285 lines
14 KiB
Plaintext
285 lines
14 KiB
Plaintext
July 1990
|
||
|
||
LATERAL ENTRY: A MOVE TOWARD THE FUTURE
|
||
|
||
By
|
||
|
||
J. Eddie Nix
|
||
Lieutenant, Training Section Commander
|
||
Cobb County, Georgia, Department of Police
|
||
|
||
|
||
One of the most frequently asked questions by police
|
||
administrators is, ``How can we hire qualified, experienced
|
||
personnel?'' The answer to this question may come in the form of
|
||
lateral entry. In fact, one of the keys to successful recruiting
|
||
in the future will be the practice of a full-scale lateral entry
|
||
program. (1)
|
||
|
||
Basically, lateral entry is the ability of a police officer
|
||
in one geographic location to enter employment in another area.
|
||
The officer's pay at the new department is based on experience,
|
||
job knowledge, and the ability to do the job. (2)
|
||
|
||
The concept of lateral entry is not new. It has existed for
|
||
some 25 to 30 years. Unfortunately, however, police departments
|
||
overlook the advantages of lateral entry, even though its
|
||
potential to improve a department's recruiting efforts and
|
||
professionalism is evident. This article discusses several of
|
||
the benefits of lateral entry and some of the obstacles to
|
||
implementing such programs within police departments.
|
||
|
||
ADVANTAGES OF LATERAL ENTRY
|
||
|
||
For most law enforcement departments, there are four areas
|
||
that benefit the most by lateral entry:
|
||
|
||
* Recruiting
|
||
* Individual mobility
|
||
* Training and cost effectiveness and
|
||
* Competition and educational growth.
|
||
|
||
Even though most departments will benefit from lateral entry
|
||
programs, some departments may not experience advantages relating
|
||
to all four of these areas.
|
||
|
||
Enhanced Recruitment
|
||
|
||
The recruitment of qualified personnel becomes more
|
||
difficult as time passes. In the past, all that was necessary
|
||
was a pool of applicants. Today, this is no longer the case. In
|
||
fact, in many police agencies, position vacancies outnumber the
|
||
applicants.
|
||
|
||
However, when initiated and administered properly, lateral
|
||
entry could open up a new source of qualified applicants to help
|
||
meet future recruiting needs. (3) Lateral entry programs attract
|
||
innovative, administrative, professional and technical
|
||
personnel, especially for the small department. (4) For example,
|
||
many former police officers have left law enforcement because of
|
||
inflexibilities, such as the lack of mobility and promotional
|
||
opportunity. Yet, these officers would be desirable candidates
|
||
in many police departments, if they were available for
|
||
employment. Lateral entry is a way to gain access to such an
|
||
untapped resource.
|
||
|
||
Individual Mobility
|
||
|
||
Another benefit of lateral entry pertains to police officers
|
||
who are currently employed in law enforcement, but would like to
|
||
relocate. (5) Typically, officers desire relocation in order to
|
||
move from a smaller department to a larger department, for more
|
||
promotional potential, more job responsibilities or enrichment,
|
||
or because of spouse relocation. All of these are valid reasons
|
||
for mobility and should in no way detract from the individual
|
||
seeking lateral entry.
|
||
|
||
Today, with community and corporate growth, mobility is
|
||
becoming even more of a concern. One reason for this is the
|
||
changing role of women. (6) Women also are thinking "careers."
|
||
In fact, dual-career couples have become the rule rather than
|
||
the exception in American society. (7)
|
||
|
||
Dual-career couples create problems for law enforcement.
|
||
Now, a police officer with a family must consider the spouse's
|
||
career opportunities in the decisionmaking process. In many
|
||
cases, a spouse may have more advancement and earning potential
|
||
than the law enforcement officer, and relocation may be
|
||
necessary in order to advance within the organization. Often
|
||
times, husbands or wives are giving up or changing professions
|
||
so that their spouses can pursue their careers. (8)
|
||
|
||
In addition, officers may look toward mobility for other
|
||
reasons, such as caring for ill relatives or wanting a change in
|
||
climate. In today's law enforcement community, a police officer
|
||
who is fully qualified and capable of performing the job should
|
||
have the option of lateral relocation without fear of losing rank
|
||
and/or pay.
|
||
|
||
Training and Cost Effectiveness
|
||
|
||
Police officer training is both time consuming and
|
||
expensive. It is not only costly from the view point of salary,
|
||
benefits, and uniforms but also because of down-time prior to
|
||
achieving patrol officer status. For this reason, lateral entry
|
||
police officers provide substantial savings to police
|
||
departments. In cases where the lateral entry applicant comes
|
||
from within the State, the savings could be even greater. For
|
||
example, in most States, individuals must meet certain basic
|
||
minimum standards and must complete a prescribed training program
|
||
in order to be employed anywhere in the State. (9) This is usually
|
||
a one-time process and permits a certified officer to transfer.
|
||
Adapting police standards and training legislation is a good
|
||
first step toward lateral entry. (10)
|
||
|
||
In many areas, the Field Training Officer (FTO) Program is
|
||
the second step in the training process. This is an important
|
||
phase and should be required of every new officer, even the
|
||
lateral entry officer. However, even if the FTO phase of the
|
||
training is included, the lateral entry candidate still saves
|
||
police departments both time and money.
|
||
|
||
For example, in 1985, the Cobb County, Georgia, Police
|
||
Department estimated that each new police officer costs the
|
||
department between $18,000 to $20,000 before that officer can
|
||
work a shift without direct supervision. Lateral entry
|
||
candidates save a large portion of this cost. These savings
|
||
could be better used to pay the increased salaries of lateral
|
||
entry employees.
|
||
|
||
When considering the variables of cost and time, it is easy
|
||
to see that the savings realized from the lateral entry candidate
|
||
can be spent on higher salaries. What the police administrator
|
||
really gets from lateral entry is an experienced officer who is
|
||
assimilated into the department faster. In today's fast moving
|
||
world, this is very much desired.
|
||
|
||
Competition and Educational Growth
|
||
|
||
Support for lateral entry also comes from the Nation's
|
||
leadership. In 1967, the President's Commission on Law
|
||
Enforcement in its Task Force Report: Police stated:
|
||
|
||
``To improve police services, competition for all advanced
|
||
positions should be opened to all qualified persons from
|
||
both within and outside of the department. This would
|
||
enable a department to obtain the best available talent
|
||
for positions of leadership. If candidates from within
|
||
an agency are unable to meet the competition from other
|
||
applicants, it should be recognized that the influx of
|
||
more highly qualified personnel would greatly improve the
|
||
quality of the services.'' (11)
|
||
|
||
The commission's recommendations and farsightedness were
|
||
optimistic that lateral entry is one of the keys to the
|
||
competitive spirit needed to enhance the police profession.
|
||
This prescription for the success of the police field is as
|
||
valid today as it was in 1967. Lateral entry is essential to the
|
||
professionalization of the police function. It also disturbs the
|
||
status quo and avoids the we've-always-done-it-this-way
|
||
approach. (12)
|
||
|
||
In addition, lateral entry affects positively the
|
||
educational processes of the upwardly mobile department members.
|
||
It helps provide fresh points of view because people with
|
||
different experiences and insights introduce variety, change and
|
||
innovative ideas. (13) Many officers are finding out, or will find
|
||
out, that in order to keep up with the competition, they must
|
||
refine skills already developed. Lateral entry also bolsters
|
||
management and technical strength, as well as increases
|
||
competition and productivity, by providing new talent and
|
||
ability. (14) It also provides management with a better yardstick
|
||
for evaluating executive performance and forces management to
|
||
compare the present group with outsiders. (15) And, once police
|
||
departments start using lateral entry, law enforcement executives
|
||
will no longer have to accept marginal employees. Lateral entry
|
||
could also help to merge effective policing concepts from various
|
||
police departments, thereby raising the levels of education and
|
||
training in participating departments. This creates a better
|
||
understanding of law enforcement affairs. (16)
|
||
|
||
OBSTACLES TO LATERAL ENTRY
|
||
|
||
Despite the obvious benefits, obstacles to lateral entry
|
||
still exist. (17) Police personnel at the patrol level and upper
|
||
management seem to have the least resistance. And, as expected,
|
||
the more established the department, the more restrictions there
|
||
seem to be to the lateral entry concept.
|
||
|
||
Department Personnel
|
||
|
||
Mid-level police administrators present the biggest
|
||
obstacle. At one time, police officials believed that lateral
|
||
recruiting was the equivalent of "raiding," and police chiefs
|
||
even had pacts that they would not hire each other's
|
||
personnel. (18) However, the resistance and obstacles to full
|
||
implementation of lateral entry are not limited to department
|
||
personnel. Roadblocks can arise in the form of civil service,
|
||
retirement plans, maximum age limitations, and legislative
|
||
restrictions.
|
||
|
||
Resistance to Change
|
||
|
||
Change in law enforcement comes slowly, and this is the case
|
||
with lateral entry. In fact, some believe that it will never
|
||
reach the level that the President's Commission on Law
|
||
Enforcement envisioned in 1967. To achieve this goal, all of the
|
||
obstacles to lateral entry must be addressed individually and
|
||
systematically. Many departments have already dealt with some of
|
||
the obstacles. Obviously, eliminating the obstacles is not easy,
|
||
but the result to law enforcement will be well worth the effort.
|
||
|
||
CONCLUSION
|
||
|
||
Acceptance of lateral entry will continue to be a long,
|
||
uphill battle. However, it is imperative that those in law
|
||
enforcement who support lateral entry, both academically and
|
||
professionally, continue to chip away at the resistance until it
|
||
is universally accepted. The future of police improvement in all
|
||
jurisdictions will be handicapped if there are not forthcoming
|
||
changes in the acceptance of lateral entry. (19)
|
||
|
||
Some believe that the key to the success of lateral entry is
|
||
at the State and Federal level. In a real sense, this is true
|
||
because through legislative reform and financial encouragements,
|
||
the State and Federal Governments can do much to implement
|
||
lateral entry. Some advancements in this area have been made,
|
||
such as legislative reforms that contribute to the cause of
|
||
lateral entry and the statewide training requirements that are
|
||
recognized anywhere in a given State. But, the battle for
|
||
lateral entry is not going to be won at the State and national
|
||
levels. It will be won one police department at a time, and one
|
||
geographic area at a time.
|
||
|
||
|
||
FOOTNOTES
|
||
|
||
(1) W.H. Hewitt, ``Police Personnel Administration: Lateral
|
||
Entry,'' Police, January February 1971, p. 13.
|
||
|
||
(2) The salary will be at a level higher than starting pay. A
|
||
Stone and S. Deluca, Police Administration: An Introduction (New
|
||
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1985).
|
||
|
||
(3) C. Swank and J. Conser, The Police Personnel System (New
|
||
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1982).
|
||
|
||
(4) Supra note 1.
|
||
|
||
(5) P. Weston and P. Fraley, Police Personnel Management
|
||
(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1980).
|
||
|
||
(6) M.H. Sekas, ``Dual Career Couples A Corporate
|
||
Challenge,'' Personnel Administrator, April 1984, pp. 37 45.
|
||
|
||
(7) Ibid, p. 37.
|
||
|
||
(8) Supra note 6, p. 40.
|
||
|
||
(9) Supra note 2, p. 293.
|
||
|
||
(10) O. Wilson and R. McLaren, Police Administration (New York:
|
||
McGraw Hill Co., 1977).
|
||
|
||
(11) The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and
|
||
Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Police
|
||
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967).
|
||
|
||
(12) Supra note 1.
|
||
|
||
(13) Supra note 1.
|
||
|
||
(14) Supra note 1.
|
||
|
||
(15) Supra note 1.
|
||
|
||
(16) Supra note 1.
|
||
|
||
(17) W. Bopp and P. Whisenand, Police Personnel Administration
|
||
(Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn Beacon, Inc., 1980).
|
||
|
||
(18) Supra note 5, p. 56.
|
||
|
||
(19) A. Cohn (Ed), The Future of Policing (Beverly Hills,
|
||
California: Sage Publications, 1978).
|
||
|