Staffing

[retchp]

CHP Killing Raises Issue of Officer Staffing Shortage
Written for the web by C. Johnson, Internet News Producer

California Highway Patrol Officer Earl Scott was on patrol alone when he was fatally shot during a traffic stop Friday morning. The incident again raises the issue of adequate staffing for peace officers.

Scott had just dropped off his partner at the nearby CHP division offices. According to CHP policy, two officers ride patrol on the graveyard schedule from 10:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m., which was Scott's shift. However, according to former CHP Commissioner Spike Helmick, the local division commander has the discretion to allow officers to split up after 4 a.m. In this case, Scott's partner left to write reports while Scott continued on patrol.

Friday's tragedy again points out the need for more officers, according to a union representative for the CHP officers' union. "I think anyone out there would say I rarely see CHP out there patrolling and it's because they don't have enough units out there and people to patrol," said union spokesman Jon Hamm.

A study of the issue shows the CHP needs an additional 2,000 officers to maintain minimum staffing. Based on California's growing population and increasing traffic, another 5,000 to 7,000 would serve the state better, Hamm says.

The CHP has about 7,100 sworn officers. Just a year ago it graduated its first new class of 67 recruits. Until then, a state hiring freeze in 2003 had stopped the CHP from hiring and training new officers for 18 months.

The CHP is responsible for patrolling the state's highways to keep traffic moving safely. Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, however, the focus on Homeland Security has meant increased patrols of the state's infrastructure. That has put a strain on CHP personnel. In the state with the nation's largest highway system and more than 35 million residents, the CHP has just 300 more officers than it did 35 years ago.

Many law enforcement agencies in California, not only the CHP, are experiencing a shortage of qualified officers. According to the state's Police Officer Standards and Training agency, factors affecting the situation are low pay, population growth, massive retirements of older officers and a big drop in the number of young people attracted to and qualified for police work.

[CaliforniaHighwayPatrol]

So does this means they are going to lower their standards?

[ORI# 1976]

Anyone agree that it's time for the CHP to accept Lateral officers?

[TheForceCHP]

i hope they don't lower their standards or allow lateral officers. there are plenty of people that want the position that are still in backgrounds.

i would love to see more officers on the streets, but it isn't going to help if they are the best officers around(that is how i view the CHP). i don't like the idea of laterals because like i have heard before, you know that every other person went through the same academy and has the same LE education as you do. this is just my humble opinion

[NorCalN00b]

If Officer Scott's partner didn't split with him, then maybe this incident could've been avoided. I bet Officer Scott's partner is beating himself up over this incident, at least I would, knowing my partner just got killed.

I think the reason the CHP is short staffed because their payscale isn't competitive. Northern California police departments offer very attractive salaries, same goes for some police departments in Southern CA. It's time the CHP needs to rework their payscale and offer better pay.

The article says the CHP has approx 7,100 personnel. That's pretty low. The New York City Police Department has approx 39,000 personnel.

[Mac]

...The article says the CHP has approx 7,100 personnel. That's pretty low. The New York City Police Department has approx 39,000 personnel.

...and keep in mind that the 7,100 figure isn't all troops assigned to the road. Many of those positions are management (who don't work the road), and even more than that are admin (inside/office) workers in Headquarters, Division and Area special duty positions (who also don't work the road). As an educated guess, I'd venture that less than half of that 7,100 figure are actually on the beat. Outside of the large metro areas (which are almost always pretty well-staffed), there are many smaller offices that are SERIOUSLY hurting for bodies....don't have near enough to adequately cover their area of responsibility. One smaller office I know of has 15-20 less bodies now than they did 20 years ago - however, the population of the area they serve has at least quadrupled, and the traffic volume has increased at least tenfold in those ensuing 20 years. They often have to hold officers over (on overtime) just to meet absolute bare minimum staffing requirements....and I'm sure there are many other Areas throughout the state that are in the same boat.

[nobody33]

There is a good read out there from the Legislative anaylst's office on CHP staffing. The jist was that the CHP isn't getting new positions anytime soon, and to try other solutions to increase their efficiency. The 2 suggestions I remember were non sworn officers, and stop handeling 1182's. Two things which many other agencies already do (as the report stated, and I have seen working for city PD's). I won't comment on their effectiveness for the CHP, since not being an officer, I'm not qualified.

Anyways, the report was put out a year or two ago. It's on the web. It's also intresting that the increase in the last 30 years has been 300 officers. That's about the number that was brought on from the CSP. So it's basically no increase at all.

I don't think they will need to lower their standards. They are already backed up on qualified canidates. Altough streamlining the process would probally help. For someone coming out of college, or the military, a 2 year hiring process is not very reasonable when other agencies, with higher pay, are processing in 6 months or less.

Back when I was an explorer, the recruiting program was at its height, and a recruiter told me they recieved 40,000 scantron apps a year.

[makakona]

[quote=nobody33]For someone coming out of college, or the military, a 2 year hiring process is not very reasonable when other agencies, with higher pay, are processing in 6 months or less. [quote]

my husband went straight from military to chp. he was processed through in 14 months and that was with some pressure to wrap things up and with him having an absolutely clean background (the man is so goody-goody, it'd probably make you puke, haha!). being prior military can make the backgrounds a serious pain. in eight years, he lived in five states and had about 30 roommates. he sometimes shuffled from one apartment to another, with different roommates, just because people were moving in and out depending on the military's needs. one of his bases was completely shut down and a retirement community was put up on that land. his superiors moved every year or two and many had already retired by the time he was testing. all of those factors made it feel sometimes impossible to ever complete the process. i think 14 months was a pretty good run, considering all of the legwork that had to be done. unless they were to quit checking up on where he lived, who he lived with, and who he worked for, i'm not sure how they could have made the process any shorter.

for the guys who are rolling straight from college or mom and dad's house, i imagine the process would be pretty darn short, barring any major incidents in their past.

[roaming_gnome]

So does this means they are going to lower their standards?

I heard anyone that gets an 85 or higher on the oral will be passed on to backgrounds. As it was, anyone 95 or higher went on....

[makakona]

So does this means they are going to lower their standards?

I heard anyone that gets an 85 or higher on the oral will be passed on to backgrounds. As it was, anyone 95 or higher went on....

meaning some with vpp could score a 75? yeouch! :confused:

[TheForceCHP]

So does this means they are going to lower their standards?

I heard anyone that gets an 85 or higher on the oral will be passed on to backgrounds. As it was, anyone 95 or higher went on....

yep, 85 is what i have heard also

[redhead]

So does this means they are going to lower their standards?

I heard anyone that gets an 85 or higher on the oral will be passed on to backgrounds. As it was, anyone 95 or higher went on....I scored a 90 in Nov of 04. Not good enough, so I made sure I got a 95 in August of 05. Now, 85 is the last number I have heard, as stated above.

[Mase02]

I think we also loose a lot of good qualified candidates for "BS" circumstances in backgrounds such as; didn?t list a reprimand you received 2-3 years prior, or filed for bankruptcy 6 years back, accidentally left off an employment you had when you were 15 years old, or when in the military forgot about a resident you once lived at and didn?t list and so on and so on those are just a few of the NIT-PICKY "BS" things people I have talked to got DQ'ed on in back grounds then I know of 4 guys and a girl who went and applied a year later and made it through the process the 2nd time and now are officers..... I mean their are standards but some of the stuff I hear of people getting DQ'ed for is a joke!!! Some BI's get a hard on when DQ'ing people and that's a fact my bro is one which is sad!!! I think the CHP should hire a firm or have the SPB conduct BI's and let those officers go back to the road where they belong!

[nobody33]

They took down to 85 scores after the last hiring freeze in the 90's also.

[Dipmo]

I think we also loose a lot of good qualified candidates for "BS" circumstances in backgrounds such as; didn?t list a reprimand you received 2-3 years prior, or filed for bankruptcy 6 years back, accidentally left off an employment you had when you were 15 years old, or when in the military forgot about a resident you once lived at and didn?t list and so on and so on those are just a few of the NIT-PICKY "BS" things people I have talked to got DQ'ed on in back grounds then I know of 4 guys and a girl who went and applied a year later and made it through the process the 2nd time and now are officers..... I mean their are standards but some of the stuff I hear of people getting DQ'ed for is a joke!!! Some BI's get a hard on when DQ'ing people and that's a fact my bro is one which is sad!!! I think the CHP should hire a firm or have the SPB conduct BI's and let those officers go back to the road where they belong!

I disagree that the reasons you cite for DQ are BS. The reasons noted are attention to detail items and if you read posts from officers on this board attention to detail is a HUGE tool for your success as a Cadet and later as an Officer. If a person wants the honor of attending the CHP academy then they need have the attention to detail to recall and disclose bankruptcies, past employment, etc, as asked for on the PHS.

[norcal625]

Well being one of those people that forgot a detail of a "lecture" (AKA reprimand warning to a CHP BI) I felt it was BS and I had honestly forgot but thats their policy and ya know what I'm OK with it and can live with it. I do disagree with things such as tickets before 18 that are sealed for your general record but available for LE, I disagree with a dismissed case that you won without question (not to mention 15 witnesses) being an issue. I do think I am qualified, the Officers where I am a Cadet think I am qualified and well. that is why I'll most likely end up being an officer there now that were hiring. I've already based one of their backgrounds to be a Cadet (35 page PHS statement type thing). Good Luck to anyone in the process... AS to the original topic of staffing, it would be great to see more CHP on the freeways I'm sure from reading the paper legislation will come around soon and it will pass to increase funding, and senators will demand more money from the federal government and DHS for all the extra work the CHP does these days (3 times a shift bridge checks!). I agree it would be wise for the CHP to look into non sworn officers for TC's and the little stuff I know it works for the city where I am and surrounding cities. Stay safe ya'll

[KingFrankSam]

If Officer Scott's partner didn't split with him, then maybe this incident could've been avoided. I bet Officer Scott's partner is beating himself up over this incident, at least I would, knowing my partner just got killed.

I am sure that Officer Scott's partner is devastated. I would be. I would lose a lot of sleep wondering how thing would have been different had I been there. The truth is that the self-blame is completely, utterly, unquestionably, unwarranted. This is not the fault of Officer Scott's partner. It is not the fault of Officer Scott. It is not the fault of the supervisor who allowed Officer Scott to go out solo. It is not the fault of the Area's Management who created the policy that allows officers to go solo after 0400. The blame for this tragedy lies solely with the scum-bag who pulled the trigger.

I have spent the majority of my career on graves. It is common practice, and good policy, that officers be allowed to go solo after 0400. It is unreasonable to expect one partner to sit and stare at the walls while the other is working on paper. If someone is not willing to approach a vehicle without a cover officer, than perhaps the CHP is not a good career choice for them. Making a traffic stop is risky, as is participating in a pursuit, or clearing an 11-25, or simply going to court (ask the family of Officer Steiner). The job is dangerous. It is dangerous when you are working solo, and it is dangerous if you are with a partner (research the Newhall incident). Would Officer Scott still be here if his partner had been with him? Perhaps, perhaps not. There is little that a cover officer who is standing next to a patrol car can do to prevent such a vicious, callous, attack. Would a second officer have been a deterrent to someone who is capable of such an atrocious crime? I doubt it.

The fact is, speculating how things would have been different if Officer Scott's partner was with him is irrational. There are an infinite number of factors that could have changed the events on that tragic day. Unfortunately, it seems that the best of us are taken too soon, and there is never an adequate explanation why. I find it easier, and healthier mentally, to let these questions be answered by fate, and to place the blame squarely with the soulless cowards who commit these acts.

[Tom]

Well said Horatio. Ditto that.

Tom

[rich]

yeah, what Tom said

[ka4993]

Anyone agree that it's time for the CHP to accept Lateral officers?

We do. You just have to go through our Academy :biggrin:

[CHP1]

You can consider your self a lateral if you work for another department, you just have to go through the academy like every other CHP officer has. KEEP THE TRADITION ALIVE!!!!:biggrin:

[pupdog]

Would Officer Scott still be here if his partner had been with him? Perhaps, perhaps not. There is little that a cover officer who is standing next to a patrol car can do to prevent such a vicious, callous, attack. Would a second officer have been a deterrent to someone who is capable of such an atrocious crime? I doubt it.


Would we have 2 officers killed that night if Officer Scott's partner had been there? Some questions, thankfully, cannot be answered.

[retchp]

Horatio wrote:
If someone is not willing to approach a vehicle without a cover officer, than perhaps the CHP is not a good career choice for them. Making a traffic stop is risky, as is participating in a pursuit, or clearing an 11-25, or simply going to court (ask the family of Officer Steiner). The job is dangerous. It is dangerous when you are working solo, and it is dangerous if you are with a partner (research the Newhall incident). Would Officer Scott still be here if his partner had been with him? Perhaps, perhaps not.

Very well stated. I was irritated by the questioning about whether or not the partner officer was "devastated" or not too, but decided not to respond. Of course he is devastated. One of the first converstaions I had with any partner went along the lines that if one of us is killed or injured the other one is not at fault. I also insisted that the family be involved in that line of thinking and made sure that mine was in the loop as well.

If you are considering a career in law enforcemnet, which you probably are if you are on this site, then reread some of the posts about this sort of thing, including the post by Horatio.

This is not a game, If you can't get past the fact that your next stop or call may be the final one for you, then don't come on the job because you will be bitterly disappointed. Officer Scott chose to go get a few early morning flyers in all probability, and he paid the ultimate price for doing his job. I have done the same and my partners have done that too, knowing full well that you are going out there alone in the dark. In fact, in some offices one fairly common shift begins at 0400 hours and is usually one solo unit going out for "coverage" while graveyard finishes up and day shift comes on.

[Officer_Grady]

Horatio wrote:
There is little that a cover officer who is standing next to a patrol car can do to prevent such a vicious, callous, attack. Would a second officer have been a deterrent to someone who is capable of such an atrocious crime? I doubt it.

I know it's easy to second guess, if there was a partner officer, I'd hope he would have put 11 into the SOB. Solo, you have to write the pink and still put 11 into the SOB. Remember, officer safety, first last and all the time.

[Your Mentor]

I get called out in the middle of the night and respond to anything from a major crash, a DUI turnover from the SO, or a mundain stranded motorist. There is absolutely NO way to respond with a partner in a resident post. It's the only position other than a sergeant's where you are allowed to be out between 2200 and 0400 without a partner. That's the way it is. I did the same in the single largest beat in the state; Death Valley. I chose this assignment. And I've had occassion to stop people enroute to a call or upon returning. It's very late, the highways out here are desolate, completely unlit, and remote, and I'm totally alone. But in making a decision to stop someone I always weigh the risk versus benefit: something called "risk management" on our department. Either way, you're only making a vague guess regarding the risks because you NEVER know who you're stopping. The most dangerous people out there are those who don't care who you are. If they don't care who you are they rarely care how many of you are out there. And these are people who have made a life of making poor decisions. Anyone willing to take a life; a peace officer's or otherwise, possesses a brain I don't want to get inside of. They think differently than others and their reality is far more bizzar and frightening than any fictional villan. So second-guessing an officer who fell victim to such a twisted individual is like trying to guess the flavor of a beverage while lacking the sense of taste and smell. You're only making a guess. Regardless, I only hope we learn from this and make constructive changes in tactics and operations. ALL of our enforcement tactics policy is the direct result of incidents involving slain officers. It's sad and pathetic but the world is growing more violent every day. Unfortunately, and we all took an oath with this reality, training is reactionary to assaults, it's NEVER based on analysis of trends and social conditions. That would make too much sense. The CIA employs dedicated analysts in an effort to PREDICT threats to the US. We don't and never will. So I don't wait to be told to carry a secondary firearm, to call in stops on vehicles that heighten my concern, to search individuals that make me nervous, to put on leather gloves if it looks like a fight is emminent, or to wear an 8X5 titanium trauma plate in my personally owned vest. Why would I wait?

Our brother, Officer Scott, did what we ALL do every day. He made a traffic stop. How could he possibly know who was in the vehicle? We NEVER know. Rather than 2nd guessing his choice, I think it's important to recognize that thousands of us did the same thing that day. And what happened to him was not fare. Because he shouldn't have had to die in order for the rest of us to be a little more cautious every day.

[14596]

Would Officer Scott still be here if his partner had been with him? Perhaps, perhaps not. There is little that a cover officer who is standing next to a patrol car can do to prevent such a vicious, callous, attack. Would a second officer have been a deterrent to someone who is capable of such an atrocious crime? I doubt it.


Would we have 2 officers killed that night if Officer Scott's partner had been there? Some questions, thankfully, cannot be answered.


Or would we have one officer killed with one suspect killed. This speculation does nothing to what actually occurred and as Horatio pointed out earlier, fate or this being the time can only explain what actually happened.