The Profession Cannot Move Forward While Holding Onto “This Is How We Have Always Done It”

By Holden Vanderpool
The Apex Digest

Law enforcement is one of the most important professions in this country. It is also one of the most difficult, most scrutinized, and most misunderstood. Officers are expected to make fast decisions in unstable situations, manage community conflict, respond to mental health crises, protect victims, enforce the law, and do all of that while maintaining professionalism under pressure.

That level of responsibility requires a profession that is willing to grow.

Unfortunately, too much of law enforcement still operates under the mindset of, “This is how we have always done it.” That mindset shows up in training, supervision, leadership, community engagement, hiring, and even in the way agencies define what makes a good officer. Tradition has value. Experience has value. But tradition should never become an excuse to ignore better options.

I want to be very clear: this is not about lowering standards. It is about improving standards. It is about building hiring, training, and leadership systems that are more accurate, more effective, and better aligned with the realities of modern policing.

One of the clearest examples of where law enforcement needs to evolve is the hiring process.

The Current Hiring Process Has Value, But It Is Not Perfect

Most law enforcement hiring processes follow a similar structure. A candidate submits an application. The agency reviews the application for minimum qualifications, education, work history, and any immediate disqualifiers. From there, the applicant may complete a written test, an oral board interview, a personal history questionnaire, a background investigation, a psychological evaluation, a medical evaluation, and possibly a truth verification exam such as a CVSA (Computerized Voice Stress Analysis) or polygraph. The process usually ends with a final review or meeting with the chief, sheriff, or executive command staff.

Many of these steps are necessary and should remain in place. Agencies have a responsibility to protect the community, protect the profession, and make sure they are not hiring people who should not be given authority, a badge, or a firearm. A thorough background investigation, personal history review, psychological screening, medical screening, and final executive review all serve important purposes.

The problem is not that the process has too many safeguards. The problem is that some parts of the process are outdated, overly rigid, or too narrow in how they measure a candidate’s potential.

In a profession facing major recruitment and retention challenges, agencies cannot afford to lose good candidates simply because the process fails to see the full person.

The Written Test Should Be a Tool, Not a Wall

The written test has a place. It can measure reading comprehension, writing ability, basic reasoning, and the candidate’s ability to process information. Those skills matter in law enforcement. Officers write reports, interpret policy, understand legal standards, communicate with prosecutors, and document critical incidents.

But the written test should not be treated as the sole indicator of whether someone has the potential to become a strong officer.

Some candidates struggle with testing because of educational gaps. Others struggle because of test anxiety. Some may not perform well in a timed written environment but may still have excellent communication skills, emotional intelligence, integrity, work ethic, and decision-making ability. Those qualities matter just as much, and in some situations, they matter more.

Instead of using the written test as a hard stop by itself, agencies should consider making it one part of a broader assessment phase. A candidate’s test score could be evaluated alongside a validated personality or behavioral assessment, structured conversation, and peer-level observation.

One option would be to include a structured ride-along or observation period with a trained line-level officer. This would not replace the background investigation or formal interview process. It would simply give the agency another data point. During that ride-along, the officer could evaluate how the applicant communicates, listens, asks questions, responds to stress, shows curiosity, and interacts with others.

The evaluating officer would not be expected to make a hiring decision alone. Instead, they would complete a structured peer review based on specific criteria. Did the candidate demonstrate professionalism? Did they ask thoughtful questions? Did they show maturity? Did they appear service-oriented? Did they understand the seriousness of the profession? Did they demonstrate any concerning attitudes?

That kind of process could help agencies see more than a test score.

Oral Boards Need to Be Reworked

The oral board interview is another area that needs a serious update.

Most officers and applicants understand how intimidating an oral board can be. A candidate walks into a room with three or four people, often command staff or supervisors, sitting across from them. They may not know who will be present. They may not know what questions will be asked. They may not know whether the panel is looking for a direct answer, a STAR-format answer, a policy-based answer, or a personal reflection.

For some people, that pressure brings out their best. For others, it creates so much anxiety that the agency never gets a clear picture of who they are.

I know this personally. I have walked into oral board interviews with a high level of anxiety. Before the interview even starts, your mind can begin racing. Who is on the board? What are they going to ask? What if I do not know the answer? What is the “right” way to respond? How much should I say? How little should I say?

That anxiety does not always mean the person is unqualified. Sometimes it means the process is failing to create an environment where the candidate can demonstrate their actual ability.

There should still be an interview. In fact, interviews are essential. But they can be structured better.

A more effective process could include two interviews. The first interview should be structured, transparent, and designed to establish a baseline. Agencies could send out several core questions in advance, including basic prompts like “Tell us about yourself,” “Why do you want to work in law enforcement?” and “Describe a time you handled conflict.” Agencies could also provide a short explanation of how to answer behavioral questions without giving candidates a script.

That is not giving someone an unfair advantage. That is giving every candidate a fair chance to prepare and present themselves professionally.

Agencies should also consider providing the names and ranks or roles of the panel members in advance. Knowing who will be in the room does not weaken the process. It reduces unnecessary anxiety and helps the candidate walk in with a clearer understanding of the environment.

After that first interview, the candidate could move into a ride-along or peer observation step. Then, if appropriate, the agency could schedule a second interview. That second interview could look more like the traditional oral board, with scenario-based questions and less preparation in advance. This would allow the agency to assess adaptability, judgment, communication, and decision-making under pressure.

The difference is that the agency would now be evaluating the candidate from multiple angles instead of relying heavily on one high-pressure interview.

The Personal History Questionnaire Still Matters

The Personal History Questionnaire, or PHQ, is one of the most time-consuming parts of the process. It often asks for information going back many years, including residences, employment history, gaps in employment, relationships, family history, financial issues, criminal history, drug use, driving history, and other personal details.

It is lengthy for a reason.

This part of the process should not be removed or watered down. Law enforcement agencies need to know who they are hiring. The community deserves officers who have been properly vetted. The agency deserves to know whether there are patterns in a candidate’s history that raise concerns. The applicant also deserves a fair and thorough review rather than a rushed judgment.

The key is not to eliminate the PHQ. The key is to make sure agencies communicate clearly with applicants about expectations, deadlines, documentation, and the role of the background investigator. A candidate should understand what is being asked, why it matters, and what happens next.

A professional hiring process does not have to be easy. But it should be clear.

Psychological, Medical, and Truth Verification Steps Should Stay, But the Process Can Be Better Managed

The psychological evaluation, medical evaluation, and truth verification process are also important. These steps help agencies assess whether a candidate is fit for the demands of the job and whether the information provided throughout the process is consistent and reliable.

The challenge is that many of these steps are completed by outside vendors. That can create long delays. Applicants may wait weeks for an appointment, then wait longer for results, then wait again for the agency to review everything. During that time, strong candidates may accept other jobs, lose interest, or become frustrated with the lack of communication.

Agencies should look for ways to manage these steps more efficiently without compromising standards. Some larger agencies may benefit from internal capacity or dedicated vendor agreements. Smaller agencies may not have that option, but they can still improve communication, set clearer timelines, and work with vendors who understand the urgency of law enforcement hiring.

Again, this is not about rushing the process. It is about respecting the applicant, the agency, and the staffing needs of the community.

Final Executive Review Should Remain

The final review by the chief, sheriff, or executive leadership is another necessary step. The head of the agency is ultimately responsible for the culture, standards, and direction of the organization. They should have a role in deciding who is brought into the profession under their leadership.

But by the time a candidate reaches that point, the agency should have a well-rounded profile. Not just a test score. Not just one interview. Not just a background packet. The final decision should be based on a full picture of the applicant’s skills, judgment, character, communication, maturity, and fit for the agency’s mission.

Better Hiring Is Not Lower Standards

Some people may hear these ideas and assume they make the hiring process easier. I see it differently.

This would make hiring more accurate.

A rigid process can reject good candidates for the wrong reasons. A loose process can allow bad candidates through because the agency is desperate to fill vacancies. Neither option is acceptable.

The goal should be a hiring process that is structured, fair, thorough, and realistic. Agencies need to identify people who can communicate, think critically, manage stress, accept feedback, serve the public, and grow with the profession. That cannot always be measured by one written test or one oral board.

Modern policing requires officers who are emotionally intelligent, ethical, adaptable, physically capable, legally sound, culturally aware, and willing to keep learning. If those are the qualities we say we want, then our hiring process should be built to find them.

The Bigger Issue: Policing Must Be Willing to Evolve

Hiring is only one part of the bigger conversation.

Law enforcement cannot continue to rely on old systems simply because they are familiar. The profession is changing whether agencies like it or not. Calls for service are changing. Community expectations are changing. Mental health response is changing. School safety is changing. Technology is changing. The public’s willingness to accept “because we said so” is changing.

The agencies that survive and succeed will be the ones that can adapt without abandoning their core mission.

That means better hiring. Better training. Better leadership development. Better wellness support. Better communication. Better accountability. Better preparation for the types of calls officers are actually handling every day.

The future of law enforcement should not be built on lowering the bar. It should be built on raising the right bar.

We need officers who can enforce the law and understand people. We need agencies that value tradition but are not trapped by it. We need leaders who are willing to ask whether the old way is still the best way. And when it is not, we need the courage to build something better.

That is where progress starts.