NCJ Number
83640
Date Published
Unknown
Length
0 pages
Annotation
Participants act out the roles of equal employment opportunity (EEO) compliance advisors in confronting a hypothetical local public safety board regarding the employment practices of the town's police agency.
Abstract
Commentators on both sides address themselves to the police chief's written statement on action to be taken in compliance with EEO requirements. Compliance advisors argue that the chief's policy statement is evidence of subjective decisionmaking and points out the need for validation of police officer selection tests. Specifically, physical requirements, such as heights and agility, must be shown to be job-related, and older police officers must be shown to be equally capable of performing the physical tasks by which new applicants are judged. The advisors also question the requirement that police candidates be U.S. citizens. They emphasize their advisory capacity, the need for further study of most issues raised, and their willingness to consult again with the board and the police chief. Participants evaluate each others' performance, particularly with respect to the recommendations' indecisiveness. They agree that in a real situation they must be prepared to offer implementable solutions decisively. The instructor points out that the only physical tests found to be valid for police selection are those measuring grip strength (the ability to restrain) and the recovery rate from physical exertion.