Imagine this scenario.
A veteran police trainer (and/or commander, and/or line officer) is invited to observe another department’s SWAT training. Upon arrival, they see a group of officers wearing t-shirts, shorts, and sneakers — no helmets, no M4s, no vests, no boots — grappling, dutifully practicing tried-and-true arrest-and-control techniques.
“When does the SWAT training begin?” the observer asks.
“We’re in SWAT training right now,” one officer replies.
The observer says, “You can’t perform any of those maneuvers while wearing full gear.”
Another officer responds, “That’s what our lead defensive tactics instructor teaches.”
The visitor continues (and essentially ends) the dialog with the unvarnished truth, “Things feel different in full kit. Once you add all the gear, the dynamics change completely — moves that work in t-shirt and shorts may not work in a full tactical setup.”
The above scene doesn’t require a ton of imagination. You’ve probably lived through something similar — if not identical — in your police career.
Effectiveness vs. instructor bias
Frequently instructors focus on techniques and systems they personally enjoy rather than what officers will genuinely need for actual street control engagements. This is known as instructor bias. The internet is filled with biased articles promoting the supposed superiority of various training methods, often lacking statistical data on specific technique implementation, effectiveness, or injury rates. Let’s consider that word, “effectiveness” a little more closely within the framework of police defensive tactics training.
Effectiveness in this context includes three essential elements:
- How well officers are prepared to apply techniques safely and correctly in real-world situations
- Their ability to retain these skills over time
- Whether the training reduces the likelihood of injuries or improves outcomes in the field
Measurements may include officer interviews and video review and assessments by trained instructors to assess if the techniques and maneuvers are deployed in the street as designed.
Returning to the “hypothetical” scenario mentioned earlier, it’s widely recognized that grappling is a critical component of law enforcement training. However, training is most effective when it reflects real-world conditions. Grappling — or any hands-on maneuvers — feels completely different when performed in full SWAT gear. Whenever possible, training in full gear is essential to prepare for the unique challenges of operating in the heavy, restrictive equipment required for SWAT operations.
Equally important is the fact that many departments now utilize external carriers for patrol, making training in full gear essential not just for SWAT but for patrol officers as well.
Importance of measurement
In 2022 I was brought in to teach a large agency L.O.C.K.U.P. Arrest and Control Training. The sheriff believed that the training division was teaching officers more MMA-style fighting, which often conflicts with law enforcement goals. Upon arrival, I found the class to be hesitant.
One officer said, “Lieutenant, we’re already very good at use of force here.”
I asked, “What’s your position?”
He replied, “I’m the lead Defensive Tactics instructor.”
When I learned he’d held this role for seven years, I probed further, “You must be very proficient at what you do.”
He confidently affirmed.
I reviewed the training manual, opened it to a specific technique, and asked, “How frequently and successfully is this technique used by officers in the field?”
“I don’t know,” he said.
I asked how frequently and successfully another technique is used.
“I don’t know,” he admitted.
I asked about another technique, and, “I don’t know,” was, again, the reply.
I explained to him that this is precisely the angle a litigating attorney would take to challenge his credibility as a trainer. While what they’ve been teaching might indeed be effective and applicable on the street, without evidence to back up such claims, proving it becomes a significant challenge.
To all defensive tactics instructors, I offer this advice: you must quantify, analyze and assess the training you provide to your officers. Effective training isn’t measured by how quickly it’s learned or the level of skill demonstrated during practice — it’s measured by performance in real-world scenarios after training.
Fads vs. facts
As a trainer and speaker on current police practices, I’ve spent the past 18 years training both police officers and civilians across the U.S. and Europe, specializing in defensive tactics, L.O.C.K.U.P. Arrest and Control, L.E.A.D.S. Law Enforcement Active De-escalation Strategies, Use of Force Analysis and other professional development programs.
Over the years, I’ve had the privilege of training more than 50,000 officers across the country. A recurring issue I’ve observed is that most organizations fail to conduct a proper needs assessment when developing their training curriculum, often succumbing to trends rather than relying on evidence-based methods. Additionally, many agencies do not quantify or measure the effectiveness of the techniques they teach or track their actual deployment in the field. A critical question remains: Is the training sufficient to enable officers to retain these skills over the long term — a process known as long-term potentiation? Are they learning and retaining the skills?
A case study
Training effectiveness should not be evaluated by how quickly officers learn a skill or by merely checking a proficiency box. Instead, it should be judged by how well those skills are applied in real-world situations after training. This principle applies equally to law enforcement de-escalation training. While de-escalation has been an integral part of policing since its inception, research on its effectiveness is limited, and data to evaluate it is often unavailable. Attempts at de-escalation are rarely documented in police reports, and there are no standardized, quantifiable measures to assess its success or its impact on force mitigation.
Some articles claim that their use-of-force training is so effective it has reduced the need for force altogether. However, this assertion often relies on a flawed metric — evaluating the success of defensive tactics training based on the absence of using those techniques. This approach not only demonstrates instructor bias but also reflects confirmation bias.
In reality, factors like reduced proactive policing, excessive hesitation to use force due to public scrutiny, decreased self-initiated activity, or a significant number of failure-to-engage incidents often contribute to declines in reported force usage. These factors must be considered when assessing training effectiveness.
Take the Bloomington Police Department in Minnesota as an example. Bloomington PD trains its officers using a combination of the L.O.C.K.U.P. Arrest Control curriculum, Jiu-Jitsu Ground Control and agency-specific tactics tailored to their needs. To effectively evaluate and quantify their officers’ responses to resistance and aggression, the department has implemented a Use of Force reporting system.
This reporting system measures multiple components, but for this article, we’ll focus on their subject control and defensive tactics to determine whether their officers’ actions align with the training they’ve received. Bloomington PD’s training approach emphasizes contextual scenarios over traditional, once-a-year block training. By incorporating interleaving, shorter training sessions and spaced-out iterations, they aim to enhance skill retention and real-world application.
Here are some findings from Bloomington PD’s 2023 Response to Resistance Audit:
Calls for service: 69,409 (use of force - 0.22% CFS)
- Individual Applications of Force: 159
- Total Force Encounters: 138
Levels of resistance:
- Passive: 1 (0.72%)
- Active: 108 (78.2%)
- Assaultive: 25 (18.1%)
- Deadly Force: 0
- Total: 138
- Officers Injured: 7 (5.07%)
- Subjects Injured: 14 (10.14%)
Subject grounding and takedowns:
- LOCKUP Rear Sentry Takedown: 6 (Effective: 5, 83.3%)
- Double Leg Takedown: 2 (Effective: 2, 100%)
- LOCKUP Arm Wrap Takedown: 21 (Effective: 21, 100%)
- LOCKUP Single Leg Takedown: 6 (Effective: 6, 100%)
- LOCKUP Wrist Drop Takedown: 3 (Effective: 3, 100%)
- Head Clinch Control: 10 (Effective: 7, 70%)
- Tackle: 31 (Effective: 31, 100%)
- LOCKUP Leg Sweep Takedown: 10 (Effective: 9, 90%)
- Push / Trip: 7 (Effective: 7, 100%)
- Head Off-line: 1 (Effective: 1, 100%)
- Other: 3 (Effective: 3, 100%)
- Figure-4 Arm Lock: 8 (Effective: 7, 87.5%)
- Roll-overs Control: 5 (Effective: 5, 100%)
- Additional techniques with varying effectiveness.
The collection of the information stated is an excellent start. However, it is one year’s worth of data. Additional research should be conducted such as reviewing and auditing the use of force incidents, officer interviews, video analysis of street deployment, effectiveness measurement by instructors and injury ratios.
There has been research in this area conducted by NYPD and LAPD reporting several years of data. However, this type of assessment should be conducted by police and correctional agencies regularly. With computer-based data-driven Use of Force reporting, body-worn and in-car camera videos, the material is much more available for continual assessments.
Conclusion
Another purpose of tracking training is to evaluate your return on investment. Thousands of dollars are spent on both regular and overtime pay to train officers in specific defensive tactics. Isn’t it worth determining what your investment has yielded? Otherwise, it’s just an extremely costly check-the-box exercise!
Consider implementing these three concepts:
- Develop a Use of Force form to include the actual tactics and techniques trained so the data can be queried and analyzed. Avoid generic check-off boxes such as “Physical Control.”
- Take measures to determine training “retainability.” Conduct officer interviews and review body-worn and in-car camera videos. Are the actions and techniques consistent with the training?
- Develop contextual training on the data obtained. For example, if you learn that 45% of incidents involve 2 to 3 officers attempting to control one subject, develop and include multiple officer subject control in the next training iteration.
For additional information pertaining to the described methods above, contact Officer Josh Seifert, Bloomington Police Department, via email at jseifert@BloomingtonMN.gov.
