PROMOTIONAL PROCESS PROPOSAL FOR THE
GREENSBORO POLICE DEPARTMENT
SUBMITTED TO CHIEF BELLAMY
BY WENDY S. RAINES
(WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
NOVEMBER 6, 2007
The Promotional Process: A Proposal
“A comprehensive police personnel program
must include a promotion program that creates an atmosphere of professionalism
and fairness, and sets the tone for a positive and exciting process for all
members of the department.” (Hughes, 1)
This statement essentially states that the promotional process should be
fair, open, and transparent to all those involved in the process. Officers should go into the process knowing
an objective list of criteria that would enable them to cater their career path
to be successfully promoted. The current
promotional process for the Greensboro Police Department does not contain
sufficient criteria for an accurate assessment of an officer’s middle
management capabilities.
The Greensboro Police Department’s promotional
system includes a written test and an oral board in which the score is not
reflected in an average of the two test scores.
Officers are placed on a list and there is no ranking structure. This form of assessment leads to perceived
and concrete inadequacies. Members of
the agency perceive that there is a bias in the promotional process. The selection of officers for promotion with
less experience to fit a demographic or overlooking an unknown candidate due to
the increasing size of the department leads to the conclusion that the
department is not interested in the most qualified officer for promotion.
Selections for promotion are not made
based on fixed criteria and a ranking process.
They are made on a combination of subjective factors. The subjective factors include previous work
assignments, how a person is perceived by lieutenants and captains (who may
have minimal contact with employees), and the current administrations ideas of
what makes a competent supervisor. For
example, the current chief may believe a detective assignment adds weight to a
candidate’s promotional potential. A
future chief may prefer to promote officers with extensive patrol experience to
the rank of sergeant. As the person in
the police chief position changes the subjective factors change. Without a promotional process that considers
several elements, assigns percentage points to each category, and ranks the
candidates accordingly, officers are left in the dark about how to structure
their career to be eligible for promotion.
The purpose of this proposal is to create
a promotional process that adequately reflects the qualifications of persons
eligible for promotion and creates an atmosphere of fairness to all of those
involved. The process should include
factors that are outlined in the Greensboro Police Department directives to
establish a clear path to promotion. A
ranking system is imperative to ensure that qualified candidates are not
overlooked because they do not have the sponsorship of a captain.
The
promotional process should set forth a quantified evaluation system, utilizing
multiple methods of evaluation, such as: written tests, oral examinations,
performance evaluations, experience, and education. The methods chosen for evaluation should be assigned
quantitative measures. These categories
would then be assigned a percentage weight.
A candidate’s total score would then be calculated by adding their
weighted scores. The candidates would be
ranked according to their total scores.
Promotions would then be made based on where a person is ranked among
the other candidates.
Example: The
Indiana State Police use the following components to evaluate
candidates. The components are weighted
and the candidates are ranked based on their final total score. Additionally the criteria for each component
is set forth in their directives. So
every employee is aware of how each category will be evaluated.
Written Test 40%
Oral Interview
40%
Education 5%
Performance Appraisal 5%
Seniority 10%
Once ranked an employee may
retain that score for two years. Testing
is done every year and an employee may choose to be retested every year.
However, if their scores drop, then they would be ranked lower on the
promotional list. Promotions are made
based on ranking.
Police Chief Magazine recommends
a similar process. Their example ranks
the criteria as follows:
Written Test 35%
Written Exercise
10%
Oral Board 35%
Performance Appraisals 10%
Years of Service
5%
Education/Training
5%
If the chief wants to retain
some discretion in making promotions, then promotions could be made from the
top 3 candidates each time a promotion is made.
The article cited emphasizes that this type of scoring system
“eliminate(s) any innuendo of prejudice or bias in the final decision” (Kurz,
3).
The following are additional
examples of the promotional processes in well regarded agencies around the
New York Police Department
Written Test 100%
Departmental Awards Additional points are added to final
score
Seniority Additional points are
added to final score
*To be eligible to take the
written examination candidates must have 64 college credits from an accredited
college/university. Candidates also must
pass a drug test, possess a current
Los Angeles Police
Department
Written test Pass/Fail
Interview 100%
Interview scores produce a
list that is ranked. Candidates are
promoted in order of ranking for two years.
Raleigh Police Department
Written Test
Oral Board
Evaluation of three
supervisors (Sgt., Lt., and Captain).
Evaluation includes a three page biography similar to a resume. Candidates are ranked.
Written Test 20%
Civilian Oral Board 15%
Police Oral Board 20%
Written Problem 10%
Management Overview 20%
Promotional Potential
Rating 15%
Psychological Evaluation
After the scores are
tabulated, points are awarded in the following ways:
Seniority 1 point
for each year of continuous service (maximum of
10 points) added to final score.
“The five highest scoring
candidates will be posted as a group, not in numerical order of finish. The Chief of Police will make his selection
for the vacancies from the five highest scoring candidates successfully
completing the entire promotional process” (Hickory PD, 06-14).
Garner Police Department
Career Development
Application or Resume
Written Assignments &
Tests
Physical Skills Assessments
Psychological Evaluations
Duty Readiness Tests &
Assessments
Oral Interview Panel
Oral Presentations
Role Plays
Peer Review Panels
Assessment Centers
A schedule of events may
include, but are not limited to the factors listed above. Officers are awarded points based on the
following categories which are weighted based on education level: Community Policing, Officer Safety, and
Research & Self Study Projects. To
retain the rank of Sergeant, an officer “must successfully complete a
minimum of one Education/Training of Self Study Research point annually”
(Garner PD, 310.5.14). The Garner Police
Department also considers these factors for transfer and eligibility for
specialized positions.
A structured ranking system for promotion
would have the following benefits.
Subjectivity is removed from the process. Reasons for discord are eliminated because
candidates would see where they rank compared to their peers, and they would
have a thorough understanding of how that ranking was achieved. There would be no perception of a “buddy
system” or how well known a person is aiding in getting a person promoted. There could be no complaints that race or
gender played a role in selection. A set
protocol is established not only for the current chief, but for future
administrations. Finally, no chief,
assistant chief, or captain in a department of this size can be familiar enough
with all candidates eligible for promotion to make a fully informed decision on
the best candidates. This method
eliminates the need for the administration to make decisions that only cause
strife among the agency’s employees.
Costs: The
only costs associated with implementing this change would be the time and
personnel needed to rewrite the appropriate directives.
The Promotional Process
Proposal is the collective effort of concerned officers who are interested in
the progress of their career.
Works Cited
Directives. Garner:
Garner PD, 2007.
Department Directives.
Hughes, Frank. “Does the Benefit Outweigh the Cost? Using Assessment Centers
In Selecting Middle Managers.” Police Chief Magazine. August 2006.
5 Nov. 2007.
<http:policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuse action=print_
Display&article_id=973&issue_id=82006.>
20 Sept. 2007.
<http://www.in.gov/isp/files/POLICE_PROMOTIONS_
SYSTEM_GUIDE_2007.pdf.>
Kurz, David. “A Promotional Process for the Smaller
Agency.” Police Chief
Magazine. October 2006.
20 Sept. 2007.
<http:policechiefmagazine.org/
Magazine/index.cfm?fuse
action=display_arch&article_id=1019&issue_id
=102006.>
Los Angeles Police
Department. “Re: LAPD Sergeant with a Question.” E-mail
to WS Raines. 7 Sept. 2007.
New York Police
Department. “Notice of Examination,
Promotion to Sergeant.”
October 2006.
Raleigh Police
Department. “Re: Question.”
E-mail to WS Raines. 7 Sept.
2007.