fbpx

Block Training in the Academy – Efficiency & Effectiveness Are Not The Same

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Part 3 of 4  | View Part 1 & Part 2

The 2015 Presidential Task Force on 21st Century Policing recommended federal funding “to promote consistent standards for high quality training” and to “develop rigorous training practices, evaluation, and development of curricula based on evidence-based practices.” To date, nothing has been developed regarding academy training. 

Force Science believes that scientifically examining academy training is critical because great policing lies primarily on the foundation of a successful academy learning experience.

…great policing lies primarily on the foundation of a successful academy learning experience.

In our previous article in this series we highlighted FS research conducted in three countries on the number of hours and the scientific foundation of police training on force.  One of FS’s consultants on that study, with a Ph.D. in psychomotor skills training, concluded that none of the academies provided an appropriate number of hours, or the type of instruction that ensured the skills would be functionally sustained for any period after graduation from the academy.  This is critical information.  Training institutions are asserting the recruit is trained, and all instructional components have been taught, but have they been “learned?”

For decades, departments have routinely complained that tactical and decision-making skills are less well trained than anything else.  Perceived errors in the application of tactical and decision skills are the very areas that lead, in large part, to the 1.2 billion-dollar loss in civil suits that the ten top police agencies in the US pay per year.  These perceived errors also appear to be a contributing factor if officers face criminal charges for their use of force, as well as factors for some of the injuries and deaths experienced in this profession. 

Block Training

In our previous study FS found force skills were taught in stand-alone (silo training) sessions and were taught in a block format. One of the reasons for this is budgetary. Training is costly and it is especially costly to bring in the same trainers, multiple times, so instruction is presented in a less expensive block fashion. This is a key weakness that lies at the heart of police instruction.  Any skill, relevant to force or not, will perish rapidly if taught in the block and silo format. Even during officer in-service training, this instructional weakness pervades the training of tactics, arrest and control, communication and de-escalation, and practically every other type of police instruction.

…silo training…taught in a block format…is a key weakness that lies at the heart of police instruction.

In addition, two-thirds of officers graduating from academies in the US will not have any FTO training after graduation, and they will receive very little in-service training. Therefore, the major component of force-skills must be effectively taught, measured, and clinically integrated in the academy, with other skills such as pre-event assessment, decision-making, communication, and de-escalation.  If an officer was not effectively taught, or does not retain, the practical skills they need to handle a situation, they compromise their safety and that of the person with whom they are working.

Political Pressures

When a tactical analyst observes an officer repeatedly using the same ineffective technique, or unnecessarily escalating in their use of force, one of their immediate thoughts is to question the training of the officer. The community pressure to solve this perceived problem with police use of force moves in another direction.  It is not to analyze what is taught and how, but instead to require additional, non-skill training, often at the expense of time spent in skills training. This is not to say that other training is not useful or important but reducing already insufficient time in arrest and control and intermediate skill training may not be the answer.  On its face, it may look like a good way to solve the problem.  However, before implementing any solution to any force problem, the first point of inquiry should be an in-depth analysis as to whether or not the person has the necessary skill.

…reducing already insufficient time in arrest and control and intermediate skill training may not be the answer.

Consistent Findings

The first FS study, analyzing time and methodology of instruction, strongly predicted that the current method of instruction used in the academies studied, would result in a significant erosion in functional skills after graduation from the academy.  Was this prediction realistic and accurate? Unfortunately, FS found the answer to be yes.

The next step in the FS scientific investigation of skill-training was to burrow deeply into the actual resulting achievement of the skill by the recruit.  FS adopted an objective, analytic process and method of measurement for the functional assessment of academy skills.  This could then be used to build a measurable score on whether the skill was achieved, and whether or not it was sustained over time. 

Most academies (93%) already do some type of evaluation on skill acquisition.  However, these evaluations are mostly subjective, and even use group examinations of whether or not the skill was acquired.  If any semi-objective measurement were to be made by academy instructors, it is usually on a simple Likert-type scale of 1-5.

After developing this evaluation tool, FS began an intensive analysis of academy training, and conducted a three-year, empirical analysis of three large regional police academies randomly situated across the United States.  The instructors had been teaching skills, on average, for at least a dozen years.  The skills tested were divided into simple, skills consisting of five steps or less, and complex, more than ten steps.  Examples of the simple skills studied are baton strikes and pressure point techniques.  Examples of the complex skills are weapon disarming and handcuffing.

Examples of the simple skills studied are baton strikes and pressure point techniques. Examples of the complex skills are weapon disarming and handcuffing.

A step-by-step task analysis was constructed based on the components and grading process the instructors stated they used.  This was then modified after the researchers analyzed videos of the instructors modeling and teaching the skills.  In the classroom, the instructors used a combination of lecturing, modeling, practice, and corrective feedback. All instruction, throughout all academies, was conducted in a group, block format and each skill taught was taught independently of others, or in a silo format.

FS videotaped each recruit performing the skill before instruction, during instruction, and multiple times after, even up to 16 weeks post academy graduation at one site. Over the course of all three academies studied, over ten thousand videos were made of the recruits and the instructors.  These were analyzed in detail using the criterion established by each academy.

At each site, prior to being taught the skill, the recruit was tested on the skill being evaluated to establish a baseline, and determine the influence of training.  They were also asked to perform a physical skill that was not taught in the academy which served as a control for the research study. 

In studies of this nature, an accuracy score of 80% is generally considered mastery of a skill that is performed in a stable, non-threatening, non-dynamic environment.  This was the training and testing environment in these academies.

Results

Assessment of the recruits’ performance was done immediately following training and at least at one, two, four, and eight weeks post-training. In the first academy studied, simple skills, at the completion of instruction, were performed at an average of 81%, with a range of 45% to 100%.  After eight weeks, the simple skills declined to a class average of 75%, with a range of 45% to 100%.  It is important to note that each skill was assessed by researchers and trainers to also identify the skill’s “critical steps.”  At eight weeks, although the recruits maintained a relatively correct process of the whole skill, the critical step for the simple skill scored at 29%.  This means that the simple skill, although performed relatively correctly, was no longer functional even though the recruit had not yet graduated.

…the simple skill, although performed relatively correctly, was no longer functional even though the recruit had not yet graduated.

The complex skill, scored immediately after instruction, averaged 71%, with a range from 3% to 81%.  After one week, the group still had an average of 71% but the range was from 21% to 88%.  At four weeks, the complex skill had decreased to an average of 59%, with a range from 8% to 81%.

The recruits reported being “somewhat”, to “very,” confident in their ability to perform the complex skill, yet they fell far short of the 80% mastery level in their ability to perform it.  In actuality, only a few had achieved and maintained some mastery of the complex skill in a stable, non-threatening, non-dynamic situation.  None of these skills were taught or assessed under stress or resistance.   But FS observed, even at the completion of all of the training and testing, some recruits, demonstrating the simple skill of baton use, lost control of the baton on their swing and some never made contact with the leg of the target dummy.  In the weapon take away, after initial training and confirmation of the achievement of the skill, only 17% performed the initial step correctly, and made contact with the arm holding the gun. If this contact step is not completed in weapon disarming, the rest of the technique is irrelevant, regardless of the quality of the remaining moves.

At one of the research sites, FS was able to conduct a follow up of half of the class (27 recruits) at 16 weeks post-graduation.  The complex skill had dropped by 20% from the last time they were tested in the academy.  The average score was 60%, with the range being 29% to 77%.  The simple skill (baton strike with five-steps or less) dropped by 11% with an average score of 65% and a range of 24% to 84%.  Functionally, these skills would not be effective in a dynamic, real world encounter.

Remember, all three countries in our first study, the US, UK, and Canada, generally use the same training time and methods that are being used in the academies on which FS just reported.  Therefore, we would expect these results to generalize to them as well.

For more information, the full study entitled ‘Police Academy Training, Performance, and Learning’ is found in Behavior Analysis in Practice, a transnational journal providing science-based, best-practice information relevant to service delivery in behavior analysis.

Dedicated Trainers

Despite how some of this information may sound, FS found many positive aspects in academy training. Common themes emerged in all three countries and in all the academies studied.  It was evident the instructors were skilled, talented, accomplished, and committed professionals. They were challenged to provide the best instruction possible, to everyone, given the range of attitudinal and psychomotor abilities that are present in every academy class. They bore the burden of knowing the limitations on their instruction-time, funding, equipment, and limitations in facilities. In summary, academy staff are under tremendous pressure to accomplish the stated “learning objectives,” but the limitations of time, personnel, and resources available, often defy the reality of being able to successfully teach them.  It would be valuable to see the results these trainers could deliver given more time, resources, and the use of instructional techniques, based on modern, scientific foundations for learning.

It was evident the instructors were skilled, talented, accomplished, and committed professionals.

Police trainers, like most officers, are very resourceful people, and there were kernels of genius that helped staff overcome limitations, to the extent they could. 

Coming Up

In our next FS News, we will share some of these kernels from the instructors and the techniques with which FS experimented in our studies that significantly improved learning. 

For almost a decade, we enjoyed the teachings of the master of psychomotor-skills training, Dr. Richard Schmidt.  Dr. Schmidt spent 40 years studying, researching and teaching in the psychology department at UCLA.  He taught for Force Science for almost ten years in our Certification Course and crafted the current unit on psychomotor-skills currently taught by Chris Lawrence.  We have also been fortunate to enjoy the support of Dr. Schmidt’s co-author, in the latest versions of Motor Learning and Performance, Dr. Tim Lee.  Dr. Lee is a retired professor from McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, and teaches and consults in the Force Science Advanced Specialist Class

In our next FS News, we will share with you some of the recommendations of these giants on motor-skills acquisition that can be used in an academy setting.

In the law enforcement profession, it is a good thing we hire good people, because no professional tries so hard and does so much with so little!

7 Responses
  1. All LEO instructors should be aware of this research. If you are currently involved in training police officers and know an instructor that is not receiving FS updates you need to get them signed up. If you are involved in the process of determining the outcome of police officer UOF events, the same applies. Great job FS, keep the information coming.

  2. I’m not sure how anyone could be surprised by the information provided that most trainers, especially in academies already know. We in law enforcement treat training like a one time fix, similar to treating an illness with a curable shot. The fact also remains that many academies are ran by someone who has never worn a uniform and their only concern is to put butts in the seats for financial reasons, and they seldom will release anyone from the academy that is failing to perform. The departments also play an important role by not having hiring standards that evaluate both decision making skills as well as physical fitness. The decision making skills should be taught throughout the year and on a regular basis concerning response to resistance, and this could be accomplished to some degree with using briefings as an opportunity for training instead of a group chat session. The fact is training must be a cultural change within law enforcement where the administrations make that their priority. The training also must be routinely evaluated by the department to ensure their meeting the goals of the agency. You’ll find that most administrations couldn’t tell you what type of training is taught in their police department, and they don’t attend the training to see how training is being implemented in the department. You’ll even find that many agencies have created policies that state above a certain rank is not required to attend many of the training sessions, which could simply be an opportunity for them to evaluate and understand what is happening within their departments. These are the same individuals that are tasked with making decisions about a response to resistance encounter that they themselves don’t understand how it fits within their own policy. The change is a multi facet approach where everyone has the same goal in mind and is evaluated on a regular basis to ensure we’re all meeting that standard. I’ve seen agencies that have an accreditation they’ve received that requires them to have defensive tactics training on a scheduled basis, but then don’t meet the standards to keep the accreditation because they fail to train as scheduled. I realize the easy answer is always money, but the fact is many departments have opportunity for training that can be achieved through examination of time and resources. Best of luck!

  3. Rene Alvarez

    I have enjoyed and praise these articles and the studies. This is A LONG time coming to see this research. It really reinforces where we want to go with the Combatives training and why our organization is taking baby steps in this direction. This is the vision of our organization, and I hope that all trainers are seeing the changes that are needed and seeing the changes that are being made in our profession nationwide on how we train our people for combative situations. Training is changing, with our without us, and if our mission is to help officers survive and go home at the end of the day, then this is a no brainer. We ARE doing the right thing, and there is still so much to learn with these studies. I ask that trainers share this article with all the people trying to make a difference and encourage them to read the other parts to this series as well.

    Let no officer get killed or injured because we failed to take the initiative to train them as best and as hard as we can.

  4. Doug Earl

    Many good comments have been made about this article. The article definitely supports that skills and abilities are perishable. Any good trainer knows that. Every law enforcement agency should take on the Golden Gate Bridge model of training. The story goes that it takes a year (or some period of time) to paint the Golden Gate Bridge and to keep up with the effects of the weather, rust, etc… the painter must start over as soon as they finish. It should also be said that officers don’t need to repeat the entire Basic Academy but they should have regular training that reinforces important areas of performance. This goes together perfectly with an article from PoliceOne “Firearms qualifications are NOT important!” By Jason Wuestenberg, P1 Contributor February11, 2019. The article explains that we should do qualification tests as little as possible and do more training. In my opinion that idea is right on. Testing people over and over who are already rusty only shows lack of ability. They need to be built back up, not more testing.

  5. John

    Motor Learning and Performance is grossly overpriced. As much as I appreciate the work of FSI, this entire 4 part series seems like an extended teaser for the book and nothing else.

    1. Force Science

      John, we appreciate your comment. We can assure you this is is not a commercial for a book. This article series serves only to be a source of great information to those wanting to learn more about block training in law enforcement. If you can find inexpensive books on these topics and concepts covered, we encourage to you procure them. Or better yet, you can search the internet for readings and resources on the concepts covered in this series that are likely free of charge.

Leave a Reply

GDPR

  • Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Effective date: January 06, 2019

Force Science Institute, Ltd. (“us”, “we”, or “our”) operates the https://www.forcescience.org/ website (hereinafter referred to as the “Service”).

This page informs you of our policies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data when you use our Service and the choices you have associated with that data. Our Privacy Policy for Force Science Institute, Ltd. is based on the Privacy Policy Template from Privacy Policies.

We use your data to provide and improve the Service. By using the Service, you agree to the collection and use of information in accordance with this policy. Unless otherwise defined in this Privacy Policy, the terms used in this Privacy Policy have the same meanings as in our Terms and Conditions, accessible from https://www.forcescience.org/

Information Collection And Use

We collect several different types of information for various purposes to provide and improve our Service to you.

Types of Data Collected

Personal Data

While using our Service, we may ask you to provide us with certain personally identifiable information that can be used to contact or identify you (“Personal Data”). Personally identifiable information may include, but is not limited to:

  • Email address
  • First name and last name
  • Phone number
  • Address, State, Province, ZIP/Postal code, City
  • Cookies and Usage Data

Usage Data

We may also collect information on how the Service is accessed and used (“Usage Data”). This Usage Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol address (e.g. IP address), browser type, browser version, the pages of our Service that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages, unique device identifiers and other diagnostic data.

Tracking & Cookies Data

We use cookies and similar tracking technologies to track the activity on our Service and hold certain information.

Cookies are files with small amount of data which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a website and stored on your device. Tracking technologies also used are beacons, tags, and scripts to collect and track information and to improve and analyze our Service.

You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our Service. You can learn more how to manage cookies in the Browser Cookies Guide.

Examples of Cookies we use:

  • Session Cookies. We use Session Cookies to operate our Service.
  • Preference Cookies. We use Preference Cookies to remember your preferences and various settings.
  • Security Cookies. We use Security Cookies for security purposes.

Use of Data

Force Science Institute, Ltd. uses the collected data for various purposes:

  • To provide and maintain the Service
  • To notify you about changes to our Service
  • To allow you to participate in interactive features of our Service when you choose to do so
  • To provide customer care and support
  • To provide analysis or valuable information so that we can improve the Service
  • To monitor the usage of the Service
  • To detect, prevent and address technical issues

Transfer Of Data

Your information, including Personal Data, may be transferred to — and maintained on — computers located outside of your state, province, country or other governmental jurisdiction where the data protection laws may differ than those from your jurisdiction.

If you are located outside United States and choose to provide information to us, please note that we transfer the data, including Personal Data, to United States and process it there.

Your consent to this Privacy Policy followed by your submission of such information represents your agreement to that transfer.

Force Science Institute, Ltd. will take all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that your data is treated securely and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and no transfer of your Personal Data will take place to an organization or a country unless there are adequate controls in place including the security of your data and other personal information.

Disclosure Of Data

Legal Requirements

Force Science Institute, Ltd. may disclose your Personal Data in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to:

  • To comply with a legal obligation
  • To protect and defend the rights or property of Force Science Institute, Ltd.
  • To prevent or investigate possible wrongdoing in connection with the Service
  • To protect the personal safety of users of the Service or the public
  • To protect against legal liability

Security Of Data

The security of your data is important to us, but remember that no method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage is 100% secure. While we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your Personal Data, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.

Service Providers

We may employ third party companies and individuals to facilitate our Service (“Service Providers”), to provide the Service on our behalf, to perform Service-related services or to assist us in analyzing how our Service is used.

These third parties have access to your Personal Data only to perform these tasks on our behalf and are obligated not to disclose or use it for any other purpose.

Analytics

We may use third-party Service Providers to monitor and analyze the use of our Service.

  • Google AnalyticsGoogle Analytics is a web analytics service offered by Google that tracks and reports website traffic. Google uses the data collected to track and monitor the use of our Service. This data is shared with other Google services. Google may use the collected data to contextualize and personalize the ads of its own advertising network.You can opt-out of having made your activity on the Service available to Google Analytics by installing the Google Analytics opt-out browser add-on. The add-on prevents the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js, analytics.js, and dc.js) from sharing information with Google Analytics about visits activity.For more information on the privacy practices of Google, please visit the Google Privacy & Terms web page: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en

Links To Other Sites

Our Service may contain links to other sites that are not operated by us. If you click on a third party link, you will be directed to that third party’s site. We strongly advise you to review the Privacy Policy of every site you visit.

We have no control over and assume no responsibility for the content, privacy policies or practices of any third party sites or services.

Children’s Privacy

Our Service does not address anyone under the age of 18 (“Children”).

We do not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18. If you are a parent or guardian and you are aware that your Children has provided us with Personal Data, please contact us. If we become aware that we have collected Personal Data from children without verification of parental consent, we take steps to remove that information from our servers.

Changes To This Privacy Policy

We may update our Privacy Policy from time to time. We will notify you of any changes by posting the new Privacy Policy on this page.

We will let you know via email and/or a prominent notice on our Service, prior to the change becoming effective and update the “effective date” at the top of this Privacy Policy.

You are advised to review this Privacy Policy periodically for any changes. Changes to this Privacy Policy are effective when they are posted on this page.

Contact Us

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, please contact us:

  • By email: support@forcescience.org
  • By visiting this page on our website: https://www.forcescience.org/contact
  • By phone number: 866-683-1944
  • By mail: Force Science Institute, Ltd.