Introduction
The policing style and the police department’s operations heavily rely on the officers’ training. The workers’ skills and knowledge in the field define their efficacy and productivity in their jobs, resulting in their immense contribution to maintaining safety in the neighborhood. Yet the modern academy curriculum is recognized as somewhat different from the traditional one, leading to different policing styles of recruits. Therefore, it is critical to determine what a perfect recruit is for each of the academy curriculums, traditional and modern, the latter of which is primarily based on community policing.
Discussion
Chappell (2008) aimed at researching both of the aforementioned interrelated matters, the difference along with the efficacy of two different curriculums, and how the recruits’ characters impact their performance. However, the author’s advantage in this investigation is that she was a witness to two curriculums while being enrolled in the police academy training. Therefore, Chappell (2008) focused on the transition of curriculum involving shooting and fights to a modern system that has a community-oriented focus.
The idea behind traditional academy training is to prepare recruits for dangerous situations that might occur in their job. However, the chance of being in such danger is estimated to be around 10%, while 90% of recruits’ training involves shooting, driving tasks, martial arts, and the basics of self-defense (Chappell, 2008). Naturally, it seems reasonable to argue that the efficacy of such training is high since police officers are not well-trained to deal with minor offenses, especially in community policing. Another apparent difference between the two curriculums is that the traditional system requires strict enforcement of the law, while the modern one teaches the recruits how to build relationships with residents to prevent crime (Chappell, 2008). In other words, community policing (COPS) is designed to teach the officers the ways they can employ problem-solving and techniques of community engagement in their daily practice (Chappell, 2008). All in all, the investigation proves that the COPS is a more efficient curriculum that leads to better performance in recruits due to it being well-designed and adjusted to the modern model of policing.
As for the specific characteristics that make a recruit a better fit for academy training, Chappell (2008) identified motivation to be a driving force for better performance in the curriculum. In fact, the selection of particular students for the training based on outstanding results can be a motivator to the candidates, which might inspire them to work harder to achieve the expected performance. What is more, Chappell (2008) found that white people performed slightly better but still had a lower chance of being employed in the future.
Nevertheless, the primary issue of the study is the lack of design of both academy training curriculums, considering that they both are focused chiefly on developing one specific set of skills. To elaborate, the training is not complex in nature, and when in the CMS, the officers lack the community policing techniques, in the COPS, workers may be less skilled in dangerous situations.
Conclusion
Therefore, it is challenging to determine the better performance of the recruits by comparing the two curriculums as they are entirely different. That is why the findings showed that women were more likely to secure positions after the CMS due to their de-escalation techniques (which are a part of the COPS). Consequently, it may be assumed that they are more suitable for being a COPS officer, but because they had different training, they did not have a choice of being offered such a job. Overall, the inability to properly define better performance in training is solely based on the underdevelopment of both policing curriculums.
Reference
Chappell, A. T. (2008). Police academy training: comparing across curricula. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 31(1), 36–56. Web.