Readers will have gathered that I do not have much time for NPIA, the National policing Improvement Agency. These are the people who write the exams that recruits (and others) have to sit. I referred a few months ago to the announcement from them that instead of changing the assessment exercises every 12 months, they were going to change them every six months. To understand the importance of this, you need to realise that the exercises stay teh same word for word for a 12 month period nationally. So, if you do your assessment in Cornwall on one date, and your mate does their 11 months later in Newcastle, you do exactly the same exercises,word for word, the role plays, the written exercises, and the interview questions. Word for word. A little while ago, these appeared on YouTube, hence after a bit of a panic, NPIA announced it would be changing the exercises after six months. We have been saying this needed to happen for years. Inevitably, they have now gone back on this decision and the exercises have remained unchanged.This is why at lunchtime on a recent course of ours, i heard the current exercises being discussed in detail by someone whose boyfriend had just done his assessment. Great for applicants, not so good for NPIA!

My opinion of NPIA remains suitably low!

We have had a few emails over the last few weeks from people who have just failed their paper sift on the application form, and want us to have a look at it. We tend to be reluctant to examine forms on that basis for a number of reasons. Firstly, it must be appreciated that forms will fail for three main reasons:

1. It was not good enough (which is fair enough)
2. It was good enough really, but was harshly marked by inconsistent marking (a huge problem for forces)
3. It was easily god enough, but the force wanted minority recruits, so was effectively ignored (the worst case scenario).

From our perspective, forms in category 1 are easy to deal with. We can just correct them as normal. The ones under points two and three however are more difficult. This is because they were never really failures to begin with. Our problem is that clients send us a form, which we look at and say is perfectly acceptable. Who does the candidate believe? Well, we will have given an unbiased opinion, as that is what they re paying us to do, but it does present applicants with a issue. Talking Blues say the form is fine, but the candidate also knows that the police have failed it. It calls for a real leap of faith to resubmit it next year, and there is no guarantee of course that the same thing will not happen.

This is why we advise anyone in this position to start afresh with a new set of examples, or at least replace the one that they have failed on. Our view is that there is no percentage for you in us checking a form that you know has failed. Submit a fresh set of answers to us, and let us work on a blank canvas, so to speak.

If the form was on the other hand just not good enough, you have to be honest with yourself. Many people say to us that a fellow police officer checked it for them, but unless that person is in recruiting, what is the point? How do they know what should go into the form? Police officers are taught parts of the law, but  if I was selling my house, then I would use a solicitor, not a police officer. They use different knowledge. Being a police officer does not mean they are an automatic expert on the police application process.

Our Nottingham course only has a few places left if you are thinking about it. We have been really busy this week, especially on the application form checking front. Several forces have opened their recruitment lines, hence the rush on forms. Yet again though, moving back to the subject of getting into the job, despite what I have said on this blog, the advice we give in the police application form checking covering email, and the guidance we give out, I would say that three quarters of the forms we check d not deal with inappropriate conduct properly, to the extent that many would fail. I suspect this is because people have this view of the police that bobbies look after each other, and candidates want to show us that whilst they know inappropriate behaviour is wrong, they would not go overboard so nudge, nudge, wink, wink they would deal with it. This view is just SO wrong. Let me give you an example from Cheshire. There was an email going around a while back. It was  a set of crime scene photos from the LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department). The LAPD had pursued a car theif onto the freeway. here the car stopped, and the thief tried to jump from one freeway onto another. Regrettably, he missed, and literally decapitated himself on a spiked fence underneath the freeway. The photos showed his head on the spiked fence whilst his body sat at the bottom of the fence. The photos were circulated bya control room operator to scores of people in the force. The subsequent discipline inquiry saw almost all of those people being subject to some form of disciplinary action for receiving inappropriate images. The point is that this is how severely the job views potentially inappropriate conduct (seniority excepted!)

have to say, we had a busy weekend. Exeter, Southampton and Stafford Saw everyone turning up, and having worked the First two, I can say what a good crowd you all were! Some groups really stood out in terms of asking questions and evidencing motivation, and you let kept us there till late both nights!

One question did come up on the feedback though, in terms of evidence for the interview question in terms of the diversity issue. Firstly, one should remember that the questions (and indeed the role plays and written exercises) stay the same, word for word, nationally, for six months. (It used to be 12 until NPIA realised the internet exists and that candidates tell each other what is on the assessment. They have tried to counter this by the six month change, which just half’s an absolutely massive flaw in the system into a merely massive one!). What this means is that as candidates are asked the same questions word for word, and often have very similiar backgrounds, the type of responses given to the interviewers tends to be the same or very similiar (another flaw in the system). Over the weekend, one student made the point that whilst I was suggesting types of answers that are good include race, sexuality and religion, my colleague appeared to suggest that these were a bit obvious now. Instead he suggested disability as being more “original”. Whilst I actually agree with this, it only works if you have that experience. If not, stick with the tried and tested topics of race etc. It is true something a bit different is more interesting for the interviewer, but as we prove on the course when we go through probable questions, most people will give such poor answers that you giving a common (but relevant) example will still mark you out as being a star. For police assessments, the trick is, as always, do your preparation and have examples ready to go.

To be fair to the police service, there is no foolproof way in the world today to guarantee that a person selected using any available criteria will be able to perform in the role required of them. The best an organisation can do is to utilise a method of selection that offers the highest chance of successful candidates being able to do the job. Assessment centres in general have been proved time and time again to provide the highest probability in a successful candidate being able to do the job. In general, assessment centres are presently the best way to assess a candidate’s potential.

Having said that, the police being the police have built several flaws into the assessment system which can impact very heavily on whether or not the right candidates are selected. The qualities required of a police officer are many and varied. The person who makes a good detective may make a terrible public order officer. A great traffic officer may be a terrible custody officer. That is one of the interesting things about the service. However, the new national system tests people in a comfortable (relatively speaking!) environment, where, for example, the people they meet in role-plays may be rude, but never obnoxious, verbally but never physically threatening, and the situations themselves have a huge dollop of “ideal” as opposed to “real” world about them.

Although it would be denied by the police service, the system totally fails to sufficiently test strength of character. Anyone can act “assertive” in a role play lasting five minutes, or challenge an inappropriate comment. Whether they can do so on the street outside a nightclub to an aggressive drunk at 3am is a different matter. Conversely, any trace of “political incorrectness” will result in an automatic fail. Whilst that is all well and good, sometimes in the real world of policing, you need people whose idea of political correctness is less important than their ability to act decisively in the face of danger. One of the best police officers I know is ex army and totally politically incorrect. He does not believe in force strategy, or the wider implications of issues such as sanction detections or corporate development (if you are not sure what they are, have a look at your local force’s website!). All he is interested in is arresting the bad guys. He is also extremely capable in defending himself in a physical encounter (or to put it the old fashioned way, he is a “hard man”!). This officer is the one that I as a supervisor and operational officer was always glad to turn to when either a prisoner became violent, or we were dealing with a nasty public order situation. By way of example, at one incident, the officer responded alone one night to an assault in progress on a pub car park. On arrival, he found two offenders hiding, who upon realising he was on his own, attempted to assault him. By the time other colleagues arrived to assist the officer, suffice to say he had already put both offenders on the floor, and they were begging him to let them surrender. Whilst I am not suggesting that every officer should be like this one (as that would be a supervisory nightmare!), some officers like him are needed in the police. The new system would never have allowed such a character to get in.

So, do assessment centres work? Maybe. Ultimately though, for you the candidate, it does not matter. They are a fact of life, and if you want to join the police, you need to accept their rules and play by them.