In 2003, I began a master's program in performance improvement and
instructional design. On the first day of my human performance
technology class, I introduced myself to classmates and discovered
that I was the first police officer to have participated in the
program. As an experienced law enforcement trainer, I was skilled
in many areas. At the time, I worked for one of the most prominent
weapon manufacturers in the world, where I had been tutored and
groomed by some of the finest law enforcement and military trainers
alive. But sitting in a classroom filled with project managers,
engineers, teachers, and instructional designers, I admittedly felt
a bit out of place. However, the program was life-altering for me,
and I learned higher level approaches to training and development
that I could transfer to my job.
I realized quickly, though, that the concepts I learned in school
were not respected by those in my police agency. For example, one
police administrator denied my academic reimbursement request,
stating "Your education has no benefit to this police department or
the community." I feared that particular agency might never
understand the benefits of a more professional and technical
approach to training and organizational development. However, the
military has been using a systems approach for more than 30 years.
Certainly there had to be a path in law enforcement training where
I could practice and hone my skills as an instructional designer,
but where? Perhaps, I realized, I would have to blaze my own trail.
Building confidence
In 2005, the city of Fort Worth, Texas, hired me to design firearms
and tactics-related training for their school resource officers
(SRO) to better prepare them for school-related violence. At the
time, no course existed for this type of training, so the challenge
to create one was irresistible to me. Initially, the Fort Worth
training department found it unusual that I wanted to involve their
SROs as well as their administration throughout the entire
instructional design process. Instructors were reluctant to share
their policies and current training standards until I spent time
educating them about the ADDIE process and the tie-in and
subsequent buy-in required to measure success of the program at
every level. The course turned out to be a success, and Fort Worth
remains one of my clients. The SRO course now has been delivered in
five states to more than 30 law enforcement agencies.
As a part-time faculty member of the Washtenaw Community College
Police Academy in Ann Arbor, Michigan, I designed and implemented a
performance improvement planning system for police recruits to
address gaps in performance. I also implemented problem-based
learning in many of the training courses, as well as gaming and
simulations and Gilbert's Behavior Engineering Model, which was
well received at the academy level by both the administration and
the cadre of instructors.
These experiences have built my confidence during my quest to share
what I have learned (and continue to learn) to other public safety
instructors. Unfortunately, the culture of law enforcement training
has created some road blocks. For example, at two law enforcement
conferences in 2006 and 2008, my presentations on instructional
design strategies for specialty units were not well attended. I
found out later that learners considered the content to be over the
heads of average police trainers. This surprised me, because many
attendees were experienced and accomplished police trainers
representing agencies from across the country who had been
introduced to ADDIE as a part of their basic instructor training.
A changing culture
Finally, at a 2009 conference, I watched a presentation on Gagne's
nine instructional events. An opening ceremonies speaker discussed
a law enforcement instructor training program that exposes
participants to the concepts of student-centered learning,
instructional systems design, performance objectives, and learning
methodologies. I was thrilled to hear some of these 30-year-old
concepts and disciplines coming through law enforcement training
channels. However, we are still behind the curve at the state and
local levels.
In contrast, Canada and the United Kingdom educate police officers
as professional trainers. People in the United Kingdom literally
"mind the gap." Many of my Canadian colleagues introduce
instructional systems design at their most basic levels of
instructor development. In the United States, however, it is
impossible for trainers to educate their administrators on the
benefits of performance technology if they do not understand their
role in the larger picture of organization performance.
Additionally, we are not yet skilled at showing decision makers how
the training function affects our organizations' missions, goals,
and objectives.
Today I am paid as a consultant to provide the same concepts,
knowledge, and skills that were ignored inside my former agency. I
know I am not alone. Police trainers are constantly fighting for
training dollars to better prepare our officers to perform their
duties and to survive. My goal is to encourage other trainers to
find creative avenues when approaching their police administrators
to sell them on the training function.
Law enforcement agencies that are proactive lead the pack in the
area of technology and professional development. These agencies,
like the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, take a more
sophisticated approach to design training that produces more
tangible results and illustrates ROI by reducing liability.
Unfortunately, many more agencies are reactive and view training as
a necessary evil. In these instances, a tragedy must occur before
training is implemented. Some forces use training solely to address
performance deficiencies, creating a punitive approach to HPI.
Progressive trainers are too often seen as troublemakers by
administrators rather than as problem identifiers - but they are
the real trailblazers in law enforcement training.