist will find the stressful, regimented work of being a service member to be a career choice that does not suit them as a decades-long calling.  And the military presumably understands that it is in the best interest of the organization and the individual in question that those who do not want to be here leave in light of the stakes.

When Officer Retention IS THE PROBLEM

Officer retention is typically described as a good thing, and understandably so.  Replacing a trained and certified officer with a new recruit is expensive and time-consuming.  But, in looking to your experience in law enforcement, how many officers who are ultimately branded as “bad apples” inside the agency or in the public eye actually began their career as serviceable officers?  How often have you seen high-level performers become toxic as they hit the point of mid-career?  Would those men and women better serve their agencies and their families, in the long run, by finding another line of work?

According to the available research on police suicide, the general demographic profile of officers who commit suicide are male (91%), single or divorced (63%), between the ages of 40 and 44, and with 15 to 20 years of service.  This profile describes officers who are likely experiencing mid-career burnout, but who feel that they have too many years invested in the job to change careers. 

Interestingly, one study of officers who were terminated from employment for having been convicted of a criminal offense found that the vast majority of these fired officers eventually found other professional or semi-professional employment outside of law enforcement. Despite having a criminal or drunk driving conviction on their records, most were working as accountants, real estate agents, small business owners, pilots, teachers, social workers, paramedics, nurses, college professors and even lawyers.  The point here is that individuals who have the intelligence, courage and skills necessary to work in law enforcement can generally succeed in any profession they pursue.  It is possible that if law enforcement agencies embraced the view that there is no shame in leaving the job, then more people would leave when they realize continued employment in policing is harming themselves or others. 

Embracing the Permanent Recruiting Initiative

The military does not stop recruiting and neither should law enforcement.  The history of modern American policing is filled with cautionary tales of hiring frenzies and their unintended consequences.  Rather than engaging in a cycle of revving up and cutting back down, agencies should look to creating continuous pipelines of qualified talent.

This requires a change in mindset—from seeing recruiting efforts as an annoyance that we undertake when numbers are low to seeing it as a permanent part of essential agency functions.  The military model may well be worth considering in working towards a sustainable model for police recruiting and retention in the 2020s.

About the Author

Matt Dolan is a licensed attorney who specializes in training and advising public safety agencies in matters of legal liability. His training focuses on helping agency leaders create sound policies and procedures as a proactive means of minimizing their exposure to costly liability. A member of a law enforcement family dating back three generations, he serves as both Director and Public Safety Instructor with Dolan Consulting Group.

His training courses include Recruiting and Hiring for Law EnforcementConfronting the Toxic OfficerPerformance Evaluations for Public SafetyMaking Discipline Stick®, and Supervisor Liability for Public Safety.

Resiliency for Public Safety Professionals in 2021

This has been an unprecedented year—a pandemic with the associated lockdowns, an economic recession, protests, riots, rising violent crime in most major cities and a bitterly-contested national election. Public safety professionals have responded to increasing numbers of calls for domestic violence, suicides, drug overdoses, and rioting. Police, fire, and EMS personnel have been harmed in riots and face the danger of COVID exposure with every call they handle. 

Despite these selfless acts to help others, the nationwide anti-police movement has intensified with media coverage that is often biased, violent protests, and political grandstanding to the point of calls to defund or even abolish the police. Violent criminals have been let out of jails and prisons early while politicians are calling for officers to aggressively arrest ordinarily law-abiding citizens for going to the beach, operating businesses or not wearing a mask in public. 

A lot of bad stuff has happened in 2020, and it has seriously impacted mental health across the nation.

A nationwide survey of 3,409 adults conducted in August, 2020 by the American Psychological Association revealed the impact the events of 2020 have had on Americans. More than 70% of the American adults surveyed reported recent symptoms of depression. Those surveyed indicated that in the prior two weeks they felt so tired that they sat around and did nothing (75%), felt very restless (74%), found it hard to think properly or concentrate (73%), felt lonely (73%), or felt miserable or unhappy (71%). Half of those surveyed indicated that they felt far more stress in their lives than they had felt in 2019. Compared to last year, 21% reported feeling greater tension in their bodies, 20% reported getting angry more quickly, 20% reported an increase in mood swings, and 17% admitted yelling at loved ones more often than last year. It is likely that these numbers are even higher for those who work in public safety. 

This is a serious risk to our careers, our relationships, and our health. What are some ways we can better manage the incredible stress in our lives right now? I’m no psychologist, but I have survived a 32-year career in law enforcement, including two decades as a police chief, and all the stresses such a career involves. I survived the career with my sanity and marriage intact, and raised three great kids in the process. So, in this time of unprecedented stress, here is a little advice –you can’t do it all so focus on what matters.

The Pareto Principle

The Pareto Principle from the field of economics suggests that there are always limited resources and a large variety of tasks to perform. If we try to do everything, and give equal emphasis to each task, we will end up in work paralysis and either nothing will get done, or nothing will get done well. The Pareto Principle suggests that of the many tasks on our plates each day, usually only about 20% are crucial and these few tasks (if done well) will account for 80% of the success of the organization. Also known as the 80/20 rule, the Pareto Principle suggests that roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. In business, 80% of sales come from 20% of clients. Roughly 20% of the practice techniques of athletes have 80% of the impact on athletic performance. Less than 20% of the possible causes of accidental deaths account for more than 80% of actual accidental deaths. In other words, by focusing on the most important 20% of anything, the positive results will be exponentially large.

We all want to be happy, healthy, and less stressed. The key, however, is to care less about the 80% of things that really do not matter and care more about only what is truly and immediately important. What are the important things you should focus on? Well, that depends on who you are, as each of us has a different life, different goals, and different values. It is likely the 20% that matters most to you is not material wealth. As more than a quarter of Americans have reported 2020 has significantly impacted their income or left them unemployed, the fact that you have a job right now puts you in a better place than a lot of Americans. You may not be rich, but you and your family are likely more financially secure than millions of Americans at the present moment. Besides, if you wanted to be rich, you wouldn’t have chosen a career in public safety.  So what should we be focusing on besides material wealth?

What Matters Most?

Answer this question: If you were to leave this world today, what things would you regret not having done more of? We should count our blessings regarding the material assets we currently have, but I imagine most of us would not regret that we didn’t accumulate more stuff. My guess is that most of our regrets would be about our relationships. We would likely regret not having spent more time with family or friends, not having made a greater impact on the world, not having had more true friendships, or not having had more fulfilling experiences. 

The things that came to mind when you answered the question above represent the 20% you need to focus on to improve your life by 80%. The things that did not come to mind when you answered this question are the 80% of stuff you need to stop worrying about.

Now, in pursuing that 20% that matters most, there will be sacrifices. I won’t sugarcoat it—everything worthwhile in life is achieved by hard work and sacrifice. There are always trade-offs. Investing in family may cost you some career advancement opportunities or financial opportunities that overtime and off-duty work can offer you. But if family is what is most important to you (part of your 20%), then the trade-off is worth it for your mental health as long as you are willing to let go of the other stuff that does not matter as much (your 80%) such as more money or a specialty assignment. If one of your personal goals is not being so angry all of the time, and to laugh more, then you will need to sacrifice caring about what other people say about you. You will need to no longer care what your boss, or protestors, or politicians say or think about you. Do you really value their opinions anyway? Let them criticize you while at the same time they give you a paycheck, paid vacation, health insurance coverage, and contribute to your retirement pension.

You need to specifically define your personal goals and values in life. Come up with a list of no more than five specific life goals. One may be spend more time with your kids. One may be have a better marriage with your spouse. One may be to leave people better than how I found them while at work. One may be to laugh more and not be so angry all of the time. But remember, no more than five—the most important five things you can think of. Write them down. Think about them and meditate on them. Then, focus on those goals to the exclusion of the less important things that can keep us so busy—and so angry. 

Become comfortable with caring only about these goals. Everything else takes a back seat. You must first care about these five things more than you care about all the adversity you have faced in 2020. Whether you like it or not, you are always choosing what to care about. The key is to place the things you should not care about in the background, where they belong. 

You can’t please everyone. This inescapable fact was painfully apparent for public safety professionals in 2020. So, focus only on doing what your moral compass tells you is important. Extricating that crash victim from the mangled car. Put out the arson of the abandoned house so it doesn’t spread to the homes of the innocent neighbors. Calm the argument (not fix the family) so that the neighbors can go back to sleep for the night.

If a city council is listening to calls to defund the police, will that impact your five important goals? If you have seniority and will keep your job, will the decisions by city council impact how you relate to your kids or your spouse? Only if you let it. If you do, you probably have slipped back into caring about these things more than your core 20% of concerns—your five life goals. Sure, decisions by city council may make it harder for your agency to provide good quality policing services to the community, but the voters have a say in who their leaders are. If this is what they want, then people have to get the level of services they are willing to implement. If city councils’ cuts will cost you your job, rest assured that the hiring problems law enforcement has faced for the last several years means that there are many agencies looking for mature and experienced officers like you to fill their ranks—likely in communities that appreciate their police. You risk your physical safety daily at work for your community—don’t let politicians or professional protestors take your mental well-being and your off time as well.      

Always Asking Yourself: Just How Important is This?

Focusing on the most important and meaningful things in your life is the most productive use of your time and energy. The world has too many problems to focus on most of it—especially the things over which you have little control. Focusing only on the true meaning in your life will help you keep going and help you to bypass the other problems in life. The key to resiliency is not caring about so many things and focusing only on the things that align with your personal values—the things that really matter.

About the Author

Harry P. Dolan is a 32-year police veteran who served as a Chief of Police since 1987. As one of the nation’s most experienced police chiefs, he brings 25 years of public safety executive experience to Dolan Consulting Group. He retired in October 2012 as Chief of Police of the Raleigh (N.C.) Police Department, an agency comprised of nearly 900 employees in America’s 42nd largest city.

Chief Dolan began his law enforcement career in 1980 as a deputy sheriff in Asheville, North Carolina and served there until early 1982, when he joined the Raleigh Police Department, where he served as a patrol officer. In 1987, he was appointed Chief of Police for the N.C. Department of Human Resources Police Department, located in Black Mountain. He served as Chief of Police in Lumberton, N.C. from 1992 until 1998, when he became Chief of Police of the Grand Rapids, Michigan Police Department. He served in that capacity for nearly ten years before becoming Chief of the Raleigh Police Department in September 2007. As Chief, he raised the bar at every organization and left each in a better position to both achieve and sustain success.

Harry Dolan has lectured throughout the United States and has trained thousands of public safety professionals in the fields of Leadership & Management, Communications Skills, and Community Policing. Past participants have consistently described Chief Dolan’s presentations as career changing, characterized by his sense of humor and unique ability to maintain participants’ interest throughout his training sessions. Chief Dolan’s demonstrated ability to connect with his clientele and deliver insightful instruction all with uncompromising principles will be of tremendous value in the private sector.

Chief Dolan’s unbridled passion to achieve service-excellence is a driving force behind Dolan Consulting Group. He is a graduate of Western Carolina University and holds a Master’s Degree in Organizational Leadership and Management from the University of North Carolina at Pembroke.

His training courses include:

Verbal De-escalation Training: Surviving Verbal Conflict®

Verbal De-escalation Train The Trainer Program: Surviving Verbal Conflict®

Community Policing Training

Taking the Lead: Courageous Leadership for Today’s Public Safety

Street Sergeant®: Evidence-Based First-Line Supervision Training.

What Does Verbal De-escalation Training Actually Mean?

There has been much argument and political rhetoric used recently involving demands for police reform. One of the reforms mentioned frequently is the demand for “de-escalation training” for police officers, or the need for the police to “de-escalate” more. 

What, however, does this really mean? To some it appears that “de-escalation” means the withdrawal of any use of force options. To individuals of this mindset, all police use of force is avoidable if the officers would only use “de-escalation techniques.”. As someone who has served 32 years in law enforcement and has been teaching verbal de-escalation techniques for more than a decade, I would have to say that such a viewpoint is grossly naïve and unrealistically optimistic. Legitimate use of force and verbal de-escalation are not mutually exclusive—they are distinct options available to officers confronting unlawful non-compliance.

So, what does de-escalation really mean? It is time that we in the law enforcement profession, and all of the public safety professions, had a clear, practical, agreed-upon definition for verbal de-escalation. We here at the Dolan Consulting Group (DCG) have given much thought to such a definition. We have discussed potential definitions internally with the members of our leadership team made up of former law enforcement officers, an attorney, and a research scientist. We have gathered feedback from officers and leaders in the field, and the many instructors we have certified to teach our Surviving Verbal Conflict® course. After much conversation and many revisions, we have developed a definition of verbal de-escalation for DCG as an organization, and to utilize within our courses.

“We define verbal de-escalation as both verbal and non-verbal communication techniques most likely to defuse hostility, avoid physical aggression, and obtain the voluntary compliance of another, whenever safety is not unduly compromised. Verbal de-escalation techniques also assist the communicator in maintaining professional composure in the face of verbal hostility and abuse.”    

Allow me to explain the essential components of this very intentional definition, as the specific words have important meanings.

Verbal and Non-Verbal Communication Techniques

Here, we specifically refer to de-escalation techniques that are based on spoken words (verbal communication) and physical presence (non-verbal communication). We have found that in many of the circumstances that public safety professionals often encounter, the right words, spoken in the right manner—often referred to as officer demeanor—can either calm a situation or at least gain begrudging compliance. We also find that one’s physical presence – physical fitness, uniform standard, posture, and facial expressions – help establish one’s legitimacy and increase the likelihood of compliance with one’s requests. We also acknowledge, however, that communication skills are not the only forms of de-escalation. When necessary, physical action – such as the use of force, physical containment, or withdrawal – is also part of the de-escalation process.  

Most Likely to Defuse Hostility, Avoid Physical Aggression, and Obtain the Voluntary Compliance of Another

We acknowledge that there are some instances in which well-deployed communication skills are not sufficient to gain compliance with some individuals. Such situations make up a small proportion of all public contacts that public safety professionals experience, but they do happen as a part of this line of work. In such cases, physical action – such as the use of force, physical containment, or withdrawal – is necessary. As these other forms of de-escalation are usually heavily regulated by agency policies and state training regulations, DCG leaves this training in the capable hands of the individual agency and state training standards trainers. Nevertheless, integrating verbal and nonverbal de-escalation techniques in conjunction with these physical actions increases the legitimacy of the public safety professional’s action in the eyes of the courts and the general public.

Whenever Safety is Not Unduly Compromised

We also fully recognize that public safety professionals sometimes encounter situations in which time is of the essence and physical action must be taken immediately. The clearest example to offer is when an individual draws a firearm and points it at the public safety professional. In such a situation, the public safety professional should immediately prioritize seeking cover and, if the public safety professional is a law enforcement officer, drawing one’s own firearm in self-defense. Numerous additional life threatening and/or serious injury situations present officers with the need to make split second decisions to safeguard the public and themselves. Physical safety is always the first priority, but if this safety is not unduly compromised at the moment, then verbal de-escalation techniques can be utilized on their own or in conjunction with physical actions.  

Assist the Communicator in Maintaining Professional Composure in the Face of Verbal Hostility and Abuse

We recognize two primary goals in pursuing verbal de-escalation. First, protect citizens by avoiding the use of force in the circumstances where proper communication skills would have permitted a non-physical resolution to the situation. Second, protect public safety professionals, whenever possible, from actions that will result in unnecessarily creating a greater risk to physical safety, a sustained citizen complaint of misconduct, a damaging lawsuit against the department, or worse. 

Our training seeks to provide personnel with the skills they are missing (where their “training tape has run out”) to avoid being goaded or enticed into losing their professional composure (avoid being “rope-a-doped”). We see verbal de-escalation training as a way of also de-escalating the impact of some citizens’ behavior on the spirit and soul of the public safety professional. By being able to identify sneak attacks on one’s psychological well-being, and having the skills to deflect these attacks, public safety professionals are more likely to manage stress and survive hostile encounters with their careers and reputations intact.

In conclusion, it is important that we develop a common definition and understanding of verbal de-escalation within the field of public safety, and law enforcement in particular. As the term “de-escalation” has become such a buzz word for politicians, news reporters, and political activists, it is high time the professions that actually use the techniques, and face the real world dangers in which they are used, define what this term actually means. We offer our DCG definition as a starting point.

About the Author

Harry P. Dolan is a 32-year police veteran who served as a Chief of Police since 1987. As one of the nation’s most experienced police chiefs, he brings 25 years of public safety executive experience to Dolan Consulting Group. He retired in October 2012 as Chief of Police of the Raleigh (N.C.) Police Department, an agency comprised of nearly 900 employees in America’s 42nd largest city.

Chief Dolan began his law enforcement career in 1980 as a deputy sheriff in Asheville, North Carolina and served there until early 1982, when he joined the Raleigh Police Department, where he served as a patrol officer. In 1987, he was appointed Chief of Police for the N.C. Department of Human Resources Police Department, located in Black Mountain. He served as Chief of Police in Lumberton, N.C. from 1992 until 1998, when he became Chief of Police of the Grand Rapids, Michigan Police Department. He served in that capacity for nearly ten years before becoming Chief of the Raleigh Police Department in September 2007. As Chief, he raised the bar at every organization and left each in a better position to both achieve and sustain success.

Harry Dolan has lectured throughout the United States and has trained thousands of public safety professionals in the fields of Leadership & Management, Communications Skills, and Community Policing. Past participants have consistently described Chief Dolan’s presentations as career changing, characterized by his sense of humor and unique ability to maintain participants’ interest throughout his training sessions. Chief Dolan’s demonstrated ability to connect with his clientele and deliver insightful instruction all with uncompromising principles will be of tremendous value in the private sector.

Chief Dolan’s unbridled passion to achieve service-excellence is a driving force behind Dolan Consulting Group. He is a graduate of Western Carolina University and holds a Master’s Degree in Organizational Leadership and Management from the University of North Carolina at Pembroke.

His training courses include:

Verbal De-escalation Training: Surviving Verbal Conflict®

Verbal De-escalation Train The Trainer Program: Surviving Verbal Conflict®

Community Policing Training

Taking the Lead: Courageous Leadership for Today’s Public Safety

Street Sergeant®: Evidence-Based First-Line Supervision Training.

We Need Retired Cops Running for Elected Office

In recent months, the important role of elected officials at all levels has been made painfully clear for law enforcement officers, for their families and for those citizens who support their mission. When elected officials—particularly at the local or state level—fail to stand up for the basic principles of law and order, communities can quickly devolve, and innocent people can quickly become victims. Decades of progress within law enforcement agencies and in the communities in which they serve can be set back by mayors, city council members, state representatives and governors who are ignorant of, or indifferent to, the vital necessity of law enforcement officers’ active presence in our communities. 

An age-old complaint is often recited by law enforcement officers, active and retired, who endure the public statements and policy decisions of elected officials whose ideas of policing have no relationship to reality. The complaint tends to boil down to some version of: “They just don’t know what they’re talking about.” 

But who are the individuals who represent us in elected office? Who are the people willing to dedicate so many hours to campaigning for positions that often pay relatively little? Some are motivated by an altruistic drive to make their community a better place to live. Some, on the other hand, don’t have much else to do and are excited by the prospect of gaining an importance that they could never get in their personal lives or in any other line of work. The latter, those motivated by the once-in-a-lifetime chance to gain self-importance, seem all too common in 2020, and their impact on their constituents will eventually be counted in failed businesses and destroyed lives. 

Here’s a proposition: What if individuals who did know what they’re talking about actually decided to run against those who did not? What if genuine institutional knowledge, 

rather than college classroom talking points, guided the public conversation in an election cycle? 

This is why we need retired cops running for elected office—those men and women who have actually seen the impact of violence and disorder on real people. Those who are often stunned by the manner in which elected officials publicly discuss strategies to combat social ills. Those who have actually conducted high risk traffic stops, served warrants on violent offenders and responded to domestic disturbance calls. Those who are regularly disgusted by the way in which politicians cluelessly attempt to analyze police conduct in these scenarios. 

In this election year, there are extremely few retired officers running for elected office at the local, state and federal levels. It does not have to be that way. The limits of their job prevents active law enforcement officers from fully expressing themselves in public due to the vital importance of maintaining impartiality while on the job. But once retired, there is no such limitation. Many retired officers have stable income in the form of a pension, children who are grown, and more free time on their hands than ever before in their adult lives. They could make the time to campaign without having to sacrifice their ability to make a living or spend time with their young children—unlike so many citizens who are frustrated by the caliber of our current class of elected representatives but feel unable to step forward to opposition. 

There are many articulate and motivated law enforcement professionals who would prove highly capable representatives, if elected. Even if they were unsuccessful in their campaigns, how many retired cops would speak truth to nonsense from a place of personal experience that few people can? Doesn’t the prevalence of military veterans in this year’s election cycle demonstrate that the public responds to candidates who have unique first-hand knowledge of the most fundamental policy issues? 

Many retired cops have watched from home as lawlessness is met with indifference by impotent politicians who are more concerned with political gamesmanship and the possibility of seeking a higher office than they are concerned with keeping innocent citizens safe. These men and women have strong views on what should be done and those views are formed by careers spent confronting violence and disorder in order to protect the lives and property of the most vulnerable members of their communities. There is little reason to think that the political realities will change if these men and women stay home. 

These are individuals who spent a career putting themselves in harm’s way and running towards danger while most ran in the opposite direction. We need these retired cops, these men and women with unique expertise in law and order and poverty and public decay, to step up again. 

About the Author 

Matt Dolan is a licensed attorney who specializes in training and advising public safety agencies in matters of legal liability. His training focuses on helping agency leaders create sound policies and procedures as a proactive means of minimizing their exposure to costly liability. A member of a law enforcement family dating back three generations, he serves as both Director and Public Safety Instructor with Dolan Consulting Group. 

His training courses include Recruiting and Hiring for Law Enforcement, Confronting the Toxic Officer, Performance Evaluations for Public Safety, Making Discipline Stick®, and Supervisor Liability for Public Safety.

A Recruiting Boom for Small Town Departments?

In cities across the country, elected officials are publicly scapegoating police officers for all of society’s ills. Many are insisting that racially motivated police brutality is the greatest threat to their citizens, even when the facts to support such an assertion are strikingly and shamefully absent.  Many are advocating that police departments be de-funded as some form of punishment.

These actions leave officers guessing as to what policies to follow in the line of duty and what rules of engagement are actually applicable, depending on the political whims of their mayors and city council members. Some police leaders are clearly unwilling to defend the reputation of their agencies in these trying times. The “silent majority” that polling data tells us supports the police is eerily silent in many of our cities. And when this toxic mix leads to de-policing and spikes in criminal activity, elected officials feign surprise and confusion as to how it is that the officers would feel unsupported. 

But while these predominantly larger agencies dominate national headlines, there is a much different reality for many officers in mostly rural and/or suburban agencies. In the communities that they serve, angry demonstrators have not dominated the streets and elected officials have not made blanket anti-police statements as part of their political platforms. For these smaller agencies, who have often struggled to recruit and retain officers, the leadership failures impacting many larger agencies provide a rare opportunity to attract trained lateral hire officers to their agencies, as well as those new to the profession who are repelled by the lack of support shown to so many officers in the country’s larger departments.

In the face of economic uncertainty stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, many officers who are interested in a change are not in a financial position to simply walk off the job. This seems particularly true for men and women who are mid-career, have a passion for law enforcement, but are weary of remaining with a department where they feel forced to engage in a “no contact, no complaint” approach to policing rather than pro-active engagement.

Similarly, many young men and women who have planned on a career in law enforcement are facing an economic downturn where career options outside of law enforcement seem limited. But they are unlikely to flock to agencies where the chief, elected officials and prominent activists all believe that their police department is a problem rather than an asset.  

Job applicants have historically gravitated toward financially stable careers, including public safety. What makes this economic climate different is that it has been coupled with the political climate described above and with a “de-fund the police” movement that make those positions in policing all but stable. But in more stable departments that have a pent-up demand for officers and a supportive political leadership, there could be a unique recruiting opportunity.

Why YOUR Department?

The question for men and women who have invested years into a career in law enforcement may not be “why stay” in policing as much as “where should you go?” Similarly, those who have dreamed for years of becoming officers are likely to find large city agencies with a plethora of specialized units much less appealing than a department where they have public support and clear organizational directives. So, what makes your agency attractive? Smaller agencies may want to consider some of the following strategies:

  • Reach out to your local elected officials, prosecutors and other leaders from the community (religious, business, etc.) to be a part of the recruiting process. Consider including them in your recruiting messaging and in-person outreach efforts. They could be an enormous part of communicating to potential applicants that public and political support for law enforcement is real in your community.
  • Ask your Chief, Sheriff and other command staff to take the lead in recruiting. The public missteps and over-the-top apologies from police leadership has been a source of frustration for officers and potential officers across the country. Pride in the organization and the profession should be honestly and unapologetically expressed by your agency’s leadership in your recruiting efforts.
  • Look for tangible demonstrations of public support in your community. Has there been a cost-of-living tax increase recently approved by the taxpayers? Has there been any polling done of public support? Are “Back the Blue” signs prominent in your local businesses and front yards? If so, consider prominently utilizing these demonstrations of support in your recruiting efforts.
  • Are officers willing to give public testimonials as to why they take pride in their work and plan on staying? Even better—are they willing to personally reach out to officers in other agencies who are looking to make a change? After all, your officers can be your best recruiters.
  • Do you know your turnover numbers? Do they reflect that very few officers choose to leave once hired? If so, possibly even more than their testimonials, your officers’ consistent decision to remain a part for your organization could speak volumes to potential recruits. 
  • Does your community have a lower cost of living than the larger agencies from which you are seeking lateral hires? If lower pay actually goes further in your area in terms of housing, for instance, consider prominently advertising that fact. A six-figure salary in a larger department might not mean much if there’s nothing left over after rent or mortgage payments. Analyze the median cost of a home or monthly rent in your area versus the larger cities and be able to communicate those in real dollars to potential applicants.
  • Do officers working for a larger agency already live in your community? Does the commute seem longer when they are keenly aware of the lack of support they can expect on the job? Consider pitching the idea of working where they live. Presumably they decided to raise their families in your community for a reason, and that should be viewed as something to capitalize on.

None of these strategies present a “magic bullet” for rural or suburban agencies looking to hire qualified men and women, but these are the sorts of approaches that agencies should consider when looking for a silver lining to the current challenges facing so many law enforcement officers. The political and economic realities of the moment present opportunities for police departments and sheriff’s offices to recruit eager and qualified men and women who love the profession but are not interested in working in environments where their sworn and elected leadership has abandoned them

About the Author

Matt Dolan is a licensed attorney who specializes in training and advising public safety agencies in matters of legal liability. His training focuses on helping agency leaders create sound policies and procedures as a proactive means of minimizing their exposure to costly liability. A member of a law enforcement family dating back three generations, he serves as both Director and Public Safety Instructor with Dolan Consulting Group.

His training courses include Recruiting and Hiring for Law EnforcementConfronting the Toxic OfficerPerformance Evaluations for Public SafetyMaking Discipline Stick®, and Supervisor Liability for Public Safety.

Cops Need a Contract with Their Communities

Contracts are vital when it comes to matters of greatest importance in our lives. Buying a home, leasing a car, entering into a business partnership or even entering into a marriage—all of these involve different types of contractual agreements. As an attorney, I am wary of handshake deals and those who shy away from “putting things in writing”.  That weariness results from the fact that, in important matters, everyone involved needs to see what the terms are and eliminate the possibility that disaster results from different parties to the agreement having their own incompatible ideas of what they agreed to in the first place.

In too many communities across the country, police officers are in desperate need of a contract with their community. What is expected of the police in these areas is impossible to know. Often times, agency policy does not match the rhetoric of elected officials or prominent community leaders. The agency policy may require a particular action, but that same action runs counter to the demands of a substantial, or at least vocal, part of the community. Following agency policy in such circumstances may run the risk of getting officers publicly vilified, fired or even criminally prosecuted. Elected officials and police leaders need to clarify the rules of engagement in accordance with community priorities so that the officers have a clear understanding of these rules of engagement—rules that are formalized into policy.

Officers in many parts of the country are exhausted by the mixed messages they often receive from elected officials and the communities that they serve. On the one hand, residents and business owners call the police for practically every problem that plagues their daily life—from noise complaints to disputes between neighbors to reports of intoxicated persons or homeless people sleeping in front of their place of business. They turn to their officers to “do something” in the face of these quality of life issues. 

On the other hand, aggressive enforcement intended to prevent and detect criminal activity exponentially increases the frequency of enforcement contacts and, therefore, the likelihood of citations, arrests or use of force incidents that some in the community deem unreasonable or even terrorizing. Possibly most confusing is the fact that elected officials are blaming the police for upticks in crime while simultaneously blaming them for engaging in proactive policing that inevitably leads to more confrontational encounters. 

It seems that the time has come for communities, through direct referendum or through their duly elected officials, to decide exactly what they want their police to do and not do. The rules of engagement need to be clarified for officers and the community. They need to be in writing. They need to be in policy. They need to be in a formal contractual agreement. And with a contract comes certain obligations on both sides. Officers are obligated to operate within the enforcement framework that is specified. Community members and the officials that they elect are obligated to live with the consequences of these rules, for better or for worse

At this moment, when faced with unprecedented criticism from elected officials, public calls to “defund the police” and potential budget shortfalls in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many law enforcement agencies must begin addressing the possibility that the pro-active model that has been pursued for a generation will, in some communities, be fundamentally changed in favor of a new model. This new model, if it reflects the will of the local community, may involve prioritizing strategic responses to violent crimes while de-emphasizing traffic enforcement, officer responses to misdemeanor crimes and other activities under the umbrella of the “broken windows” theory of policing.

This new approach will mean first and foremost that the rules of engagement for officers on patrol will be clearly defined and that communities choosing a more reactive and restrained model are required to accept the outcomes that result. It is not sustainable to require officers to be all things to all people, answering all manner of calls for service coupled by the standard of conduct that renders termination, public harassment or criminal conviction all too likely. Policies must clearly define what is and what is not a police matter, as defined by the citizens in the community.

Pursuing a new model that turns more decision-making over to residents will also mean that different communities with different priorities will see substantially different levels of police intervention and activity. Some communities will demand pro-active policing and it will be the responsibility of their police departments to oblige.  Other communities will demand decreases in traffic stops, use of force and arrests. In these particular communities, the pro-active policing model is not community policing.  This model expressly allows for the possibility that the community will want the police to do less in many areas of operation—not just what should they be doing but what should they not be doing.

Many law enforcement professionals will argue that a more reactive “hands off” approach results in more innocent men, women and children being victimized by crime and fewer criminals being successfully prosecuted. And there is a litany of case studies that support their argument that a more reactive and restrained model of policing leads to increases in crime and disorder. But, again, as legitimate as these concerns may be, we must consider that no police agency can dictate to communities what is best for them. Police officers work for and are accountable to the public and they cannot make their priorities the community’s priorities. 

Experts in America usually do not have complete authority to dictate policy that is in opposition to the will of the people. If that were the case, cigarettes and fatty foods and alcohol would be more intensely regulated or even outlawed on the advice of experts.  Law enforcement is no different. The police veterans may know what is best, but that is not how a democracy functions. If we accept fundamental Peelian Principles on which modern policing was founded, we must accept that police legitimacy depends upon pursuing strategies that reflect the priorities of the community—even if the law enforcement professionals disagree with the wisdom of those priorities.

This approach is likely to be viewed by some as simply de-policing. But the key distinction is that de-policing is best understood as the informal and inconsistent cultural shift among patrol officers who choose not to engage in pro-active policing, while this new model is policy-driven and dictated by community policing principles. It is transparent and straightforward while de-policing is unspoken and veiled in plausible deniability for elected officials and police leaders.  

In light of the recent public proclamations by some local political leaders and even law enforcement leaders, it seems clear that de-policing is going to take hold in cities across the country. Where this is the case, rather than leaving officers to engage in discretionary de-policing, there is an ethical obligation to formalize operational changes in policy for officers and citizens. Officers are entitled to concrete guidance regarding the rules of engagement and citizens are entitled to know what police leaders will and will not direct their officers to do in their official capacity.

When the COVID-19 pandemic first broke, many agencies effectively communicated to the public what normal operations they would engage in and those in which they would not. Minor traffic violations, misdemeanors and property crimes would not be enforced due to fear of contagion. This has provided a model for communicating a more restrained and reactive approach to policing—not dictated by a pandemic but dictated by the more fundamental Peelian Principle of police legitimacy in light of community priorities.

Passing by a porch where individuals are openly using marijuana was once considered an act of “hands off” de-policing. Now, in the many states where marijuana is legal, officers are actually prohibited under the law from taking investigative actions in such an instance absent circumstances indicating criminal activity independent of marijuana use. When citizens’ priorities change, as evidenced by direct referendum or through their elected officials, law enforcement officers are obligated to make operational changes. If a community’s priorities are to decrease arrests and enforcement actions in favor of focusing on violent crimes in progress, community policing principles dictate that agency strategies adapt.  

Given the choice between informal de-policing and pro-active policing absent political and public support, this new model seems to present the feasible third option which is transparent and formalized into policy. Community support will only be sustained and improved if we are willing to consider a model that turns more policy-making authority over to the community to which the police are ultimately accountable. Community members and the officials that they elect are obligated to live with the outcomes, for better or for worse.

About the Author

Matt Dolan is a licensed attorney who specializes in training and advising public safety agencies in matters of legal liability. His training focuses on helping agency leaders create sound policies and procedures as a proactive means of minimizing their exposure to costly liability. A member of a law enforcement family dating back three generations, he serves as both Director and Public Safety Instructor with Dolan Consulting Group.

His training courses include Recruiting and Hiring for Law Enforcement, Confronting the Toxic Officer, Performance Evaluations for Public Safety, Making Discipline Stick®, and Supervisor Liability for Public Safety.

Historic Professionalism by Cops on the Front Lines: Taking a Moment to Assess the Progress of American Law Enforcement

Chief Harry P. Dolan (Ret.)In the last several days, tens of thousands of law enforcement officers across the country have been subjected to unrelenting verbal abuse and physical assaults.  Early on, many sustained injuries as they were attacked with rocks, feces, water bottles filled with urine and other objects that have been hurled their way by demonstrators.  In light of the vast numbers of these interactions between officers and enraged demonstrators, it is staggering to note that the overwhelming majority of officers did not retaliate in the face of the abuse that they have received.  It is yet another clear indicator of how far the profession has come that front-line officers exhibit such historic levels of professional discipline.

There will certainly be plenty of time in the near future to debrief and debate the actions of political and police leaders concerning specific actions taken or not taken to stem the tide of violence and ensure that rioters were criminally prosecuted.  But officers on the front lines don’t make political decisions or establish rules of engagement.  Across the country, officers were asked to hold the line and deflect abuse that most civilians would find unimaginable and to do so for hours on end without retaliating.  And, with very rare exceptions, they met the challenge with commendable professionalism consistent with their training.

Massive protests in past generations led to acts of massive retaliation and use of force by officers that were seared into the public’s memory.  In the 1960s, protests surrounding the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War often resulted in massively forceful responses by officers causing significant injuries to protestors—many of whom appeared to be peacefully demonstrating.  In light of the protests in recent days, what reasonable person would fail to conclude that the profession has advanced considerably?

Perhaps most striking is the obvious paradox represented by the violent actions of rioters who are protesting police brutality, all the while being confronted by a new generation of front-line officers who are the most professional, disciplined and well-trained in the history of American policing.  Accusations of “systemic” and “widespread” police brutality ring hollow as the nation watches the men and women in blue stoically and professionally standing resolute in their peace keeping mission as rioters make threats and engage in assaultive acts.  Ironically, they do so with the security of knowing that American law enforcement officers are extremely unlikely to react in kind. 

Is police misconduct, including instances of brutality, a sad reality that must be confronted by law enforcement leaders?  Absolutely.  But is it systemic to the whole of the profession?  It is not.  Every available study that we have seen indicates that a small percentage of bad cops bring disrepute and distrust to their departments and to their profession.  Consistent with those studies, we see countless officers exhibiting discipline and professionalism in the face of abuse across the country.  What other profession could withstand such public scrutiny and hostility with such overwhelming professionalism?

Demonstrations like the ones that have caused so much damage in recent days are generally unheard of in countries where police brutality actually is pervasive and systemic.  In many parts of the world, public demonstrations against the police are met with swift and overwhelming brutality.  In the United States, civilians clearly feel secure in hurling abuse at officers because they know that police professionals are extremely unlikely to retaliate violently.

We live in a country where demonstrators can spit and scream at officers for hours, take selfies while they damage property and tweet about their criminal acts with minimal fear of abusive police retribution.  Reports of officers sustaining life-threatening injuries at the hands of rioters continue to come in and yet we do not see massive retaliatory action that might have been expected in past generations of American policing.  

There are difficult conversations to be had about the unintended consequences of a non-confrontational “hands off” approach to addressing these types of demonstrations.  In moving forward, we must grapple with the prospect that these tactical decisions embolden property crime and allowed the contagion of violence to spread.  

But one thing is abundantly clear—the men and women on the front lines should take great pride and be commended for their honorable steadfast service exhibited in the most trying of times.  

Preparing for a Hiring Frenzy in Law Enforcement

Over the past several years, there have been common refrains from law enforcement leaders and the recruiters tasked with filling the ranks of law enforcement across the country. In an era of low unemployment and plentiful job opportunities in the private sector, why choose a career in law enforcement with the stress, danger, and public scrutiny that comes with it?

But in the last few weeks, in the face of the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 crisis, men and women across the United States are facing staggering challenges in finding a way to support themselves and their families. In fact, there are entire industries within the U.S. economy that appear unlikely to fully recover for years to come. If the past is any indication, economic downturns tend to correspond with a flood of applications for law enforcement agencies as applicants are harder pressed to find stable employment. Moving forward, the new challenges may be associated with a hiring frenzy and the crucial errors that often accompany them.

The Economic Picture

The dry spell for law enforcement hiring greatly increased as unemployment plummeted in the U.S. after 2016. Law enforcement agencies have had to compete with other professions (including safer professions that offer higher salaries) as the economy surged. And law enforcement was not the only profession having trouble recruiting qualified individuals. A 2017 report by the National Center for Health Workforce Analysis indicated the nation was critically short of nurses. A 2019 report by the Economic Policy Institute revealed that public K-12 schools had numerous unfilled teacher vacancies, with as many as 50% of positions unfilled in some school districts. Both the U.S. military and commercial aviation have also struggled with shortages of pilots. 

All that, however, might be about to change due to the economic effects of the COVID-19 quarantine. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 3.5% of the U.S. population was receiving unemployment benefits in February, 2020. During March 2020, the number of people receiving unemployment benefits rose 26%, and it is continuing to rise in April. The fields most hit by permanent layoffs have been leisure, entertainment, and hospitality, health care (dentist and physician office staff), social assistance (social work, special needs, and day care services), and the retail sales industry. As more  businesses and industries collapse, more people will be out looking for new sources of employment.    

An Overloaded Background Investigation Process

The past experience of law enforcement hiring frenzies in the late 1980s and early 1990s should teach us that bad things happen when we “hire them now and ask tough questions later.” Skyrocketing violent crime rates, a mild economic recession, and federal funding assistance to hire more police officers nationwide resulted in hiring frenzies in law enforcement agencies across that nation during that period. But accomplishing the goal of quickly getting “boots on the ground” often came at the expense of hiring quality candidates.  

The New York City Police Department’s hiring frenzy directly contributed to a corruption scandal in the 1990s. In May 1992, a joint drug task force in New York City revealed a ring of corrupt NYPD officers who stole drugs and money, sold drugs themselves, and engaged in various forms of brutality. An investigation by the Mollen Commission revealed, in the midst of the hiring frenzy, overworked background investigators were not conducting thorough investigations and the department was placing applicants in the academy before background checks had even been completed.

The authors of the Mollen Commission Report stated that “Approximately 20 percent of the officers suspended or dismissed should never have been admitted into the Department.” The Commission noted the failure to follow proper applicant screening procedures when it wrote, “The Department has routinely admitted applicants to the Department—and put them on the streets as sworn officers with guns and shields—before their background checks are complete. Eighty-eight percent of the officers in our study, for example, entered the Police Academy before the completion of their background (investigation).” 

The Commission revealed that, during the hiring surge, background investigations often were not completed until after the applicant became a sworn police officer. “This is particularly troublesome because by the time recruits have graduated from the Police Academy and become sworn members of the Department, much time, energy, and money has been invested in them. Consequently, the focus shifts from the question of whether the applicant is qualified, to how the Department could justify dismissing a sworn police officer, which carries a heavier burden of proof.”

The same story was repeated in many other law enforcement agencies across the nation during that era. A 1985 corruption investigation of the Miami Police Department uncovered a group of corrupt officers that eventually became known as the “Miami River Cops. This investigation revealed a contingent of 20 Miami officers who engaged in murders, robberies, burglaries, drug deals, and accepting bribes. An investigation by the lead prosecutor in the case revealed that, just as had occurred in New York City, the Miami Police Department had gone through a hiring surge, beginning in 1980, in response to a spike in violent and drug crime. This hiring surge had resulted in a curtailing of thorough background investigations. Every single one of the 20 convicted Miami River Cops had been hired after 1979 (during the hiring surge) and many had past histories of criminal behavior, violence, drug and alcohol abuse, or mental health issues before their date of hiring. Similar situations contributed to criminal scandals in New Orleans, Louisiana and Gary, Indiana in the early 1990s, and the Rampart Division Scandal for the Los Angeles Police Department in the late 1990s.

While these cautionary tales do not indicate that every bad hire will result in criminal behavior and extreme corruption, they do illustrate the disastrous results that can come from cutting corners on the background investigation process. Throughout the country, there are lesser examples of the results of hiring frenzies. There are agencies in which problem officers are dealt with by department members while the police chiefs or sheriffs who were responsible for these hires have long since retired from the profession. A leader’s greatest legacy in law enforcement is the men and women that carry on after the leader has left. Hiring people that have no business joining the ranks of law enforcement hurts your agency and the profession. The damage ultimately done by today’s bad hires on the recruiting efforts of tomorrow is incalculable.  

Hiring Discrimination Claims

If law enforcement agencies experience hiring frenzies with more applicants free of automatic disqualifiers than open positions available, leaders should prepare to defend their hiring decisions in the face of failure-to-hire discrimination lawsuits. For years, many agencies have not been choosing a better qualified candidate over a lesser qualified candidate—rather, they have hired as many applicants who could survive the background and hiring process, with numerous vacancies still left unfilled. 

In vetting candidates, agency leaders should simultaneously focus on holding applicants to stringent standards while also ensuring that the rationale for not hiring individual applicants is articulated, documented and retained in the event of failure-to-hire litigation. Even the appearance of discriminatory hiring practices risks deteriorating public confidence in the profession and its leaders efforts to ensure that the police are a reasonable reflection of the communities that they serve.

Conclusion

Even as agencies face the present challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, they should begin preparing for the possibility of a hiring frenzy in light of new economic realities.  These realities present opportunities for police departments and sheriff’s offices to recruit eager and qualified men and women. But they also present these agencies with the distinct challenges associated with hiring frenzies—effectively vetting the next generation of officers while documenting their decision-making in a way that minimizes failure-to-hire discrimination liability.

About the Author

Matt Dolan is a licensed attorney who specializes in training and advising public safety agencies in matters of legal liability. His training focuses on helping agency leaders create sound policies and procedures as a proactive means of minimizing their exposure to costly liability. A member of a law enforcement family dating back three generations, he serves as both Director and Public Safety Instructor with Dolan Consulting Group.

His training courses include Recruiting and Hiring for Law EnforcementConfronting the Toxic OfficerPerformance Evaluations for Public SafetyMaking Discipline Stick®, and Supervisor Liability for Public Safety.

How Do Cops Choose Their Specific Departments?

It is widely known that many law enforcement agencies today are struggling to recruit qualified applicants to fill their law enforcement officer vacancies. In previous articles, we have completed a detailed examination of the factors that led existing law enforcement officers to pursue their careers in law enforcement. In short, most officers were drawn to the career out of a desire for exciting and interesting work, as well as a desire to address injustice within society and help people. Besides having these internal desires, a majority of existing officers were also drawn to the career by already knowing police officers, seeing the police at work in their community, and by watching portrayals of the police in the popular media. It is important to note, however, that this does not indicate what attracted these officers to their particular police department. To date, we have only discussed what attracted people to the profession generally.

In this article, we begin to examine what factors specifically led officers to select the particular law enforcement agency where they are currently employed. Hopefully the answers our survey respondents gave can help law enforcement agencies in their recruiting efforts by illustrating what workplace characteristics are most important to those who have already been drawn to the law enforcement profession.

The Sample

Sworn law enforcement officers who attended the various training courses offered by the Dolan Consulting Group (DCG) from August 2018 through March 2019 were given the opportunity to participate in our DCG Police Recruiting and Hiring Survey. A total of 1,673 sworn personnel took the survey, of whom 286 (17.1%) were female and 1,387 (82.9%) were male. The racial composition of the respondents was 83.4% White (non-Hispanic), 6.8% African-American, 5.4% Hispanic, 1.4% Multiracial, 1.0% Native American, 0.4% Asian, and 1.6% all other groups. In terms of highest education level achieved, 30.8% had less than an associate’s degree, 18.2% had an associate’s degree, and 51% had a bachelor’s degree or higher. A total of 52.8% of the respondents held the rank of officer, deputy, or trooper, while another 10.0% held the rank of detective. About 23% held first-line supervisory ranks (corporal or sergeant), 4.5% held middle-management ranks (mostly lieutenants), and the remaining 9.7% held command staff ranks (captain or higher). Approximately 65% of the respondents were assigned to the patrol division of their agency, 14% to investigations, and 14% to command administration. The remaining 7% indicated other assignments such as training, community policing unit, or media relations. These respondents came from 49 different states and agencies ranging in size from less than a dozen officers to agencies with thousands of officers.

Reasons for Selecting their Law Enforcement Agency

The survey respondents were presented with a list of twenty-five potential factors that might have influenced their decision to apply and accept employment with their current employing law enforcement agency. For each of these 25 factors, the respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement (from strongly disagree to strongly agree) regarding the extent to which each factor influenced their choice to join their specific agency over other possible agency opportunities. The results are displayed in Table 1 below, showing the percentage of respondents who answered agree or strongly agree with each statement. 

As Table 1 reveals, two-thirds of the respondents indicated that the department’s or the community’s size was an important factor. Keep in mind that the officers surveyed came from a wide assortment of agencies, ranging in size from less than 10 officers to some of the largest city, county, and state agencies in the nation. Our survey suggested that while the officers differed dramatically in the size of agency or community in which they wanted to work, individual size preference mattered more than any other factor

Next in importance came the pragmatic concerns regarding the department’s benefits package, retirement plan, and starting salary. More than half of the respondents indicated that they considered these factors when weighing employment with one law enforcement agency over another. Ranked in fifth place was whether or not the agency or community was an exciting place to work, followed by the department’s perceived level of prestige. The last factor that more than half of the respondents selected was the ability to remain local to where they were living at the time they applied.

Almost 45% indicated that the department’s promotional and career mobility opportunities mattered in their decision, and approximately 44% indicated they selected their agency because it was the first agency to hire them. This suggests that law enforcement agencies with excessively long selection processes are losing quality candidates to other agencies because these other agencies offer employment sooner. To a lesser extent, such factors as the community’s level of crime or call activity (i.e., excitement level), and quality of life issues (the safety and affordability of the community) mattered to more than a third of the survey respondents.       

In our earlier articles we noted how important personal connections with existing law enforcement officers was to influencing people to pursue a law enforcement career. In terms of selecting a specific agency for employment, 35% indicated that they were influenced by a friend or family member recommending the department. Another 33% of the respondents indicated that they already had friends or family members serving on the department. Personal connections and invitations clearly continued to matter in the decision to select a law enforcement agency.

Table 1. Reasons for Joining your Specific Department

In summary, beyond financial considerations, the most important factors that influenced the respondents’ choices to join their current agency reflected an interest in seeking an agency that was a good cultural fit for them (size, prestige, and activity level), provided well for them, and offered them employment in a reasonable amount of time. We were interested in examining, however, if differences existed in the responses of officers hired during different eras.

Examining Era Differences

We examined the top ten responses of the 233 respondents who had become law enforcement officers within the last five years, and compared these to the top ten responses of the respondents who joined law enforcement more than five years ago. The results of this comparison are displayed in Table 2 below. While both groups rated highly both exciting / interesting work and practical financial issues, the results did reveal a few notable differences. 

Table 2. Reasons for Joining your Specific Department by Hiring Era

The responses of those hired within the last five years placed slightly greater emphasis on the work environment and slightly less emphasis on the financial or pragmatic aspects of employment. The responses of those hired within the last five years ranked work excitement, the community’s size, the agency’s activity level, and a diversity of career mobility opportunities among the top five factors that attracted them to the department. The pension plan was the only financial or pragmatic aspect that made it to the top five spots. In comparison, among those hired more than five years ago, the practical concerns of starting salary, benefits package, not having to move, and the area being a safe place to live all made the top five spots for things that drew them to their particular department.

Approximately 58% of those hired within the last five years considered the community’s activity level, compared to only 37 of those hired more than five years ago. Similarly, 55% of those hired within the last five years considered the department’s career mobility options, while only 37% of those hired longer ago did so. While 59% of those hired more than five years ago considered the safety level of living in the community, and 45% considered its affordability, neither of these concerns made the top ten spots for the more recent hires.    

Recommendations 

Our research has revealed that the things that attract people to the law enforcement profession are a desire for interesting work, a desire to help people, a personal connection to or interactions with existing law enforcement officers, and exposure to popular media portrayals of police work. Once the individual has made the decision to pursue a law enforcement career, other factors come into play when deciding to which law enforcement agencies the individual should apply, and which job offer the individual should accept. 

What is clear in the study’s findings is that pay and benefits and pension do matter. But, assuming that every recruiter and agency leader wishes they could improve these financial realities and that any shortcomings in these areas are not due to lack of trying, we have focused on recommending strategies focused on what you can do in light of these realities. To capitalize on the factors that influence agency choice, we recommend the following: 

“Truth in Advertising”—Clearly and Positively Communicate the Day-to-Day Realities of Your Agency and its Operations. The agency size, call activity level, and career mobility opportunities were all extremely important to the respondents in this survey. Some applicants are interested in fast-paced work with a large agency that offers a higher degree of action and the ability to move around to different units within the department. Large agencies—which often cannot match the pay and benefits of wealthy suburban departments—should emphasize these aspects of their department.

If you can’t compete with the pay and benefits of other agencies, can you promote the high call volume and specialized units that are a substantial part of your agency operations? This is an exciting place to work was the fifth most common factor cited by officers in choosing a particular agency. There are many large departments where burnout and fatigue are substantial problems due to the call-to-call nature of the job—but one thing this work cannot be reasonably called is boring.Are you ready to work? Are you up to the challenge of combating violent crime? Are you interested in working on specialized units? If so—this is the place for you.”   

If your agency is small, serves a low-crime community, and has few opportunities for specialization or promotion, it might be beneficial to emphasize these characteristics to potential applicants—with an emphasis on the opportunities to engage in community policing strategies that are generally abundant in these departments. Such smaller agencies should look for candidates who are most interested in “jack of all trades” patrol work and the community service aspects of the job.

Many applicants, including experienced officers who have worked in larger agencies and are looking for a change, might find it appealing to work for a department in which the emphasis is on the “talking profession” and “helping profession” aspects of law enforcement. On the other hand, if conducting business checks, having non-enforcement action conversations with residents, and dealing with quality-of-life issues related to loitering and noise complaints is not appealing to an applicant, isn’t it best that they save everyone some time and trouble and apply to another agency?

What smaller agencies typically lack are the things that have tended to fill up police recruiting materials for years—K-9 units, SWAT teams, gang task forces, helicopters and frequent Priority 1 calls for service. What they generally do offer are opportunities for officers to know their community, feel that they make an impact on the lives of the residents and operate in an agency in which they are known personally by supervisors and even the Chief or Sheriff. “Are you interested in coming to an agency where your work is noticed and you’re not just a number? Do you want to make an impact every day, not just run from call to call to call? Do you want to know the people who live in this community and make an impact in their lives? If so—this is the place for you.”     

Regardless of your agency’s particular size, call activity, and mobility opportunities, consider focusing your recruiting efforts on finding men and women who are a good fit. Those who are a good fit are more likely to be drawn to your agency in the first place and stay longer once they are hired. The cliché “the grass is always greener on the other side” has some significance for law enforcement. There are clear pros and cons to the daily realities of policing in a large agency, a small agency, a high call volume agency, a low call volume agency. Consider focusing on the benefits of the work realities in your agency. And consider making certain that your advertising—in person, online and in the media—fairly reflect those realities to those most likely to gravitate to them.

Streamline Your Hiring Process.  Law enforcement agencies must dedicate the appropriate time and personnel to ensure that all of their new hires meet standards. Hiring even one candidate who has demonstrated “red flags” of misconduct in their past, for instance, could endanger the reputation of the agency and the safety of the community they are sworn to protect and serve. However, the necessity of thorough vetting should not necessitate hiring processes that take six months, a year, or even longer. 

Is your agency prioritizing a streamlined hiring process in the form of a user-friendly application process, cutting unnecessary bureaucratic “red tape”, assigning dedicated background investigators, scheduling multiple opportunities to take written and physical agility testing, and setting clear goals for processing applicants? If not, as the study indicates, you are falling behind. This was the first agency to offer me a job was cited as an important factor by 43% of officers in our study and by 50% of officers hired in the last 5 years. 

In today’s environment, in which qualified law enforcement applicants will eventually have multiple options in choosing an agency, doing everything within reason to become the first agency to make an offer of employment is vitally important. For many officers, based on the study, an offer today from an agency that may have been their second or third choice is better than waiting around for an indeterminate amount of time for their first choice. And the opposite also appears to be true—you may be their first choice, but if you are months behind the competition there is no reason to rest assured that they will be waiting for you once you reach out with a job offer.      

Remember that “Word of Mouth” and Personal Connections Still Matter. Online and traditional advertising as a part of your agency recruiting is not something that we would suggest abandoning. However, the study indicates that agencies should be careful not to over-emphasize the role of these more formal recruiting efforts, particularly at the cost of focusing attention on other facets of your long-term recruiting efforts. Less than 6% of the officers we surveyed selected their employing department because they saw an advertisement about the department.

Meanwhile, 35% had someone in their life personally recommend the agency to them and another 33% already knew someone on the department they decided to join. This indicates that agencies should continually ask: Do our officers act as recruiters for our agency on and off the clock? Are they “talking up” our department or are they actively discouraging friends and family from applying? The answers to these questions are critical, as the study indicates that personal connections are a more frequently cited factor in choosing a particular agency than any formal recruiting material that you could distribute.

Whether accomplished through a formal retention and recruiting study or by simply talking to your officers as frequently and frankly as possible, it is vital to gage the level of job satisfaction in your department. Job satisfaction among your officers is vital to countless facets of agency operations—and recruiting seems to be no different.   

About the Authors

Dr. Richard Johnson serves as Chief Academic Officer for Dolan Consulting Group. In that capacity, he acts as the lead researcher in conducting DCG Recruiting and Retention Surveys throughout the United States.

Attorney Matt Dolan serves as Director for Dolan Consulting Group. He conducts training courses throughout the United States on the various topics, including Recruiting and Hiring for Law Enforcement.