Police Academy Training, Performance, and Learning PDF

Behavior Analysis in Practice (2019) 12:353–372 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-00317-2 RESEARCH ARTICLE Police Academy Training, Performance, and Learning John O’Neill 1 & Dawn A. O’Neill 1 & Katelyn Weed 2 & Mark E. Hartman 3 & William Spence 1 & William J. Lewinski 1 Published online: 1...

Behavior Analysis in Practice (2019) 12:353–372 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-00317-2 RESEARCH ARTICLE Police Academy Training, Performance, and Learning John O’Neill 1 & Dawn A. O’Neill 1 & Katelyn Weed 2 & Mark E. Hartman 3 & William Spence 1 & William J. Lewinski 1 Published online: 18 December 2018 # Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018, corrected publication 2019 Abstract We conducted empirical analyses of training at 3 large regional police academies in the United States. We objectively examined the performance and learning of 3 classes, a total of 115 cadets, across 3 representative training approaches to defensive and control tactics. Experiment 1 examined the content and effects of single-session or block training across 8 weeks during the academy. Experiment 2 examined the content and effects of spaced sessions with small-group practice and scenario-based feedback across 8 weeks during the academy. Experiment 3 examined the content and effect of block training with scenario- based feedback across 15 weeks during the academy. Experiment 3 also demonstrated the impact of performance feedback on instructor behavior and cadet performance during the academy and 16 weeks after graduation. We provide recommendations and a call for research based on the performance and learning literature, grounded in behavioral science. Keywords Law enforcement. Learning. Performance. Police. Training Police officers are tasked with apprehending and detaining & Martin, 2000, p. 149). Research has assessed traditional class- subjects involved in criminal activity. This can involve the room procedures in relation to a community-oriented policing use of a variety of defensive and control tactics. curriculum (Chappell, 2008) and problem-based learning Controversial use-of-force incidents have resulted in initia- (Vander Kooi & Palmer, 2014) but has not assessed specific train- tives calling for changes in training and education to focus ing procedures for defensive and control tactics. In fact, informa- on de-escalation and less lethal tactics (Presidential Task tion about the composition and effectiveness of police training is Force on 21st Century Policing, 2015). The Presidential sparse (Lum, Koper, Gill, Hibdon, Telep, & Robinson, 2016). Task Force on 21st Century Policing (2015) recommended The Bureau of Justice Statistics (see Reaves, 2016) tracked federal funding for regional training facilities to “promote general information about police training sites, such as duration consistent standards for high quality training” and to “develop of academies (M = 21 weeks) and hours spent on self-defense rigorous training practices, evaluation, and development of and use-of-force (M = 81), nonlethal weapons (M = 16), and curricula based on evidence-based practices” (p. 53). firearms training (M = 71). Anecdotal evidence (i.e., personal Researchers have called for empirical evaluation of tactics and correspondence with use-of-force instructors across the United training methods to determine the most efficient and cost-effective States) suggested that variation in the content of training across approach while maintaining the integrity of techniques (Kaminski academies is largely influenced by state requirements. Training typically begins with traditional didactic procedures (e.g., class- The original version of this article was corrected to use the correct version room instruction) before moving to interactive training. of Figure 2. Academies often conduct “block training” for each mandated skill. A block consists of a single session of training (e.g., 60 * John O’Neill min) in group format for a particular skill, colloquially referred [email protected] to as a “block of instruction” within a “check-the-box” curric- ulum (Bennett, 2009; Hardesty, 2012). Approximately half of 1 Division of Research, Force Science® Institute, Ltd., academies reported using a stress-inducing approach, which Mankato, MN 56001, USA involves “intensive physical demands and psychological pres- 2 Human Performance Department, Minnesota State University, sure” (Reaves, 2016, p. 1). The remaining academies reported Mankato, MN 56001, USA either a nonstress model or a balanced approach. Objective 3 Department of Kinesiology, Iowa State University, Ames, IO 50011, analyses of said approaches are not available. USA 354 Behav Analysis Practice (2019) 12:353–372 Nonlethal tactical skills, such as pressure-point control, have not been applied to police tactical skills, yet behavior ground fighting, and weapon retention, are widely taught analysts have conducted research involving other types of dy- across 85%, 94%, and 99% of North American police acade- namic skill performance (Alstot, Kang, & Alstot, 2013; mies, respectively (Reaves, 2016). Nonlethal skill proficiency BenitezSantiago & Miltenberger, 2015; Luiselli & Reed, is important because officers are far more likely to deploy 2015; Luiselli, Woods, & Reed, 2011). Luiselli and Reed nonlethal options (e.g., empty-hand control, blunt impact, (2015) suggested that behavioral assessment serves a funda- chemical spray, or conducted-energy devices) than lethal tac- mental role in identifying skills, objectives, and functional in- tics (e.g., discharging a firearm) when using force (Hyland, fluences on skill performance. Langton, & Davis, 2015; International Association of Chiefs If police academy training is to change, the onus falls on the of Police, 2001). Cadet performance is assessed through skill behavioral sciences to provide foundational evidence for the proficiency exams at 93% of academies (Reaves, 2016), but necessity of said change and to provide methodological and there is no evidence to suggest that such examinations are procedural recommendations based on the extant skill perfor- performed in a standardized or objective manner. Anecdotal mance and learning literature. Of equal importance is to build evidence (i.e., correspondence with instructors) suggested the trust and respect between researchers and police officers. We widespread use of subjective scoring during evaluations. began by conducting preliminary empirical investigations of Instructors typically observe cadets engaged in a skill, may current training practices at three large regional police acade- ask a cadet to repeat a skill for closer examination, and then mies in different time zones across the United States. assign a pass/fail if mandated. Defensive and control tactics research primarily consisted of indirect assessment through the opinions of instructors and ca- Experiment 1 dets without direct measurement of performance (Kaminski & Martin, 2000; Morrison, 2006). When direct measurement was The purpose of Experiment 1 was to objectively examine the employed, it involved a 5-point Likert-type scale with descrip- effect of a representative approach to police academy training tors (Nieuwenhuys, Calijouw, Leijsen, Schmeits, & Oudejans, (i.e., single-session or block training) by employing a multiple- 2009; Renden, Landman, Geerts, Jansen, Faber, Savelsbergh, probe design and objective measurement by task analysis of & Oudejans, 2014; Renden, Landman, Savelsbergh, & two defensive and control skills that are widely taught across Oudejans, 2015; Renden, Savelsbergh, & Oudejans, 2017) or police academies. Follow-ups were conducted at 1, 2, 4, and 8 the overall number of tasks, without further specification weeks during the academy. A booster training was conducted at (Atkins & Norris, 2004). This research demonstrated that arrest the close of the experiment. and defense tactics are adequate under innocuous conditions, but performance suffered under shorter response windows and Method stress. Instructors and agencies rated tactical and decision- making skill proficiency lower than overall skills for newly Site, Participants, and Setting The experiment was conducted trained cadets (Morrison, 2006). Such skills may be improved at a large, 28-week (cf. Reaves, 2016) regional police acade- with continued training via field training officer programs, in- my in the Central time zone of the United States. Over 100 service programs, annual qualifications, and lived experience variations of defensive and control tactics are taught using the (Caro, 2011). Yet, officers indicated high levels of dissatisfac- model (i.e., block training) described in the following tion with continuing defensive and control tactics training sections. (Kaminski & Martin, 2000). It is possible that academy perfor- Participants (N = 28) were male (n = 21) and female (n = 7) mance will not result in learning or generalization to fieldwork cadets recruited from a class of 30. Two cadets did not complete and that skills are not improved upon after academy graduation. the majority of testing sessions, and their data were excluded. Without fluency in their ability to employ nonlethal forms of Participants were both White (75%) and non-White (25%) and force (e.g., pressure-point manipulation and disarming), officers varied in age (M = 26; range 21–37 years). Seven participants might be more likely to rely on less lethal (e.g., chemical spray, reported that they received formal policing-related training in conducted-energy device, or baton strikes) and lethal force the past (range 0.5–4 years), and 22 participants reported that (e.g., firearms). they received formal training in martial arts, boxing, wrestling, Behavior analysis offers procedures that are effective, effi- or other sports (range 1–15 years). The academy conducted cient, and amenable to operation within the various resource training for several classes of cadets each year. The present (e.g., time, staffing, and financial) constraints of police acade- sample was representative of the academy’s typical class size mies. If methods that approximate behavior-analytic procedures and demographics. (e.g., behavioral skills training) are already in place, it is impor- Testing sessions lasted approximately 2 min each and tant to document how such procedures converge and diverge were conducted within a designated research area at the from best practices. Behavior-analytic methods and procedures beginning of the normal training hours. The total time Behav Analysis Practice (2019) 12:353–372 355 commitment for each participant was approximately Initial scoring was performed by the primary observer 19 min of testing distributed over a 2-month period. The through post hoc video analysis using the task analyses in research area was a well-lit, padded (i.e., walls and floor), Appendix 1. A secondary trained independent observer open training space that measured approximately 10 m by scored 33% of trials, for all three skills, at all testing 30 m. The space contained a 2-m tall solid Numb John® points (i.e., pretests; posttests; 1, 2, 4, and 8 weeks; and training dummy that is used to practice skills such as kicks booster training). Interobserver agreement (IOA) was cal- and baton strikes (Pomona, California, Dummies culated by dividing the number of agreements per trial by International, Inc.). The investigators provided all other the number of agreements plus disagreements and multi- experimental equipment and data collection materials. All plying by 100%. Average IOA across all testing points procedures were approved by an institutional review board, was 93% (pressure point = 93%, disarming = 90%, kick and all participants provided informed consent to = 97%). participate. Design A concurrent multiple-probe design (Horner & Target Behaviors and Data Collection The independent var- Baer, 1978) was employed for measurement and visual iable was the preexisting and site-approved training pro- analysis of training effects. This behavior-analytic design cedure delivered by experienced instructors (M = 18, allowed for staggered exposure to training across two range 13–24 years in the field; M = 11, range 5–17 years skills (i.e., pressure point and disarming) while control- as instructors). The investigators did not make any mod- ling for major threats to internal validity. The control skill ifications to the training procedures, as the initial purpose (i.e., kick) was also tracked to provide additional evidence was to build trust and mutual respect while determining of experimental control. The control skill was not exposed the effects of a representative approach to academy train- to training during the experiment. At the investigators’ ing. The training consisted of (a) a rationale for the train- request, follow-up tests were conducted at 1, 2, 4, and 8 ing, (b) instruction, (c) modeling, (d) practice/individual weeks after training, and a booster training occurred be- feedback, and (e) group feedback (see Procedures for fore conclusion of the experiment. more details). The investigators consulted with the experienced instructors Procedures Each participant was assigned a random number to identify two defensive or control tactics that would be ex- upon enrollment. Each testing session consisted of three trials, posed to a minimal amount of posttraining practice opportuni- one for each skill (i.e., kick, pressure point, and disarming). To ties during the academy. This precaution served to control for control for testing sequence effects, trial sequence for odd- potential practice effects. The instructors were asked to identify, numbered participants was (a) kick, (b) pressure point, and based on their experience, one skill that could be considered (c) disarming and trial sequence for even-numbered partici- relatively simple (i.e., five or fewer steps) and another that pants was (a) disarming, (b) pressure point, and (c) kick. The could be considered relatively complex (i.e., 10 or more steps) only exception was Session 2, which, due to time constraints, in comparison to other defensive and control tactics. Defensive did not include a pretest for kick. and control tactics are defined as physical skills that enable an officer to defend him- or herself from an attack and control an & Pretest. Each participant was tested on all three skills prior individual to be taken into custody (e.g., disarming and to the onset of training. The following script was read to handcuffing; Kaminski & Martin, 2000). To maintain consis- each participant prior to the onset of each session: tent and valid measurement of skills, the investigators created a task analysis based on direct observation of the initial training session for each skill. Appendix 1 contains the task analyses for I’m going to ask you to perform a few skills that you the mandibular angle pressure point (pressure point), rear dis- may or may not know how to perform. It’s OK to at- arming of a firearm (disarming), and front snap kick (kick). tempt the skill or to say that you don’t know how to Kick served as a control skill that was not exposed to training perform the skill. You may start any time after I clap during the experiment. The dependent variable was the percent- the clapboard. age of correctly completed steps of the task analysis for each skill. The sound of the clapboard signaled the onset of each trial and All analyses were conducted on a frame-by-frame basis instruction by the investigator to “reset” signaled the end of using commercial video analysis software (Dartfish, 2011). each trial. All training and testing sessions were video recorded using two tripod-mounted Sony Handycam CX405 cameras record- – Front snap kick. The investigator then positioned the par- ing in 1920 by 1080 pixels at 60 frames per second (please ticipant behind a line, 1 m in front of and facing the contact authors for camera position details). training dummy. The investigator instructed the 356 Behav Analysis Practice (2019) 12:353–372 participant to “please perform a front snap kick” and sig- – Mandibular angle pressure point. Training began with naled trial onset. The end of the first trial was signaled instructor rationale for teaching the skill. Pressure point when (a) the participant stated that he or she did not know was described as a useful tool that could be implemented how to perform the skill or (b) the kicking foot returned to with a passive-aggressive suspect engaged in noncompli- the ground. ance with commands. The lead instructor provided in- – Mandibular angle pressure point. The investigator posi- struction as two other instructors modeled the skill in a tioned the participant behind a line, 3 m behind and facing step-by-step fashion. Two repetitions were performed for a suspect (i.e., played by an experienced instructor) seated a total of 3 min of instruction/modeling. Participants were on the floor of the training space. The investigator split into pairs and completed approximately 10 repeti- instructed the participant to “please perform a mandibular tions of the skill per participant (i.e., 20 repetitions per angle” and signaled trial onset. The end of the trial was pair) for a total of 17 min. All four instructors observed signaled when the participant (a) stated that he or she did and provided feedback on an individual basis throughout not know how to perform the skill, (b) gained compliance practice. Finally, the lead instructor provided 2 min of (i.e., the subject put his or her hands behind his or her group feedback that addressed common errors observed back), or (c) failed to gain compliance after three verbal during practice. The total duration of pressure point train- requests for the subject to “put your hands behind your ing was 22 min. back.” The allowance of three attempts to command com- – Rear disarming of firearm. This skill was introduced as pliance was deemed appropriate by the site training one of two different types of weapon-disarming tech- supervisor. niques that are used, depending on whether a subject is – Rear disarming of firearm. The investigator positioned holding the officer at gunpoint with the gun pointed low the participant behind a line, 1 m in front of and facing (e.g., lower torso) or high (e.g., upper torso), when the away from a suspect (i.e., played by an experienced in- officer is facing away from the armed individual. This structor) who stood behind the participant and pointed a skill is used as a last resort and is a high-risk procedure. red gun (i.e., plastic training firearm) at the participant’s The lead instructor provided instruction as two other in- back and between the shoulders. The investigator structors modeled the skill in a step-by-step fashion. Two instructed the participant to “please perform a rear dis- repetitions were performed for a total of 7 min of instruc- arming” and signaled trial onset. The end of the trial tion/modeling. Participants were split into pairs and com- was signaled when the participant (a) stated that he or pleted approximately 10 repetitions of the skill per partic- she did not know how to perform the skill or (b) did not ipant (i.e., 20 repetitions per pair) for a total of 37 min. All give further verbal commands to the subject for at least 3 s four instructors observed and provided feedback on an after the end of his or her last verbal command. individual basis throughout practice. Finally, the lead in- structor provided 5 min of group feedback that addressed The investigators did not provide cues or corrective feed- common errors observed during practice. The total dura- back for any of the three skills. The criterion for moving pres- tion of disarming training was 49 min. sure point from pretest to training was low stable data across two pretests. The criterion for moving disarming from pretest to & Posttest. Posttests were identical to pretests and were con- training was low stable data across three pretests and a marked ducted immediately following the completion of training training effect for pressure point. Kick served as a control skill for each skill. and remained at pretest throughout the experiment. & Follow-up. Follow-up tests were identical to pretest and posttest. They were conducted at 1, 2, 4, and 8 weeks & Training. Four experienced instructors conducted training posttraining for all skills. for pressure point and disarming using the preexisting & Exit questionnaire. After the last follow-up, participants methods and procedures approved by the academy. The completed a survey aimed at assessing the participants’ training procedures used for pressure point and disarming frequency of practice and confidence in performing each were representative of all defensive and control technique skill. To assess frequency of practice, participants were trainings at the academy. The instructors implemented a asked, “On average, how often did you practice mandib- combination of instruction, modeling, practice, and cor- ular angle pressure point/rear disarming of firearm/front rective feedback. Each skill was trained independently of snap kick outside of your regular training hours?” (0 = the other and was conducted in a group format with all never, 1 = less than 15 min every 2 weeks, 2 = 0 to students trained at the same time. Table 1 displays the 15 min per week, 3 = 15 to 30 min per week, 4 = 30 min distribution of time and repetitions dedicated to each com- to 1 h per week, 5 = 1+ hr per week). To assess confidence ponent for pressure point and disarming initial and booster in performing each skill, participants were asked, “How trainings. confident are you in your ability to perform mandibular Behav Analysis Practice (2019) 12:353–372 357 angle pressure point/rear disarming of firearm/front snap decrease in average performance to 61% (range 20%–88%). kick?” (1 = not at all confident, 4 = somewhat confident, 7 At 2 weeks, the group demonstrated a 2% increase in average = very confident). Participants were also asked to provide performance to 63% (range 31%–85%). At 4 weeks, the group a brief description of the type of practice they engaged in. demonstrated a 4% decrease in average performance to 59% Furthermore, instructors tracked the number of times the (range 8%–81%). At 8 weeks, the group demonstrated a 1% skills were practiced or repeated outside of the experimen- increase to 60% (range 38%–77%). Following disarming tal parameters using a binder containing weekly practice- booster training, the group demonstrated an increase in aver- tracking forms. age skill retention to 74% (range 38%–88%). & Booster. At the 17-week mark, the same experienced in- structors conducted booster trainings for pressure point Exit Questionnaire Less than half of participants reported and disarming using the same preexisting methods and using means outside of regular training to practice pressure procedures approved by the academy and employed dur- point (46%), disarming (48%), and kick (19%). On average, ing initial training. The duration for each training was participants reported practicing pressure point and kick for approximately 20 min. 0–15 min per week and disarming for 0–30 min per week. Practice reportedly involved other trainees, friends, family, and independent imagining. Participants reported being Results somewhat to very confident in their ability to perform pres- sure point (M = 5.6, range 2–7) and disarming (M = 5.8, The group demonstrated a large training effect at posttest on range 4–7), whereas they were somewhat to not confident pressure point and disarming, whereas performance on kick in their ability to perform kick (M = 3.5, range 1–7). There (i.e., the control skill) remained at a low level with stable data. were no significant correlations between confidence and At follow-up for pressure point across 1, 2, 4, and 8 weeks, the performance. group demonstrated a gradual decline in overall performance of the skill. Disarming performance decreased at the 1-week follow-up and maintained at a similar level across 2, 4, and 8 Experiment 2 weeks. The purpose of Experiment 2 was to objectively examine Mandibular Angle Pressure Point Figure 1 (top tier) displays the effect of a second representative approach to police the group accuracy minimum, first quartile, median, third academy training (i.e., spaced sessions with scenario- quartile, and maximum values for pressure point. During pre- based feedback) and a maximum of a 1:10 instructor-to- tests, the group demonstrated a low and stable overall perfor- student ratio on one subject-control tactic at a different mance mean of 1% (range 0%–27%) across two sessions. academy. Follow-ups were conducted at 1, 2, 4, and 8 Following pressure point training, the group demonstrated a weeks during the academy. large training effect with an 80% increase in average perfor- mance to 81% (range 45%–100%). Following disarming Method training, the group demonstrated a small increase in average performance to 87% (range 36%–100%) for pressure point. Site, Participants, and Setting The experiment was conducted Group performance decreased by 1% at 1 week (M = 86%, at a large, 26-week (cf. Reaves, 2016) regional police acade- range 45%–100%) and 2 weeks (M = 85%, range 55%– my in the Pacific time zone of the United States. Over 100 100%). Group performance further decreased by 5% at both variations of defensive and control tactics are taught using the 4 weeks (M = 80%, range 45%–100%) and 8 weeks (M = model described in the following sections. 75%, range 45%–100%). Following pressure point booster Participants (N = 34) were male (n = 29) and female (n training, the group demonstrated an increase in performance = 5) cadets recruited from a class of 40. Six cadets de- to 86% (range 55%–100%). clined participation in the experiment and received the same training as the rest of the class. Participants were Rear Disarming of Firearm Figure 1 (middle tier) displays the both White (88%) and non-White (12%) and varied in group accuracy minimum, first quartile, median, third quartile, age (M = 28, range 22–43 years). Fifteen participants and maximum values for disarming. During pretests, the reported that they received formal policing-related train- group demonstrated a low and stable overall performance ing in the past (range