Welcome to LASD University's - Newsletter Page - Discipline and Educational Level

Discipline and Educational Level of Law Enforcement Officers
An Exploratory Report

There has been much debate over the benefits and values of having educated law enforcement officers in America. Typically, minimal entry level educational requirements are a high school diploma or a GED, as set out by state statute. In 1973, the National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals called for the establishment of a national minimum educational level of a 4-year college degree (Bachelors) by 1982. 29 years after this report, this still has not become the accepted standard.

Even though numerous state and local agencies have requirements of a 2 year Associates or 4 year Bachelors degree, these agencies are still only a small percentage of all such agencies. Interestingly, virtually all federal law enforcement agencies require a 4 year degree. Courts have even upheld educational requirements as Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) in law enforcement.

Periodically studies have examined some aspect of education involving law enforcement. Various studies indicate benefits and/or disadvantages to having higher educated officers. Arguments frequently used against requiring higher than GED/HS educational levels are recruitment/retention based. Agencies frequently cite the inability to hire and/or retain degreed personnel at current salary levels. This is especially heard from smaller agencies. Another argument is the perceived negative impact on recruiting a diverse workforce. Anecdotal evidence supports these arguments while actual hiring data of other agencies and various studies contradict these arguments.

Other studies have looked at the impact of education on retention, job satisfaction, complaints, use of force, productivity, and discipline. This brief exploratory report looks at the discipline received by officers with various educational levels. It is not intended to be a full study of the issue, but rather to provide an overview and to offer initial information to assist in making decisions regarding the merits of pursuing this research thread in a more in-depth and widespread study.

The disciplining of law enforcement officers is a public concern. This stems from the tremendous power that officers are granted to perform the tasks and responsibilities expected of them. Issues such as use of force, bias based policing, and integrity have become common discussions in American society. How policing in general deals with these issues directly impacts public trust, support, and confidence. The actions taken by the profession (training, discipline, etc) to deal with officers who act inappropriately are intensely scrutinized and serve as an indicator of tolerance to the officers and the public.

In most states, there exists some of kind of entity that oversees law enforcement officer standards. These are frequently referred to as POST (Police Officer Standards and Training) or standards and training commissions. The level of oversight varies from training and minimum standards only to full certification issues. While disciplining of officers has historically been a province of the employing agency, in recent decades these state authorities have become actively involved in such disciplinary issues. A wide range of disciplinary options generally exist. These options include advisory letters, counseling, probation, suspension, and loss of certification. Losing or forfeiting the certification is equivalent to losing a professional license and therefore is not taken lightly. Approximately 47 states have the ability to revoke an officer’s certification, thus prohibiting their continued performance/employment as a law enforcement officer in that jurisdiction.

Relationship Between Educational Levels and Discipline

Is there a relationship between educational levels and the amount and/or type of discipline? Anything that can legitimately reduce the number of incidents resulting in discipline would be a benefit to the profession and to the public. Could education help reduce the number of incidents that lead to discipline? Only a full cause and effect, correlational study would be able to answer this question. The purpose of this report is to examine if there is merit to engaging in such a full study.

A variety of resources, studies, and researchers were used in this initial effort. As stated earlier, there is a variety of information dealing with educational levels, some more on target than others. Existing studies indicate that the issue is worthy of more in-depth study and analysis. But to provide a more focused answer to the specific question, some additional research was performed.

The State of Florida has an entity which provides complete oversight of Law Enforcement and Corrections sworn personnel. (This review focuses on and includes only law enforcement personnel.) The Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (CJSTC) as created and authorized by Florida State Statutes, oversees all aspects of law enforcement hiring, training, and certification. Minimum standards are set out for all agencies and sworn personnel in the state. (For reference, the minimum educational requirements in the State of Florida are currently set at a high school/GED level.) CJSTC has the ability to discipline officers in addition to that issued by the employing agency. Generally the sanctions issued by CJSTC are consistent with those of the employing agency, if they fall into a defined range of punishments for various incidents.

This specific analysis examined discipline issued by the Florida CJSTC from 1997 through August 2002. The discipline issued was matched with the concerned officer’s educational levels. If education had no relationship, correlation, or impact on discipline, one would expect that the types and overall amount of discipline received by each educational level would be consistent with the distribution of officer educational levels. (i.e., if Master’s level personnel made up 30% of the Florida law enforcement population, then it would be expected that approximately 30% of the overall and specific type discipline would be administered to Master’s level officers.) If educational levels have a relationship/correlation/impact, then it would be expected that discipline rates and activities were not consistent with the educational distribution rates.

Table 1 illustrates the distribution of educational levels in Florida as of August 2002. The total number of sworn law enforcement personnel was 42,910 in August 2002. For this study, this figure was used as exact numbers of personnel were not available for the exact times of the issued discipline. This is believed to have a positive bias on the figures, in that the number of officers at the time is lower than the number used in the comparisons. This would therefore tend to minimize differences not exaggerate them.

Table 1: Educational levels of Florida Law Enforcement Officers (8/02)

NOTE: Partial educational levels are not reflected. Some college is High School until enough hours received to appropriately classify in the next level.

The types of discipline issued by the Florida CJSTC from 1997 through 2002 were:

Reprimand
Probation
Suspension
Suspension /Probation
Revocation
Voluntary Relinquishment

Table 2 indicates the frequency and percentage of all discipline matched to educational levels.

Table 2: Number of Disciplinary Actions Versus Educational Levels.

As is evident, persons with High School education levels accounted for more discipline than the level is represented. Each successively higher level of education accounts for less discipline than that level exists in the population.

Table 3 examines the harshest penalties, revocation and voluntary relinquishment of certification. Voluntary relinquishment is when an officer voluntarily relinquishes his/her certification instead of going through the pending disciplinary process. Due to its severity, officers generally only choose this when faced with possible/probable revocation. Therefore it is appropriate to consider this with revocation.

Table 3: Revocation and Voluntary Relinquishment of Certification versus Educational Levels.

Once again, the lowest educational level (High School/GED) was disproportionately represented, accounting for over 76% of all certification losses even though High School educated officers only make up less than 58% of the population. Even though Bachelor level and higher educational levels make up slightly over 26% of the population, they account for only 11.690% of the certification losses.

From this base review of state administered discipline, it is apparent that higher educated officers have significantly less discipline than less educated counterparts. Severe discipline (certification loss) is even more disproportionately skewed relative to educational levels. In this review, officers with lower levels of education accounted for more discipline than their corresponding education level would indicate. This was proven in several different views of the data.

Based on these preliminary findings, it is recommended that further study be conducted. This multi-year review of the discipline administered in the entire State of Florida, provides enough information to support and warrant additional study. Although this review specifically focused on educational levels and discipline, (and further directed specific study is warranted), a definitive study looking at educational levels and their overall impact, advantage, benefit, and disadvantage regarding law enforcement would be beneficial.

This report was prepared by Scott A. Cunningham, Ph.D., as the Chair of the Police Administrative Committee of The International Association of Chiefs of Police. A variety of resources and researchers were used in this effort to varying degrees. Those involved with the preparations but not the proofing of the report include the members of the Administrative Committee, Chief Mary Ann Viverette, Mr. Ray Franklin, Mr. Neal Trautman, Professor Roger Goldman, Mr. John Hope-Middleton, and Florida Department of Law Enforcement/CJSTC personnel.

The Chair takes full responsibility for the report and any deficiencies, while the combined group listed above takes credit for the report.