NCJ Number
90702
Journal
Australian Police College Journal Dated: (1981) Pages: 4-30
Date Published
1981
Length
28 pages
Annotation
This study compares police personnel selections and recruitment procedures in six western countries, with implications drawn for recruitment and selection procedures in New Zealand.
Abstract
The six police forces selected for study were New Zealand, Norfolk (United Kingdom), Lothian and Borders (Scotland), Honolulu (Hawaii, U.S.), Queensland (Australia), and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. General recruiting methods are outlined, and elements of screening processes are discussed under the topics of educational standards, physical standards, character checking, oral interview, nationality, gender, psychological examinations, and assessment centers. The greatest attention is devoted to the screening process used by the New Zealand Police. Overall, it is concluded that a valid and unbiased procedure for selecting police officers has not yet been demonstrated and that testing methods still are unable to evaluate the applicant's potential to perform police functions. One of the primary difficulties in the latter area is the lack of a precise and generally accepted definition of the officer's function. It is recommended that medical fitness requirements be retained, with minimum height standards set for unarmed officers. Character investigations should be continued, and oral interviews should be structured so as to reduce the operation of subjectivity. There appears to be no valid reason for limiting the number of policewomen apart from the limited average service life. With the exception of the Honolulu Police, none of the forces made special arrangements for minority groups, even though intelligence and education tests were shown to be culturally biased. Psychological tests appear to be valuable provided they identify the attributes required for performing police tasks. Assessment centers should be studied with a view toward using them in New Zealand screening processes. Ninety-five footnotes and 48 references are provided. Appendixes compare height and weight standards and present the Honolulu agility test and a comparison chart of screening tests used by the forces studied.