Detective Best Practices

Study

An Examination of Detective Work in the Patrol Bureau of

the Louisville Metro Police Department

Office of Inspector General

Louisville Metro Government

Edward W. Harness, J.D., C.P.O, C.I.G., Inspector General

Thomas S. Whetstone, Ph.D., Analyst
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY
CRAIG GREENBERG EDWARD HARNESS
MAYOR INSPECTOR GENERAL

Office of Inspector General LMPD Detective Best Practices Study with Recommendations

Greetings: During my time as a practitioner of police oversight I have learned effective reform of policing
comes from policy changes, not officer discipline. This collaborative study between LMPD and the OIG is
a prime example of how that premise can work.
During our investigations we learned some startling facts about LMPD Detective caseloads, case systems,
and training. Those facts were confirmed when we interviewed Colonel Healey, then Deputy Chief of
LMPD.
We made the decision to conduct a non-complaint investigation as allowed under LMCO Section 36.84
(A) & (B). The Civilian Review and Accountability Board were notified of the investigation at their July
2024 meeting. The resulting work demonstrates how two agencies can collaborate on a project and
produce a work that while diagnostic is also prescriptive.
This report details the painstaking steps the OIG took to gather the information from LMPD personnel
and places that in context with the latest research. The conclusions inform the community regarding the
challenges facing Detectives in the eight Patrol Divisions and how that impacts their work and ultimately
public safety. The recommendations must be considered by LMPD command, Louisville Metro
Government, and the newly formed Community Safety Commission.
Thanks to all the LMPD Detectives and Sergeants that contributed to this work. We urge the LMPD
Command to continue the work started here in making the administrative and structural changes needed
to improve the work of Patrol Bureau Detectives.

Sincerely,

Edward Harness, JD, CPO, CIG

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Inspector General’s transmittal letter........................................................................ 2
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 4
Authority and Announcement of Inspection .......................................................... 6
Background and Context ............................................................................................ 7
Objectives, Scope and Methods................................................................................. 11
Findings.......................................................................................................................... 16
Demographics..................................................................................................... 16
The Interviews .................................................................................................... 21
Recruiting .................................................................................................. 24
Testing and Selecting............................................................................... 26
Training ..................................................................................................... 32
Structure of Units .................................................................................... 39
Working ..................................................................................................... 43
Metrics ............................................................................................. 48
Motivation ................................................................................................. 65
Retention ................................................................................................... 70
Communications/Direction of Activities ............................................ 73
Staffing....................................................................................................... 74
Supervising ................................................................................................ 76
Evaluating ................................................................................................. 77
Wrap-Up ................................................................................................... 81
Suggestions and comments added by the participants. ........... 81
Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 86
References and Bibliography ...................................................................................... 90
Appendix........................................................................................................................ 103

3
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview
This report examines the recruitment, training, workload, supervision, and retention of Divisional General
Detectives within the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD). Through interviews with 36 Detectives
and Sergeants, as well as an analysis of policies and case management practices, the study identifies key
challenges and opportunities for improving investigative effectiveness. The findings highlight systemic issues
in workload management, training gaps, technological limitations, and career development, while offering
actionable recommendations to enhance Detective operations.

Key Findings
1. Recruitment & Selection
The current selection process relies heavily on interviews, lacking objective measures like written
tests and more robust departmental standards..
Minimum patrol experience (3 years) is considered insufficient; Detectives recommend 5 – 7
years.
No formal system exists for identifying and mentoring prospective Detectives.
Retired Detectives returning to LMPD must re-serve 3 years in patrol, wasting valuable
experience.
Consider employing civilian investigators to assist Detectives.

2. Training & Development

Detectives report inadequate and inconsistent training, particularly in digital forensics, courtroom
testimony, and advanced interviewing.
Miranda warnings are given more broadly than required by long-standing case law.
No structured mentoring or Field Training Officer (FTO) program exists for new Detectives.
Career development resources are underutilized due to poor awareness and accessibility.

3. Workload & Case Management

Caseloads are unsustainable, with Detectives handling 500–1,000+ cases annually.
Triage is unavoidable—felonies and violent crimes take priority, while misdemeanors often go
uninvestigated.
Administrative burdens (e.g., victim notifications, case documentation) consume significant time.
Digital evidence backlogs delay investigations due to insufficient forensic resources.

4. Supervision & Performance Evaluation

Sergeants play a critical role in case assignment but lack formal solvability guidelines.
Annual performance appraisals are generic and not tailored to investigative work.
Metrics like arrest stats are flawed since many arrests are made by patrol, not Detectives.
Metrics on other performance measures are difficult to extract and are often inaccurate.

5. Retention & Career Path

Most Detectives aspire to promote to Sergeant or join specialized units, leading to high turnover.
No formal career path exists for Detectives, discouraging long-term commitment.
Compensation does not reflect the role’s demands, with patrol officers often earning more via
overtime.

Top Recommendations
Immediate Actions
4
 Increase Detective staffing to reduce unsustainable caseloads.
Enable and empower Patrol Officers to conduct follow-up investigations.
Formalize a mentoring program for new Detectives.
Upgrade case management software to improve efficiency and reporting.
Expand digital forensics resources to reduce evidence processing delays.

Mid-Term Improvements
Revise selection criteria, including a written test and increased patrol experience requirements.
Establish specialized units (Organized Retail Crime, Auto Theft, Metals Theft) to improve case
focus and improve outcomes.
Enhance training in digital forensics, courtroom testimony, and advanced interviewing.
Automate victim notifications for low-priority cases to save time.

Long-Term Strategies
Make Detective a promotion (e.g., Corporal rank) with higher pay to reflect responsibilities.
Develop a Detective career path with progression opportunities within investigations.
Improve workspace conditions with modernized offices and equipment.
Strengthen prosecutor collaboration to ensure cases are pursued effectively.

Conclusion
LMPD’s Detectives are dedicated professionals facing significant challenges due to high caseloads, inadequate
training, and outdated computer/software and departmental systems. By implementing these
recommendations, LMPD can enhance investigative effectiveness, improve Detective retention, and ensure
better outcomes for victims and the community. A strategic focus on recruitment, training, workload
management, and career development will position LMPD as a leader in modern policing practices.

5
 AUTHORITY AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF
INSPECTION
Authority:
The Office of Inspector General is authorized to conduct non-complaint investigations under the authority of
Louisville Metro City Ordinances:
Section 36.82. Powers and duties of Inspector General
(A) The Inspector General:
(1) Shall investigate complaints as determined under LMCO Section 36.83;
(2) May examine patterns and practices, and review policies, procedures, and
operations within LMPD under LMCO Section 36.84; and
(3) May provide recommendations on improving operations to the Chief of
Police, the Mayor, and Metro Council.
Section 36.84. Non-complaint reviews and investigations by the Inspector
General.
(A) Pursuant to the powers established in LMCO Section 36.82, the Inspector
General may examine and review operations within LMPD without a vote by the
Civilian Review & Accountability Board (CR&AB).
(B) The Inspector General shall inform the Civilian Review & Accountability Board
chair when initiating such reviews and examinations, and shall provide oral updates
to the Civilian Review & Accountability Board as directed by the chair.
Studies of this nature are the stock-in-trade of Inspectors General throughout the country (CIGIE, 2020;
GAO, 2025). This study was designed and implemented following guidance from the Association of
Inspectors General that stipulates:
“In order to conduct independent and effective investigations, and consistent
with federal law, Inspectors General must have unobstructed access to materials
belonging to overseen entities, including materials that may otherwise be
privileged from disclosure to third parties” (AIG, 2025b, p.1).
Announcement:
Pursuant to LMCO §36.82(A)(2) and §36.84 A & B the Office of Inspector General announced and
subsequently conducted a pattern and practice investigation of Divisional Detectives under the Title of
“Detective Best Practices Study.” This notification was done via meetings and email distributions to
stakeholders. The CR&AB was notified of this non-complaint investigation at their July 16, 2024 meeting.
This study had a long timeline of over a year from July 2024 to August 2025. This was due to the depth of the
literature review and the review of LMPD documents and SOP’s. Further, the necessity of scheduling
meetings with LMPD Command personnel, the FOP leadership during the design and set-up phase and then
scheduling 36 individual interviews exponentially increased the completion time. These meetings were
scheduled at the mercy of the busy schedules of the participants. All this was the exclusive responsibility of
your author.
A copy of the email sent to the participants is provided in the Appendix.

6
 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
This report will follow an unorthodox format in the presentation of the study and the results. It is part
investigative report, part technical report, part audit and part academic treatise. It presents a brief discussion
of a seminal study of detectives but then saves the more extensive literature review as inclusions along with
relevant questions and responses from our participants. We feel this gives the Detectives a stronger voice.
While it may seem odd to present an extensive analysis of a report on detectives that was penned in the
1970’s, we feel there is great value in comparing contemporary detectives and their work against the historical
record. What we see, and by the end of this report our readers will see, is that while tremendous strides have
been made, an alarming number of issues remain as they were in the mid-1970’s.
The Rand Report & Other Historical Works
In 1973 The Rand Corporation funded a study of the criminal investigation practices of major metropolitan
police agencies. The report authored by Greenwood, Chaiken & Petersilia (1977) titled The Criminal
Investigation Process, was as controversial as it was damning. They reported that investigators had no accurate
indicators of effectiveness and described how arrest and clearance rates were not good measures of the work
of investigators. They offered that approximately 30 percent of all index arrests were made by patrol officers
on scene. In 50 percent of subsequent arrests, the ID of the perpetrator was supplied by an officer, victim or
witness at the scene.
Of the remaining 20 percent of unsolved cases, investigators were generally not responsible for the solution.
These cases were more often solved by arrests during ‘routine’ patrol activities or information volunteered by
citizens. Greenwood (1979, p. 3), in his synopsis of his own work on the Rand report observed, “Only about
three percent of all index arrests appeared to result from special investigative efforts where organization,
training or skill could make any conceivable difference.”
Rand Report on Investigative activities:
The Rand study revealed that property offenses are generally not investigated. A Detective may have
hundreds of ‘open-active’ cases, but only a small number are actually investigated. Rather, the Detectives’ time
is occupied by administrative tasks and often vain efforts to contact victims and witnesses.
Greenwood noted scant efforts were made in the training or management of investigators. The surveyed
departments did not offer any specific investigative training for new investigators, just on-the-job training.
They noted that supervisors of investigative units do not ordinarily review the work of their minions nor are
they aware of the daily activities of their team. They did observe that supervisory efforts are devoted to more
administrative tasks or dealing with the rare major case.
Rand Report on Physical Evidence:
Greenwood (1979) discussed the collection of evidence at crime scenes (and it is an almost perfect parallel
with the current LMPD circumstances in collecting and processing scenes for DNA evidence).
“The percentage of case solutions resulting from latent print identifications was
unrelated to the print recovery rate. The reason for this somewhat surprising
finding appeared to be that most police departments did not have adequate
resources devoted to their latent search capability. They were unable to utilize
those prints that were lifted. In most departments, latent prints were only
utilized to confirm the identity of a suspect which had been established in some
other way. "Cold searches" of latent prints against "known offender" files were
rarely attempted, although some departments had demonstrated that they can
be quite productive. (Greenwood, 1979, p. 2)”
The pursuit of justice did not get any better at the prosecutorial level. Of the few felony cases that result in an
arrest, researchers revealed that less than half result in successful prosecution (Greenwood, et al, 1977;

7
Greenwood, 1979; Forst, 1978). These researchers observed the main reason for this abysmal performance
appears to be a lack of witness cooperation (more later).
The Rand group also noted a relationship between investigative thoroughness and conviction rates. The
researchers created a checklist of 39 ‘evidentiary questions’ that tested the depth of an investigative effort.
They applied this to two of the participating agencies in their investigations of robberies. The agency that
averaged addressing over 45 percent of the checklist items in their respective investigations, as opposed to an
average of 26 percent in the comparison department, enjoyed a much higher conviction rate and often for the
originally charged offense (Greenwood, 1979).
Some things never change… Back in the mid 1970’s departments were expected to take reports and assign an
investigator to every case. They did this as they felt it was required by the citizens. This extended into cases
that languished as ‘open-active’ but not investigated. The Rand study revealed that this ‘demand’ was not in
fact an expectation of the public. The authors said about those victims, while they would like their case
investigated, understood that in the greater reality, it will not. They simply want the police to be aware of the
incident and honest as to their investigative intentions. (The take-away for LMPD, stop taking on-demand
reports, especially for non-criminal matters. If they cannot give that up, stop forwarding them to the
Detectives who then have to complete several administrative steps including an increasingly expensive postal
letter, to close the case.)
As a follow-up to the Rand study, Bloch and Weidman (1975) conducted an analysis of the Rochester, NY
police department's investigation practices and combined with Greenberg's (1977) work, produced the
following list of recommendations:
1. Expand and enhance the patrol officer's role in conducting initial and follow-up investigations.
2. Case screening appeared to be highly subjective, formalize this and establish rubrics or criteria.
3. “None of the departments met with any significant community dissatisfaction as a result of instituting
a policy of early case closure without investigator follow up. All of them adopted some form of
written notification to inform victims of the status of their case.” (Greenwood, 1979)
4. Work with prosecutors to boost case quality and increase case prosecution.

Comments on Rand:
As previously mentioned, Rand was an eye-opener, and our synopsis is that in the departments surveyed
detectives were questionably selected, poorly trained, unskilled, difficult to supervise and unaccountable. The
uniformed patrol officers either made the arrests, provided the information necessary to identify the
perpetrator or witnesses who could. Part of our mission in this present study is to determine if the findings in
Rand still stand and what, if anything, sets LMPD apart from the Rand findings.
Police scholar Chuck Wexler at the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) has taken up the baton in
bringing research methods to the police executives to address the enduring concerns voiced by the Rand
report as they apply to the training of investigative supervisors (Wexler, 2025). This is an outgrowth of his
earlier work defining excellence in first-line supervision (Wexler, 2018).

LMPD Organization and Impacts on Investigative Services

LMPD is organized by a series of nested Bureaus, Divisions, Units and Functional entities. Detectives
(n=203) may work in specialty investigative units with department-wide jurisdiction, e.g., Homicide, Criminal
Interdiction, Non-Fatal Shooting; or as generalists assigned to each of the eight Divisions within the Patrol
Bureau. This study examined the operations and work of the generalist Detectives assigned to work in the
various Divisions of the Patrol Bureau (n=79). To understand the way generalist detectives are employed at
LMPD, we first need to understand how they have been employed in other departments and over the last few
decades. Taking a deeper dive into the literature, the following information gives the reader a fuller
understanding of the work, training and impacts affecting generalist detectives.

8
The Generalist Detective:
The generalist model of detective work emphasizes versatility, allowing detectives to handle a broad range of
criminal investigations rather than specializing in a single type of crime (Eck, 1983). The generalist model is
rooted in the concept of resource optimization, where detectives are trained to handle multiple crime types
rather than focusing on a single category (Bayley, 1994). Proponents argue that generalist detectives develop a
broader investigative skill set, allowing them to adapt to fluctuating crime trends (Ericson, 1981).
However, generalist detectives may face higher workloads due to the variety of cases they handle, potentially
leading to burnout and reduced effectiveness (Kääriäinen et al., 2014). They may also produce inconsistent
case outcomes and without specialized training, generalists may apply inconsistent or inefficient
methodologies across different crime types, affecting investigative quality (Tong & Bowling, 2006).

Issues Confronting Generalist Detectives:

One of the most common issues is the overwhelming volume of cases assigned to detectives. Research
indicates that detectives often manage multiple serious crimes simultaneously (Schafer, 2011; Rossmo, 2021).
This leads to time pressure, which can compromise the quality of investigations. “The sheer volume of
investigative work often forces detectives to prioritize certain cases over others, potentially affecting justice
outcomes” (Wellford & Cronin, 2000, p. 14).

Detective work is cognitively demanding and emotionally taxing. The vicarious trauma from exposure to
tragic scenes and crime narratives (Khairi, 2025), long hours, and the press of completing tedious tasks
interspersed with consequential decision-making may cause burnout (Anderson et al., 2002). These
Psychological Stressors can lead to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), burnout, and substance abuse
(Miller, 2007). The cumulative effect of stress may impair decision-making and interpersonal functioning.
“Exposure to repeated traumatic incidents and the constant demand for emotional control may contribute to
higher rates of psychological morbidity among detectives than in other professions” (Papazoglou &
Andersen, 2014, p. 137).

Detectives often navigate a bureaucratic environment that hampers innovation and adaptability. Poor
communication between units and lack of administrative support can stall investigations and lower morale
(Skogan & Hartnett, 2005). Detectives, particularly in high-stakes cases, may face ethical dilemmas involving
coercion, misconduct, or falsifying evidence. Misconduct not only undermines public trust but also
jeopardizes the integrity of criminal proceedings (Prenzler, 2009). These concerns underscore the need to
emphasize ethical conduct and integrity in all detective candidates.

Unethical methods and misconduct are constant concerns. Activities such as evidence tampering, coercive
interrogation, or racial bias, can undermine public trust and lead to wrongful convictions. High-profile cases
of investigative failure have prompted reforms emphasizing transparency and oversight. Detectives must
balance investigative zeal with constitutional rights. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable
searches and seizures, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments ensure due process during interrogations (Gaines
& Miller, 2019). Ethical challenges include being aware of and avoiding confirmation bias, maintaining
objectivity, and ensuring transparency in investigative reporting (Kassin, et al., 2010).

Potential Solutions and Interventions:

Caseload management and resource allocation can be improved by implementing case prioritization systems
informed by accessible software solutions and increasing staffing can reduce caseloads per detective. Adopting a
more formalized triage model that focuses on solvability factors to allocate resources more effectively was
recommended by Greenwood et al., (1977).

9
Psychological Wellness:
LMPD is demonstrating thought-leadership in the establishment of the Wellness Center and its various
support programs. Offering regular psychological assessments, peer support programs, and resilience training
can mitigate mental health risks. Evidence also suggests that early intervention programs and confidential
counseling improve long-term outcomes (Karaffa & Koch, 2016).

Training, Development & Technology:

Law enforcement agencies should invest in ongoing professional development. This includes specialized
training in forensic interviewing, cybercrime, cultural competency, and trauma-informed practices (Houston,
2010). Partnerships with universities can facilitate access to advanced knowledge.

While controversial, predictive analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) tools offer potential to identify crime
patterns and allocate investigative efforts more efficiently, there are serious confidentiality concerns.
Moreover, care must be taken to avoid biases encoded in algorithmic systems (Ferguson, 2017; Ratcliffe,
2016). (Metro computer gurus are carefully exploring AI use when connected to secure systems and using
sensitive data sources).

Simply recognizing the impact of trauma on both victims and detectives can help reshape investigative practices.
Trauma-informed approaches improve interview outcomes and reduce re-traumatization of survivors,
especially in sexual assault cases (Campbell, 2006; IACP, 2020; SAMHSA, 2014).

Thoughtful and sincere community collaboration and transparency can be a force multiplier. Building
community trust through transparency and community policing initiatives strengthens public cooperation
with investigations. Community input can also aid in culturally informed practices and case resolution (Tyler
& Huo, 2002). Creating independent oversight bodies, ethics committees, and transparency mechanisms can
deter misconduct. Ethics education and scenario-based training should be integral to detective preparation
(Klockars et al., 2006).

Rather than continue with a lengthy academic literature review, for readability we will present academic
findings and observations throughout this report as it pertains to the specific questions asked, comments
from the participants or insights from practitioners, Command Officers and your author. Many of these
insights will be in the form of recommendations and ideas of what might constitute ‘best practices’ and we
wanted to provide the reader with more than just the opinion of the OIG, we wanted to have the experts
speak to the issues themselves – both working Detectives and the scholars.

10
 OBJECTIVES, SCOPE & METHODS
Objectives
This study was developed to define the structure, work and methods of Detectives assigned to the eight
LMPD Patrol Divisions (hereinafter referred to as Divisional Detectives or Detectives). The study:
examines those environmental, bureaucratic and social impacts and constraints that affect the
work of Detectives.
gives voice to the Detectives to freely express their opinions in a confidential format.
extracts and identifies factors affecting and inhibiting superior performance in investigations.
offers recommendations for the consideration of LMPD managers, Sergeants and Detectives.
provides the CR&AB and citizens at large, an intimate look at what impacts, inhibits, or bolsters
and drives criminal investigations at the Division level.
Scope of Study
Duration of Study: July 2024 through August 2025.
Data period under review: 2024 Divisional Detective Cases.
Semi-structured one-on-one interviews conducted from September 2024 – May 2025.
Population: All Division General Detectives and Sergeants (Excludes Impact Unit personnel).
Sample A: Census of all Divisional Detective Sergeants.
Sample B: Stratified random sample of Divisional Detectives.
Sample C: Participant-chosen antithetical participants.

Methods
This study was conducted under an unprecedented opportunity for unrestricted access to the subjects. As the
OIG has authority to conduct systemic investigations of LMPD, we also have the authority to compel LMPD
personnel to truthfully cooperate with the investigation with sworn statements, and under threat of
disciplinary action, they must answer all questions put to them (LMCO, 2020; LMG/FOP, 2023;
OIG/LMPD, 2023). While the compelling of ‘testimony’ might sound like a godsend to researchers who have
met with overwhelmingly low participation and response rates (Kingshott, [Link]. 2015) we elected to utilize a
less adversarial approach.

In discussing the methods used in their study, Lum, et al (2023) revealed one of the difficulties in conducting
research in police departments: “To gain agency cooperation for this study, we assured their confidentiality,
given that clearance rates and investigator effectiveness are often highly sensitive topics amongst police
agencies and leaders (Lum [Link]. 2023, p. 139).
Not knowing the level of candor the participants may bring to the interviews, we stressed from the outset that
these interviews had to be completely confidential. In power hierarchy organizations there is the latent fear
that what one says can affect their job in assignment and promotional opportunities. We also knew that the
reputation of both organizations could be negatively affected by any breach of confidentiality. While the
Detectives and their Sergeants know who was interviewed, nobody, including your author, knows who said
what and that applied to all topics save one Detective who has allowed us to credit him with a novel idea by
giving us specific written permission. While our confidentiality expectation and promise were well grounded
in accepted research practices, we also followed the advice of the Association of Inspectors General in their
position paper that states:
“Inspectors general must be free to conduct investigative
interviews without the presence of attorneys representing
overseen entities in order to ensure independent and effective

11
 oversight and to protect investigative confidentiality.” (AIG,
2025a, p.1)

We wanted to assure the confidentiality of each individual and the interview content, so we went to the
participants’ workplace, used a room of their choosing, did not require a sworn statement, allowed only the
interviewee and no others and did not allow any recording of the individual interviews. We wanted the
interviews to offer the Detectives a confidential forum through which to discuss their work, their successes
and the impediments that affect them and their work. This was purposeful in that we wanted this to be a
showcase of collaboration between the OIG and LMPD Detectives.

Interviews were conducted one-on-one and in three phases. The first phase was to interview the Detective
Sergeants. There were only eight Detective Sergeants, so it made more sense to interview all of them rather
than extract a representative random sample. We therefore conducted a census of all Divisional Detective
Sergeants. As LMPD declined to offer us a pilot test group for the interview questions, we used the Sergeants
to fine tune our interview protocol. We also used the Sergeants to select Detectives from their unit for
interview. We did this by having the Sergeant blindly withdraw two numbers from a bag. Those numbers
corresponded to a Detective on their roster and these selectees constituted the second phase. This was
modified in two cases as the number drawn corresponded to a Detective that was unavailable due to FMLA,
Injury, Military deployment and other activities that removed them from the job. We then simply did another
draw. This produced a stratified random sample of Divisional Detectives (Vogt, 1999).

The third phase utilized a method involving the use of “antithetical candidates” -- deliberately selected
individuals who may hold opposing views to others or are simply different. A common limitation in research
among highly cohesive groups is the tendency toward homogeneity in participant selection, or where
interviewees share similar views that reinforce dominant narratives (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To counteract
this, some researchers deliberately include antithetical participants -- individuals who hold opposing or critical
perspectives on the issues in the study (Patton, 2015).

The technique is not new but has taken on new significance in polarized sociopolitical environments
(Druckman et al., 2013). The concept of seeking contrary perspectives aligns with negative case analysis, a
technique in qualitative research where researchers actively seek disconfirming evidence to challenge emerging
themes (Creswell & Poth, 2018). By including employees who dissent from majority opinions, as researchers
our hope is to enhance credibility by demonstrating that findings are not one-sided, uncover hidden tensions
that may not surface in consensus-driven interviews and improve reflexivity by forcing ourselves to confront
our own biases (Braun & Clarke, 2021).

By introducing a participant who starkly contrasts with others in the study, researchers can isolate dimensions
of preference, such as issue salience, ideological distance, or affective polarization (Iyengar & Westwood,
2015). Dissenting employees may fear retaliation, particularly in hierarchical organizations (Silverman, 2020). We
observed this in our interviews with some of the Antithetical participants and took extra care in assuring them
of confidentiality and our sincere interest in their thoughts and opinions. (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006).
Lastly, we were attempting to create a setting where employees feel safe expressing dissent and/or minority
viewpoints (Edmondson, 1999). We feel the extra effort of including these antithetical voices provides more
robust findings by accounting for dissent (Tracy, 2020), improved decision-making as leaders confront
uncomfortable truths (Edmondson, 2019) and greater employee inclusion by validating minority perspectives
(Shore et al., 2011).

These antithetical participants were selected by the Detectives who had been drawn by lottery by their
Sergeants. At the end of each Detective interview, we read the question, “I’ll be interviewing other Detectives,
who in your unit is most unlike you?” We did not define ‘most unlike you’ leaving that up to each Detective
12
to apply their own definition or criteria for what constitutes that difference. Previous experience by your
author in conducting studies where this technique was used revealed selection criteria based on race, gender,
age/experience, ‘not my best buddy’ and a schadenfreude motivation of knowing being chosen would
gleefully annoy the selectee. It has always netted a more diverse sample and provided the occasional
‘interesting’ interview. This netted interviews with Detectives with unique backgrounds and some with
experience levels measured in decades rather than years. These ‘most unlike you’ selectees were our
antithetical participants and were the last group of interviews.
For all interviews, we utilized a series of semi-structured interviews and followed the naturalistic inquiry
paradigm (Armstrong, 2010) in organizing and analyzing the results. Owen, [Link]. (2008) defined Naturalistic
inquiry thus:
“Naturalistic inquiry focuses research endeavors on how people behave in
natural settings while engaging in life experiences. This type of inquiry stems
from the naturalistic paradigm that situates itself opposite the positivist
paradigm. The naturalistic paradigm, or naturalism, makes specific claims about
epistemology (i.e., how one comes to know), ontology (i.e., the nature of human
existence), and axiology (i.e., one's values) that influence naturalistic inquiry.”
Interpreting this academically dense definition; we went directly to the people engaged in the day-to-day work
of investigations -- the Detectives. We then examined what Detectives do, how they work, what they know,
how they came to that knowledge and the value systems that drive their performance.

Design of Study
We took the following steps in designing and implementing this study:
Determined need for evaluating Divisional Detective operations.
Notified CR&AB of intent to conduct the study.
Conducted an exhaustive literature search for informative practitioner and academic works.
Met with LMPD Command Officers, get their insights and garner their support.
Met with the FOP leadership and their Counsel.
Selected the methods.
Constructed the Interview Protocol through several refinements.
Explained study to LMPD Senior Command at the CompStat Conference 9/5/24.
Notified Detective Sergeants of intent to interview via email.
Conducted one-on-one interviews of all eight Detective Sergeants.
Had Sergeants do a blind drawing of two Detectives from his command for interviews.
Notified Detectives of intent to interview via email.
Conducted one-on-one interviews of all randomly selected Detectives.
Conducted one-on-one interviews of all antithetical selected Detectives.
Aggregate interviews into master tally sheet immediately.
Produce aggregated demographic findings.
Compute Likert scores on ‘agreement’ items.
Reformat tally sheets to narrative
Write final report
Present findings to CR&AB and LMPD Chief

Interviews and Data Collection Instruments

The data collection portion of this study was conducted over a period of 8 months. The time frame was due
to various community commitments and impacts on participant availability. The Principal Investigator, your
author, conducted 36 one-on-one interviews with LMPD Detectives and Detective Sergeants. These semi-
13
structured interviews followed a 4-page protocol of 118 questions seeking their experience, observations and
opinions concerning a multitude of aspects of detective work at LMPD. The average time for an interview
was approximately 2.5 hours with several approaching the 4-hour mark. It was the practice of allowing the
interviewees to respond in depth and widely without interruption or limit. The Principal Investigator
estimates the amount of time devoted to interviews and preparation for same at approximately 300 hours.
The interviews used three forms (see appendix) to gather the information. The first form, “OIG Official
LMPD Employee Witness Statement,” stated the study authorization and the role expected of the
participants. This was in terms equivalent to those used by LMPD PSU for employee witness statements. This
form, however, was heavily revised, and with the assistance of FOP Counsel who made several helpful
suggestions, further revised.
The major change was the swearing of the witness. We held the belief that while the participants were
compelled to meet with us and answer all questions, we did not think it necessary for them to issue their
answers as sworn statements. Since most of the questions were asking for their opinions and ‘guesstimates’ of
their working conditions and metrics, a sworn statement might be inhibiting as they would be expected to
only answer in exact provable terms. We also felt the raising of a hand and swearing to tell the truth in itself
would be a conversation inhibitor.
The form was crafted to emphasize our pledge that the content of our individual conversations would be
strictly confidential and only divulged in aggregate with answers from all participants. The only hard
admonishment was that they were required to not talk about the content of our conversations. This was not
for the purposes of operational security but two-fold; 1. To further ensure the confidentiality of their
responses and 2. To allow subsequent participants to respond to the questions with unrehearsed answers.
This “Official LMPD Employee Witness Statement” form was the only form collected that identified the
participant by name and was then signed by both the participant and your author. To initiate the
confidentiality protocols, the following two forms purposely did not include the participant’s name or
identifying information. These two forms were separated from the Witness Statement sheets as soon as the PI
returned to the office.
The second form was a Demographics Sheet and was separate from the third form, the Interview Protocol, as
it could identify the participant though a series of revealing individual demographic characteristics. While it
would have been potentially instructive to analyze the answers to our questions in conjunction with their
demographics both individually and in groups, we felt the overarching need for confidentiality was
paramount.
The third form was the Interview Protocol. This was a four-page printed form containing 118 individual
questions. This form provided the basic questions from which our individual conversations expanded. Hand-
written notations were made as the interviews progressed. As will be discussed later, the conversations were
far-reaching and in many cases the protocol was merely a springboard for random insightful comments. No
personally identifying notations were made on the forms, nor were there any notations as to in what Division
the participant worked.
Data Reduction
Immediately upon return to the office the forms were separated. The demographic data was entered into a
spreadsheet without the names of the participants. The notes from the interview questions were entered into
a single interview protocol document. This evolved into a tally sheet as the individual responses were
aggregated. Single comments were documented, and many direct quotations were noted verbatim. The form
grew from four pages to over 45 pages of aggregated responses.

14
This tally sheet was then used to total the responses in preparation for data grooming. The data grooming
used simple logic to combine similar answers into fewer response categories. As an example, “I like working
cases,” is similar to “I love working cases.” While the latter might convey a deeper appreciation for the task,
for our purposes here, they were both degrees of liking the work so would be tallied together.
The next step was to go into each item/question and convert the tallies, statements, and quotes into coherent
narrative paragraphs and lists. These were bolstered by a discussion of the findings and in many cases in
comparison and contrast with relevant literature, research, academia and police practice. Our hope is that this
rather unorthodox format would aid in the readability, instructional value and enjoyment of the report.
The final report was produced by combining all parts into a coherent whole organized in a standard reporting
format as recommended and forwarded by the Association of Inspectors General and informed by the
document, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government otherwise known as the “Green Book” by the
Comptroller General of the United States.

15
 FINDINGS
The interviews produced two separate information collections. As previously noted, this was purposeful to
ensure maximum confidentiality in the responses from our participants. The demographics obtained were so
detailed that it would be relatively easy to link a specific individual with answers to the more probing
questions. To prevent that potential intrusion, the documents included no identifying marks and the two
forms were immediately separated and comingled with previous forms from other participants. In this way
even the PI has no way of knowing the responses from any specific individual. There was one notable
exception to this where we obtained written permission from the Detective to include his identity relative to a
single, specific program recommendation.

Demographics
The following results were aggregated from information supplied by the participants. Some of the categories
were combined to improve readability. They are presented here in an order different from the Demographics
Sheets as it improves readability and emphasizes the important factors that defined our participants.
On average, our participants were mid-career Police Officers with Sergeants having just a bit more time on
the job. However, there was a great deal of variation in length of service among the Detectives with several
‘newbies’ and an equal number of ‘old salts.’

Years at LMPD Detectives Sergeants

Average 11.88 13.37
Longest 36 18
Least 4 8
SD 7.22 3.50

In the above table we see Sergeants with a longer average length of service than the Detectives they supervise and as a
tighter group with journeyman-level experience. The following graphics help illustrate this difference.

Detectives Years on LMPD Sergeants Years on LMPD

40 36 18 18
20
35
30 26 14 14
13
Years at LMPD

15
Years at LMPD

23 12
25 10
18
20 15 10 8
15 11 11 12.5
9 9 9
10 6 7 6 6 7 8 8 8
5
4
5
0 0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Random Order Detectives Random Order Sergeants

16
It might also be informative to look at the number of years of service in a non-detective role (6.69 years
average, SD 3.36). For the Detectives we interviewed this is predominantly serving in patrol. However, a
number of the participants served in other units beyond patrol such as, Impact Units, 9th Mobile, Homicide,
Sex Crimes and various task forces. In addition, a number of them participated in part-time gigs such as
Dignitary Protection, Hazardous Materials, SWAT & Hostage Negotiations.
These roles are often foundational in that they provide the would-be Detective with knowledge, skills and
abilities to apply in conducting thorough and competent investigations. We did not include Sergeants in this
calculation as the breadth of assignments Sergeants filled during their careers would be confounding and not
informative beyond the fact that all are widely and variably experienced.

Detectives, Years in Non-Detective Roles

40

30

20

10

0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27

Non-Detective Roles Detective

Detectives and their supervisors are not the youngest people on the department. Detectives and Sergeants are
only marginally separated by a few years in age and both groups averaged in their upper 30’s. Both groups can
also be reasonably considered to be in a mid-career status.

Age Demographics
DET. SGT.
Median Age 37.00 38
Mean Ave Age 38.2 40
Standard Dev Age 8.05 8.73
Oldest 58 56
Youngest 26 29

17
 Detective Age Detective Sergeant Age
60 56
60 50
50 50
38 38 37 38
40 40 34
29
Age

Age
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Random Order Sergeants
Random Order Detectives

When reviewing the career demographics, the below table adds a cell that combines the previous years the
Sergeants served as a Detective with years serving as a Detective Sergeant. This requires some explanation.
When an individual is promoted to Sergeant they are put back in uniform and assigned to patrol to get street
experience as a Sergeant. This applies equally to both Patrol Officers and Detectives seeking promotion. The
Sergeant ‘earns his/her stripes’ by serving a year or more as a ‘street Sergeant’ and only then are they eligible
to fill any vacant Detective Sergeant position. This return is by no means guaranteed as lateral assignments
almost invariably remain open only to those personnel working in the Division where the vacancy has
occurred and as presently constituted, there is only one Detective Sergeant position in each Division.

Career Demographics
DET. SGT.
Ave years on LMPD 11.88 13.4
Ave Years as Detective 5.18 3.6
Ave years as Det. Sgt. 2
Sgt. Exp, Sgt.+ Det. 5.56

Detectives, Years as Detective

24
25
Detectives, Years LMPD
Years as Detectivee

20
14 36
15 40
Years at LMPD

9 26
8 7 30 23 18
10 15
5 4.5
4 3 2.5 2 3 2 4 4 20 9 6 9 11 7 6 6 7 8 9 8 8 11 12.5
5 2 4
0.51 1 1 10
0 0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
Random Order Detectives Random Order Detectives

Two demographic averages above were influenced by outliers. Outliers are individuals that demographically
differ greatly from their peers due to age, or length of service. In the following tables the outliers are
removed, and this shifted the longevity averages for detectives and the attendant standard deviation to show a
more compact demographic.

18
 Adjusted Career
Demographics
DET. SGT.
Ave years on LMPD 10.40 13.4
Ave Years as Detective 3.56 3.6

For Detectives, not Sergeants, while the number of years on the department do not appreciably change, the
number of years as a Detective do shrink by approximately 2 years and yields an average service as Detective
at three and a half years. What we observed in our data was that Detective attrition is very often linked to
promotion to Sergeant. We see this in the data where Detective Sergeants who had previously served as a
Detective, tended to promote out of the job to get their stripes after little more than two years in the role. In
fact, one of our interviews was thwarted by the randomly selected candidate being promoted to Sergeant.
(While we could have pressed for the interview, we felt the newly promoted Sergeant had enough to do
without having to sit for an interview in this study.) We replaced this person with another random draw.
Detective Sergeants demographically only marginally show more service than the detectives they supervise.
Their mean average length of previous service as a detective is 3.6 years and equivalent of the average service
of detectives in this interview cohort. When we combine the service of Detective Sergeants with their
previous work as a Detective the average combined service increases by a mere two years at 5.56 years. Note
this average is also influenced by a single Sergeant with over twice the experience of many of his peers.
Where a real difference in experience is observed is in the length of overall LMPD service.

Det. Sgt. Total Experience in Investigations

14 1
12
10
Years total

8
3 13
6 3
4 2
2 5
2 1 3 4
2 2 2 1.5
0 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Sergeants in Random Order

Yrs/DET Yrs/Det SGT

Race and Gender of the participants was not representative of LMPD demographics as a whole. However,
these data were compared with the demographics of the remaining Divisional Detectives and appear to be a
fair and representative sample of all Detectives working at the eight Divisions. Given the homogeneity of
their responses even considering the antithetical participants, we believe the group to be a valid representation
and would not be altered by the inclusion of more racially diverse participants.

19
 Race & Gender of
Female Male
Participants
Black 1
White 4 31

Much of the following was offered by the participants in their responses to our initial open-ended question,
“Tell me about yourself.” The responses have been moved to this section for clarity and readability. As a
research note, the questions about marital status and children were forcefully resisted by LMPD Command as
irrelevant and intrusive. We understood their viewpoint, especially in the current climate where doxing is a
real threat. However, previous studies by the PI of the Louisville Division of Police found that asking these
questions was in some cases revelatory and uncovered information that was pertinent and actionable
(Whetstone, 2001). We made the questions optional and, in the study, only one participant declined to
answer them while fine examples of child-art “to Daddy” were proudly displayed on a bulletin board behind
him. A more in-depth discussion of childcare issues will follow.

Marital Status Children

Single/Engaged 7 Yes, Have kids 10
Married 25 No kids 7
Divorced/Separated 3 Single Parent Child-
Care Responsibilities 4

Most of the participants had some type of organized athletics experience. Their formal education ranged from
high school diplomates to master’s degree holders. Among the college degree holders, Criminal Justice was
the most frequent major (n=20) but others had degrees in Accounting, Business Management, Geography
and Engineering (various specialties).
For many years LMPD required applicants for initial employment as police officers to have a minimum of
two years of college. In our study, the older participants generally reflected a higher level of educational
attainment with many (n=12) having a four-year degree. LMPD has recently dropped the educational
requirement due to the perceived impact that had on limiting the pool of eligible candidates. We would argue
that our findings here support the value of higher education simply by the demographics of our participants
having an average educational level of 3.1 years of college. This potentially influenced their performance in
patrol and set them up as a more desirable Detective candidate.

Education
High School/GED 5
2 Years+/Associates 12
Bachelor 17
Master 2

20
Prior to joining LMPD these participants held jobs in the hospitality industry, military, coaching, diesel
mechanics, Corrections, EMT, Psych Tech. and as general laborers. Eight participants were military veterans
with one remaining in a military reserve role. Combined they have served our country with 87 years of service.
Two of the participants were military ‘lifers’ and had completed 20 years of military service before joining
LMPD. Military Occupation Specialties (MOS) were Armor, Airborne, Engineering, Intelligence and Infantry
trades.

Military Service
No Military Service 28
Army 4
Navy 2
Marines 1
Coast Guard 1

After reviewing the preceding information, we feel the participants of this study were a fair representation of
divisional Detectives. They had a wide range of lived experiences prior to arriving at LMPD and held a variety
of positions within LMPD before assuming their current responsibilities. As will be revealed in the following
interview questions, they were and remain an impressive group of individuals dedicated to public service. The
following section will detail the questions and the responses, thoughts and observations of this remarkable
group.

The Interviews
The main body of this report will utilize a question-and-answer format derived from the interview protocol
used to collect the thoughts from each Detective. After a brief self-introduction, we began all interviews with
three open ended questions. The Detective Sergeants and Detectives were encouraged to respond at length
and in as much detail as they wished. Many of the comments were later addressed in-depth during the
scripted question and answer portion of the interview.

Tell me about yourself.

Much of the information provided in answer to this question was presented in “Demographics” for a
more coherent presentation. The interviewees had a diverse background and came to policing through
many different paths. Many were Louisville natives, “townies,” while others were from the adjacent
counties. Following the conversational tradition in Louisville, the townies attended a number of
different high schools. A few came here to serve in the big city and others were drawn to the breadth
of career opportunity that LMPD can provide. Several had relatives (parents, grandparents, uncles) in
law enforcement and a number confessed being a police officer had been a life-long ambition.
They were single (n=7), married (n=25) and divorced (n=3). The majority of participants were parents
(n=25) while only 10 were childless. Of the parents four had single-parent childcare responsibilities, a
factor affecting promotional candidates and lateral mobility in a previous study of LMPD personnel
(Whetstone, 2001). We found similarities with the present study where the employee makes career
decisions that are effectively limited by their childcare responsibilities and all the support structures
they have in place. This circumstance can affect LMPD personnel in all roles in the department.
This is a finding that many contemporary employers and police departments have recognized with
childcare options including financial assistance for employees (Kelly, 2024; LMG, 2025; Booth, 2024;
Verrecchia, 2024). It has also been introduced into the US House of Representatives as: H.R.2722 –
118th Congress (2023-2024): “Providing Child Care for Police Officers Act of 2023” on 4/19/23 and
has been languishing in committee ever since (H.R.2722 – 118th Congress (2023-2024) ).
21
Tell me about your job.
“If you find a job you love, you’ll never work again.” (Attributed to) Winston Churchill.
“Best job in the world,” was the enthusiastic response from one of the Detectives.
The Detectives we spoke with represented reasonable variations on highly motivated and dedicated
professionals. Most expressed a love for the job and the opportunity to help victims. Several
compared the job to working a jigsaw puzzle and found satisfaction in accomplishment. A few
mentioned liking the opportunity to investigate a variety of crimes and the ability to interact with a
wide variety of people.
Teamwork, camaraderie and enjoying the work with other Detectives was also frequently mentioned
as a motivator. While a few had some initial difficulty adjusting (from a 12-hour watch) to a 9 to 5,
five-day workweek job, they all said their expected work hours were a positive. A few participants
observed that family obligations required they work the schedule and would have great difficulty if
they were required to return to a 12-hour patrol schedule.
Comments from the Detectives varied greatly so they are hardly a monolithic group. Some opined the
job was stressful, while others said it was not stressful, especially in comparison to patrol work. This
variation was more an indication of individual personality and coping mechanisms rather than the
caseloads or structures of their units. Everybody said it was a job with an impossibly high workload,
but they knew that coming into the job. This speaks well for the Detectives that they would step up
to a job with high workloads and few rewards.

What do I need to know about detective work at LMPD?

“Perception of Detectives is not reality,” was an opinion shared by all participants.
‘You will be busy,’ was a mantra voiced by virtually all participants. The expectation was a high case
load and this reality powered many of the responses throughout the interviews. Direct quotes tell the
tale:
“Expect a high case load.”
“More cases than we can get to.”
“Case volume is impossible.”
“Case load is ridiculous.”
“They keep asking us to do more with less.”
“Everything not taken by major cases we get all the shit not wanted by major units.”
“Division Det. Are the lowest priority, what you are investigating is NOT a priority.”

Every participant used the term “triage” during our interviews. The case volume is so high that the
triage process begins with the Detective Sergeant who then forwards cases to the Detectives (more on
this later). These Detectives then begin their own process of triage where they decide what cases to
investigate and in what order of priority – this being in almost every case, an individual decision. This
was a practice and a concern back in the mid-1970’s where Greenburg (1977) observed that case
screening was highly subjective with few, if any guidelines or directives.
For the current Detectives, felonies were a priority and crimes of violence took top ranks.
Misdemeanor offences were low priority and often were not investigated. While the Detectives would
like to investigate all crimes that hit their desks, the comments were generally as one Detective put it,
“What violent felony do you want me to neglect while I investigate a theft of property?”
The sheer volume of cases dictates an often-frustrating practice of investigating only the most serious
offenses while other crimes are systematically neglected. We do not mean that as a criticism of the
Detectives, it is, rather, a sad reality of the work. As one Detective lamented, “You get a lot of cases. I
feel like all I am doing is Triage. Minor cases get neglected.”

22
 With Divisional Detectives, even a single major crime, one with multiple facets, can easily overwhelm
the Detective. An example provided by one Detective, “Financial crimes are a burden and time
consuming. What do I neglect while doing those?”
“A lot of nonsense comes in, BS cases.”
Triage is necessitated by the large volume of cases, and this is exacerbated by the LMPD policy of
writing a report on non-criminal matters if the citizen requests a report. Moreover, this volume is
further increased by the occasional officer-generated “CYA” (yes, common meaning) report. All these
reports make their way through to the Detective who is then obligated to ascertain if any criminal
offense has been committed, make notes, and write and send a contact letter to the reporting party
within 10 business days. In many cases this is a letter telling the victim that their case has been
reviewed and unless the victim has any additional information, the case will be closed – something
most victims already know. See Greenburg (1977) for a discussion of victim notifications by police in
misdemeanor crimes. All this takes time and not facilitated (anymore) by the case management
system. We will discuss this later.
One of the Detectives said he was motivated by “true victims.” To clarify he offered that many
victims fail to respond to letters, emails and phone calls. Aside from making the original report, they
do not seem interested in cooperating with the Detectives in the investigation of their case. While
there may be myriad of reasons for this lack of cooperation, the breadth of that analysis is well
beyond the scope of this study. It is, however, a source of frustration for the Detectives who invest a
good deal of work on a case only to confront indifference on the part of the victim. While there are
plenty of motivated crime victims, there were enough absentee victims that every Detective
interviewed mentioned victims who have dropped out of the process.
Individual Detectives offered that all is not lost on crimes with uninvolved citizens. In some cases
where there is an identified suspect who is either sought or arrested on scene, the Commonwealth can
proceed with prosecution with the state as the victim. This has been successfully done in the past in
domestic violence cases with uncooperative victims and certainly in all murder cases. Another take-
away from a crime with an uncooperative victim is using any data or leads as intelligence for other
crimes committed in the area, and to identify trends and/or potential suspects in other offenses.
Training was another point of contention, and we will discuss this at length later in this work.
As aforesaid, the Detectives appreciated working in a team environment. While they all had their
individual cases, help was just a desk away. Many expressed satisfaction, even enjoyment in the work
as well as the camaraderie with the other Detectives. “Need to be a team player.” “It is a family.”
“Overall, a good group. Fun.”
The workload and time management were mentioned by everyone, “You need to know how to
manage time.”
It is a major shift to transition from answering radio calls to self-directed activity, “(it) Can be
overwhelming at first.”
And each Detective described their own method for managing their own cases, “You have to be
systematic in doing cases, but you have the freedom to work as you like.”

After the opening three general questions we organized our interviews in eleven major categories. These are
broad and may arguably contain items that could or should be under other headings. But these were semi-
structured interviews, and, in every interview, information was provided by the participants that both
answered the question at hand and also suppled insight for questions not yet asked. The exchanges were
more conversational than interrogative. The following report will also engage in this non-linear discussion as
was offered by the participants.

23
Not every participant was asked every question and indeed, some questions needed to be asked of only one to
obtain an all-inclusive response, e.g. “Is there a written test for Detective selection?” – ‘No’. These ‘orphan’
questions will be answered in the following narrative with minimal comment.
The main categories were:
Recruiting:
Testing & Selecting:
Training:
Structure of Units:
Working:
Metrics
Motivation:
Retention:
Communications/Direction:
Supervising:
Evaluating:
Wrap-Up:
We will start at the beginning with how Detectives are recruited.

Recruiting:
Generalist Model Detectives as are ensconced at the LMPD Divisions, handle a broad range of cases (Eck,
1983). Investigative units require personnel with a combination of experience, analytical skills, flexibility and
emotional resilience. Research suggests that effective detectives possess strong problem-solving abilities,
attention to detail, and interpersonal skills (LAPD, 2025; Smith & Flanagan, 2000). Detective recruiting
should prioritize:
 Experience in patrol work measured in years on the job (Bayley & Bittner, 1984; Cordner &
Scarborough, 2010).
 Specialized and advanced training in legal, forensic, interviewing and basic investigative techniques
(O’Hara & O’Hara, 2003).
 Psychological screening, given the high-stress nature of investigative work, psychological
evaluations can help identify candidates with the resilience needed for long-term success
(Cochrane et al., 2003).

Additionally, all recruiting schemes need to understand the need to employ a workforce that at least roughly
represents the citizens they serve. A diverse investigative unit enhances community relations and improves
case outcomes by incorporating varied perspectives (Shore, et al., 2011). Studies indicate that gender and
racial diversity in investigative teams lead to better victim engagement and more thorough investigations
(Rabe-Hemp, 2008). While agencies should implement targeted recruitment strategies to attract
underrepresented personnel, the selection process needs to be a meritocracy founded on knowledge, skills
and abilities necessary to be a detective.

For the future of the organization and in addition to the above, it is essential to select candidates with
demonstrated leadership or leadership potential. These candidates need to be able to participate in
mentorship programs, initially as proteges and then as mentors (Birzer, 2003) and the ability to extract and
understand performance metrics for individual Detectives and the unit as a whole (Braga et al., 2011).

Who is looking for the next detective?

The overwhelming response was that everybody in the unit (n=32) is looking for the next Detective.
This was modified by the further response that the selection process is formal, and the individual
Detectives are not polled or involved in the selection process. However, every Detective said they
review Patrol Officer incident reports every day and have a good idea who is at least a good report-
writer, by extension, a good performer and perhaps a good prospect.
24
How do you identify good prospects, what characteristics?
This question elicited a robust list of characteristics the respondents felt were essential in a good
Detective candidate. Each Detective provided multiple observable and attitudinal characteristics. The
most mentioned trait was variations of being a self-starter, self-initiative and possessing a good work
ethic (n=32). This is understandable as Detectives keep their own schedules (within parameters) and
manage their own never-ending stream of new cases.

The second trait mentioned were variations on being a ‘good report-writer’ (n=22). ‘Good reports’
both in thoroughness, in the number of investigative steps taken, or going beyond the basics, and
those who engage in evidence collecting in-depth, were specifically mentioned by a few Detectives
(n=9) and implied by virtually all interviewees. Reports are the defining element of Detective work
and good patrol reports are seen as a good indicator of fitness as a new Detective. While one
Detective opined that LMPD can make a person a better report writer, they felt this ought to be done
(and done better) in the recruit academy.

At LMPD one does not need to be a Detective to work a case beyond the initial response and report.
Every detective mentioned encouraging, assisting and mentoring Patrol Officers who wish to pursue
cases beyond their initial incident report. This initiative is valued and noted (n=10) and one Detective
noted if a Patrol Officer has actually written up warrant applications, that would be “golden.” In
virtually all Divisions, there is an open invitation for Patrol Officers to serve a TDY (temporary duty)
assignment in investigations (n=12). Any Officer who pursues cases on their own or serves a TDY
assignment are viewed very favorably.

Freelancing cases and TDY assignments are not, however, options for all Patrol Officers as the press
of waiting calls and the exigencies of the street prevent them from doing follow-up. Similarly, those
working the late watch cannot be expected to be making calls or knocking on doors after 2 a.m. when
things on the street might slow down enough for extracurricular activities. We were told that many
who do follow-up do so outside of their shift assignments and often on their own time. Agreed, good
candidate.

The Detectives and their supervisors were also valuing team players, people with positive personalities
and good interpersonal skills (n=12). As a part of the teamwork, the Detectives mentioned that they
looked for Officers who are “present” those who come to work and engage, those who do not abuse
sick leave and who take pride in their work. More subjective traits were, ‘critical thinkers,’ ‘intelligent,’
‘trainability,’ ‘ethical,’ ‘honest’ and ‘forthcoming.’

Is there a formal system of submitting names of prospects?

There is no formal system to nominate candidates for Detective openings. and self-nomination
memos are the standard for all divisions. We see this as an impediment to good leadership both
among patrol supervisors and peers who identify a superior candidate and formally encourage them to
seek the opportunity.

Are there any incentives for recruiting the next detective?

There are no incentives for any recruiting of detectives, aside from the benefit of identifying a good
worker who will operate well in the team.

Have you done any mentoring of prospects?

Prospect mentoring was specifically done by Detectives (n=19) and Sergeants (n=4). Others related
that they were more informal and often simply responsive to Patrol Officers who had questions or

25
 expressed an interest in working cases or eventually becoming a Detective. Of the many who
responded positively they used the terms ‘coaching’ and ‘mentoring’ to describe their activities.
As previously mentioned, they all read reports and make mental note of the reporting officers’ literary
talent.
Five responded that they do not engage in any grooming with one feeling that patrol is just too busy
to engage in follow-up investigations or even in mentoring activities. One Sergeant mentioned an
overtime patrol/investigations program that provides cases and training for interested patrol officers.
A program that may be worth embrace by all the divisions.

Have you used any Patrol Officers in your investigations (SOP 1.11.3 allows this)?
SOP 1.11.3 Patrol Division Structure and Assignments states under the heading of Uniformed Patrol
Officer, “…Assisting division detectives, when requested.” Detectives (n=25) and Detective
Sergeants (n=5) all reported using patrol officers in their cases. They did say it was very case-specific
and certainly not in all cases. Some Detectives use them ‘all the time,’ and others found the Patrol
Officers were often good sources of leads. One Sergeant opined that this is being done less often
now due to manpower being limited in the patrol force.

Testing & Selecting:

What is the testing and selection process for Detectives?
The selection of Detectives is governed by the terms negotiated in the current CBA between the River
City FOP and Louisville Metro Government. It details specific actions, methods and timelines for the
selection process. Notably absent is an objective and properly validated written test. The following
bullet points were provided by the interviewed Detectives and their Sergeants.
• Announce an opening for Detective via email for a minimum of 15 working days.
• Accept memorandums of interest from qualified candidates.
• Generate interview questions, select interview panelists.
• Conduct interviews, use same panelists and same questions for each candidate, use scoring matrix.
• Submit top 3 candidates to Major and Chief for selection.

The following are excerpts from the current CBA between the River City FOP and Louisville Metro
Government:
ARTICLE 10 – ASSIGNMENTS
Section 1. Patrol Platoon Assignment sub-section C:
1. Metro Government shall post vacancies in the Division or Traffic Unit
affected for a period of not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the assignment
being filled.
2. If more than one shift has a vacancy or will have a vacancy through
reassignment of eligible officers to the first applicable posted position(s), all
vacancies will be posted at one time.
3. A Member may not bid on a vacancy for sixty (60) days following his
physical transfer into a Division or the Traffic Unit.
4. A Division or Traffic Unit platoon assignment vacancy occurs upon the
effective date of a Member’s transfer, retirement, promotion, resignation,
demotion or termination.
5. Nothing herein shall prevent the Department from temporarily reassigning
the least senior Member in a Division because of personnel shortages for a
period not to exceed ninety (90) days pending the filling of an opening.

Section 2. Other Assignments

26
 D. “Assignments under this Section will be made on the basis of interviews. The
interviews shall be conducted, and a ranked list established within thirty (30)
days of the closing of a posting. The same interviewers will interview each
candidate except in instances of sickness, disability, or excused absence of an
interviewer. The same questions will be asked of each candidate. Follow-up
questions may be asked by interviewers, if necessary. Interviewers will conduct
the interviews and then rank the candidates in order of preference. Interviewers
shall consider the candidate’s performance, seniority, service and collateral
assignments, specialized qualifications, personal needs of the Member,
supervisory recommendations, the applicant’s attendance record, disciplinary
record, the most recent performance appraisal, and how well the applicant
responded in the interview. Ranked list of candidates will be valid for ninety (90)
days from the date the ranked list is established. This ranked list in its entirety
shall be sent to each candidate and the Lodge within seven (7) days of being
established and before the vacancy/assignment is filled. The Unit Commander
shall select the person to fill the vacancy by choosing one of the top three
candidates on the ranked list, subject to the review of the Chief. The Chief may
remove a candidate from the list for just cause.” (LMG/FOP, 2023)

What are the minimum qualifications?

A sworn officer with a minimum of 3 years in uniformed patrol and a minimum of 60 days within the
Division. These minimums can be waived if no qualified candidates apply. Should that occur the
Division Major has a few options. (S)he may lower the time in service requirement or open the
competition to all sworn LMPD officers regardless of Division or assignment. (LMG/FOP, 2023)

What, if anything, should be changed, modified, added or eliminated?

This question was the first to really open up the participants and there were wide-ranging responses
that went in some cases well beyond the selection process. A few participants felt that nothing should
change, most had constructive suggestions.

The most significant suggestion was an official mechanism for allowing officers who were Detectives
returning after retirement to immediately resume Detective duties. Currently the CBA requires these
highly experienced returnees to serve 3 years in uniformed patrol before being eligible for assignment
as a Detective. While we understand the viewpoint of the FOP and up and coming Patrol Officers,
this requirement wastes talent and may well be an impediment large enough to discourage highly
experienced Detectives from returning to LMPD to continue to serve the community. This
requirement should be waived if the returnee has previous experience as a Detective.

The 3-year patrol experience requirement was mentioned and represented a dilemma in a department
with such a large number of (relatively) new employees. Since 2020 LMPD has evolved into a very
“young” department. By that we mean that officers with less time on the job are moving into
positions where in previous iterations were filled by officers with more seniority and time in grade.
As one Detective put it, “Three years is VERY young.”

Some Detectives thought the minimum patrol experience should be 7 years while others felt 5 years in
uniform would suffice. The majority did agree that 3 years in uniform was simply not enough time to
gain the experience and “street smarts” to be a good Detective. One argument for embracing a 5-year
minimum would provide the officer with options -- apply for an opening in the detective unit,
compete in the sergeant promotional process, or both. This could be a de-facto self-selected career
path, and we will be addressing that later in this work.

27
 In examining the current demographics and the historical demographics embodied in the Detective
Sergeants, the average tenure of a Detective is 2-4 years. This coincides with the timeline for
promotional eligibility. It seems that Detectives are lost to promotion, and this is another challenge in
fielding investigative talent. Just at the point where they achieve a journeyman level of knowledge,
skills and abilities, they are siphoned-off to other assignments and a new Detective is brought in to fill
the void while they learn on-the-job.

Some of the participants went negative and observed that not every officer should be eligible for
detective work. Those with poor attendance records, those who abuse time off benefits, those who
have disciplinary records and certainly those in the Brady List should be excluded. These elements are
understandable given the emphasis the participants put on teamwork and camaraderie.

Others found a more positive route and suggested that the use of TDY assignments (a minimum of 1
month) should be formalized into a prerequisite as well as graduation from the Basic Investigations
Course before they can apply for any openings. Several participants suggested assigning recruits with
Detectives for 2-weeks during their probationary year as an essential part of their field training.
Apparently, this was previously done but was discontinued due to the minimalist approach to field
training now in place. Other Detectives disagreed and for many practical reasons, some of which will
be discussed later in this work.

The scoring matrix was viewed as an improvement but needs further thought and refinement. The
process needs to be a bit more transparent and candidates need to be told upon what they will be
evaluated and what weight each criteria is given. A study guide might be helpful as would advice on
what if any documents, reports or exemplars they can submit for panel consideration.

Several participants thought there should be a written test and felt the reliance on the interview board
was too subjective. Another comment regarded who does the final selection. Many felt the decision
should be made at the Division level. One responded, “The Chief is so far removed from process, the
decision should be made at the Division.”

Written Test –
There is no written test for Detectives.

Oral Interview Board –

Who was on your interview board (ranks/positions only)?

This question elicited an expected baseline of board membership with minor variations on the theme.
Detective Sergeants (n=12), Lieutenants (n=12) and Majors (n=13) comprised the panelists. In one
case it was all Lieutenants and in one case a Detective was on the panel. The Detective Sergeant was
typically on the panel but in some cases and for varying legitimate reasons, was not impaneled (on
leave, conflicting assignment, etc.). In some cases, Command personnel from other Divisions were
recruited as panelists. In one case the Detective was the sole applicant for the position and no
interview was conducted, the candidate was simply vetted through a review of service record and
proffered documents.

What did you do to prepare for your interview?

Competition for a Detective position can be daunting just as it is for promotions. Candidates are well
advised to prepare in depth for the interview board. The participants in this work said they studied
extensively the SOP’s and laws (n=19) with many relying on rote memorization and one made flash
cards. Several sought out mentors, others talked with working Detectives and some quizzed
Command Officers.
28
 Although not produced, only alluded to, there are ‘study guides’ (one even has a title) circulating
within the department. While this is admirable that officers will put in such an effort, the existence of
such tomes may produce an uneven playing field if they are not available to all candidates, or worse,
selectively provided to ‘preferred’ candidates. This would be especially problematic if these ‘guides’
contained specific questions or scenarios that will be asked by the panelists. This is another reason
why a more holistic view of each candidate must be made.

Some Detectives (n=2) said they started by getting a TDY assignment, while others asked a supervisor
to review their own cases and give critique. Both activities gave the candidate a good assessment of
fitness for Detective work and what they need to do to properly investigate a case.

What were the elements of the selection process?

The Detectives were asked what specifically they knew about the selection process and what was
considered in their application. All said the oral interview board and application letter were the main
determinants of their fitness. Others felt their seniority, use of sick time, disciplinary record and any
elective courses they might have taken were considered. This did not deviate at all from the
requirements we gleaned from the CBA. What it did reveal was the varying levels of understanding of
the process and the elements the command will consider in making their selection. One Detective
complained that the option of bringing in exemplars of work or supporting documentation was not
clearly articulated in communications with applicants.

What questions were you asked?

We were told that interview questions were made up anew each time there was a Detective vacancy,
and this was the case across all divisions. There is no central ‘test bank’ of questions and city-provided
testing services is not involved in the development of these questions. All of the Detectives said that
the majority of questions were on specific SOP’s governing Detective operations and the conduct of
investigations. They also said that a standard was to field hypothetical situations and their response
then being evaluated by the panelists. Most could not recall specific questions, but they did say that
some included how to handle juveniles and others were about activities and responsibilities during
callouts. The estimate was between 15 to 20 questions but that would seem to be excessive, and their
recollection may have been clouded by the stressful experience and the time passage since their
interview.

One of the Sergeants provided us a list of the ten questions they asked each of the candidates in a
recent (2025) interview process for a vacancy in his shop. These questions were insightful and clearly
designed with the thought in mind to draw out of the candidate an accounting of their work and
preparation to become a Detective. It would be a disservice to provide the questions here verbatim as
they may be useful for the construction of new questions for the next vacancy.

The questions covered the candidates’ experience and asked for examples of how they have prepared
to take on the role of Detective. Their aspirations and expectations for the job were also explored.
There were a few procedural questions and one we will generally describe as exploring methods to
avoid confirmation bias. Good interview items and we hope they are routinely shared among the
other Sergeants when it is their turn to select a new Detective.

What was obvious was that the interview questions are a mixed bag with the most memorable being
about policy (SOP’s) not about the ‘nuts and bolts’ of doing investigations. We feel questions
designed to assess a candidate’s knowledge, skills and abilities might be more informative. Rather
than give a regurgitation of the SOP’s it may be beneficial to ask the type of questions, like provided
above, that reveal the depth of preparation each candidate obtained though consistent work, formal

29
 coursework and demonstrated skills. It may be beneficial for the Sergeants to host an “interview
panel/question” workshop with the testing professionals employed by LMG.

How long was the interview?

This question was designed to ascertain if the interview was of sufficient length to assess an otherwise
minimally known candidate or if the process was merely pro-forma. Interviews lasted from a
minimum of 15 minutes to one that clocked-in at an amazing 1 hour. All but one were done in person
with the outlier being done by zoom due to the candidate being unavoidably out of town when
interviews were conducted. Most candidates said their interview was about 30 minutes long, but
everyone was specific that their answer was nothing more than an estimate and may be wrong.

Was the process fair and equitable?

The Detectives thought the process was fair and equitable (n=23) and none responded with a hard
‘no.’ A minority did say that while fair, the process did need improvement to make it unquestionably
fair and equitable. This is a matter where greater transparency and information can address candidate
concerns or questions.

Was your prior performance evaluated?

Prior performance was identified by many Detectives as being evaluated in the selection process
(n=15). One said it was not and two said they did not know. The response pattern indicated an
imperfect understanding on the process and criteria used to evaluate their candidacy.

What factors should be considered when selecting Detectives?

We have previously discussed traits needed by a Detective; however, this was the first time we
specifically asked what factors should be considered in selecting a new Detective. The responses were
varied and were fairly inclusive. No single participant mentioned all and some only offered a few
responses while others provided an extensive list. Each respondent provided multiple observations on
what traits a new Detective must possess.

The most frequent responses were variations on being a good worker, having a good work ethic,
taking the initiative, thoroughness, being proactive, working cases while in patrol as well as their
general patrol performance (n=25). This indicated a desire to identify candidates who were willing to
work, engage in cases and had the potential to be a good team player.

The second most important was being a good report writer. This was mentioned first (n=10) but in
others it was so fundamental as they felt no need to mention (elicited through follow-up questions).
Along with being a good writer, being a “good communicator” was mentioned (n=5). “What is the
quality of interaction with the public? Can they converse beyond talking like a cop.”

Being a Detective is a learning opportunity, a candidate’s intellectual abilities and their ability to be
trained were important (n= 8). They must have a willingness to learn and to be coachable. Along with
being a good trainee was the observation that they must also possess the ability to teach. Detectives
can be a wealth of knowledge and need to be able to pass this along to new Detectives and in a
mentoring role with up-and-coming Patrol Officers.

Possessing humility, honesty and integrity were mentioned. One Detective offered a list of important
skills or accomplishments that would place a candidate in good standing. They were:
Testimony in a ‘serious’ case.
Experience doing surveillance.
Having authored a warrant.
Conducting an investigation of a ‘serious’ crime.

30
 While we appreciate these as great accomplishments to have in one’s resume, the practical reality of
patrol work at LMPD may prohibit many Officers from gathering this level of experience.

Knowledge of policy and law was seen as important. Other, specific comments included, “Someone
who has a clue.” “Someone who can admit NOT knowing,” and “The drive to dig.”

Additional thoughts on desirable qualifications for new detectives and the selection process.
The participants appreciated the gravity of selecting qualified and experienced candidates. They
offered a number of additional qualifying traits as well as administrative steps that should be included
in the selection process. The candidates’ disciplinary history and commendations should be reviewed
and considered. The candidates’ poise and aptitude in the interview was also valued. Understanding
that peers often know the candidates better than their supervisors, some recommended that ‘peer
reviews’ be included for consideration. However, the counterargument was made to disregard
supervisory recommendations and personnel appraisals, “CO recommendations are bad.”

The OIG appreciates the notion of panels reviewing both peer and supervisory recommendations but
cautions that specific rules and constraints must be in place and considered as there is tremendous
variability in how peers and supervisors issue ratings. This is the problem of ‘inter-rater reliability’ and
while a worthy idea, the implementation will take a great deal of work to assure all candidates are
evaluated on equal criteria. How these ratings may or may not be used in the current scoring matrix
needs to be reviewed.

What the candidate did to prepare for the job and what they did to prepare for the interview were also
considerations. Keeping ‘cool’ in court was mentioned, as well as the ability to correct (others) on
scenes. One Detective suggested doing a deep dive on BWC for all Detective candidates. Several
others opined that the matrix is good but should not be whole basis. In that regard, the candidates
needed to know how the scoring matrix works and the specifics of what produces points.

Are the criteria weighted and ranked?

Yes, now. The scoring matrix now used by all Divisions approaches setting a level playing field for all
candidates. However, many asserted it was a good change but needs additional work to be completely
fair and applied universally to all candidates. This led us to believe that the scoring process, how the
scoring is done, what rubrics are used to generate scores, needs to be more transparent and known to
the candidates. According to one Sergeant the score gave preference to the interview performance,
then seniority then attendance. This was concerning as that process did not sufficiently address the
myriad of qualifications valued by working Detectives and their supervisors.

What criteria is given the most weight?

While the necessity for writing good reports loomed large in previous responses, it was not so highly
valued as the prime consideration for being a Detective. The traits that the participants felt should be
given the highest priority were initiative, being a self-starter, having a good work ethic and being
proactive (n=15). The next highest priority set of traits were being a team player and compatibility
with the existing squad. This was tied with report writing, communicator and networking (n=4).

Half of the Sergeants (n=4) thought that performance in the interview should carry the most weight.
While Sergeants and some Detectives sought candidates with experience and seniority (n=3), others
expressed a firm belief that this selection and Detectives, “…should be a meritocracy.” The
participants gave a list of traits that illustrated that they are not a monolithic group with one single
mind. The words used were:
Thoroughness
Honesty
Ethical.
31
 Know policy
Willingness to learn
Past performance
Court experience

Do existing Division Detectives have any input?

None of the participants responded, ‘yes’ to this question while ‘no input’ (n=11) and ‘informal input’
(n=11) were the dominant responses. Only one participant said the unit Detectives ‘should’ have
formal input. The reality is that the working Detectives know who is applying and know the Patrol
Officers who are performers. The majority said they trusted the detective Sergeants on the panels to
maintain the work group in good order. To their credit none of the respondents mentioned a
‘blackballing’ procedure or an individual ability to eliminate specific candidates.

Who decides who gets in?

This question was exclusively asked of the participating Sergeants and was echoed by Detectives if our
conversation wandered onto this topic. There was a bit of variation even among the Sergeants. All
were at odds with the language in the CBA that specifies, “The Unit Commander shall select the
person to fill the vacancy by choosing one of the top three candidates on the ranked list, subject to
the review of the Chief.” In this case, the Unit Commander would be the Detective Sergeant, unless
the clause is being interpreted as the Division being ‘the unit.’ One responded that the decision was
made by the Major in consult with Sergeant and Lieutenant, one said the Major alone, one said both
the Major and Chief and two said the Chief alone. Many felt the decision should be made at the
Division level. One responded, “The Chief is so far removed from process, the decision should be
made at the Division.” Whatever the department chooses to follow and who ultimately decides, needs
to be formalized, clearly articulated and applied evenly across all Divisions.

Training:
Training for Detectives is mandated by SOP 1.10.3:
“Every sworn member who is assigned to a detective position will successfully
complete at least 32 hours of investigative training that has been approved by
the KLEC prior to, or as soon as practical after, being assigned to the position.
When members are chosen for a detective position, their division commander,
or their designee, will contact the Training Division Commander and request
that the member be assigned to an approved investigative training class at the
earliest available opportunity.”

Detective career development is mandated by SOP 1.10.8:

“The Training Division administers career development courses for the
purposes of enhancing the member’s knowledge and performance within the
department. Training Division personnel who conduct career development
courses will receive classroom training on the techniques and skills needed to
effectively administer career development courses based on KLEC
requirements.
Career development courses are offered in several areas, including, but not
limited to, the following:
• Patrol
• Investigations
• Management”

32
 Additionally, a Career Development Section is defined in SOP 1.14.5
“The Career Development Section is designed to assist officers with continuous
education pursuits from graduation through retirement. The Career
Development Section also provides guidance concerning specific courses to
advance an officer’s career path, facilitates courses for KLEC Career
Development Certification, and coordinates supervisory and leadership training
and courses. The Career Development Section Sergeant coordinates and
oversees the professional development of officers and the Veterans Affairs (VA)
Program to coordinate all military benefits for new recruits and officers within
the first two (2) years of their career.”

In an analysis of high performing agencies, Lum, [Link]., (2023), all of the agencies had a formal
application process, and some had an interview process for investigator applicants. Some agencies
required experience or specific skills to become an investigator. For the training of new detectives,
high performing agencies provide formal training and mentoring but they noted there was a great deal
of variation among the observed agencies.
Wexler (2025) in a PERF report emphasized that training and development of all police supervisors is
lacking. (LMPD with their two supervisory courses is ahead of the curve on this). What was notable in
our review of the literature, was the absence of literature specifically for the management and
supervision of investigations. This search included textbooks, manuscripts, scholarly journal articles
and practitioner publications and online materials. Additionally, we sampled the posted curricula of
state-run police training entities, a single offering from DOCJT, a 40-hour course “Leading the
Investigative Unit” was found (a thanks to Major Wampler for the assist). None of our Sergeant
participants mentioned having attended this course. This indicates that supervisory training for
Divisional Detective Sergeants relies solely on whatever the agency provides for their first line
supervisors (if any) and then OJT for those assigned to supervise investigative units. This “gap
analysis” reveals an excellent opportunity for any training or learning organization, perhaps like
LMPD’s Academy.
Kingshott, Walsh & Meesig (2015) observed that police departments are notably disinterested in
participating in surveys or structured examinations of their operations. Of those departments
responding to their inquiries, most did not have a formal education or training requirement for
detectives. They went on to observe that what training that was available, was predominantly focused
on the investigative needs of officers assigned to uniform patrol. This does not speak well for larger
departments with specialization but would be useful for the many departments where uniformed
services are all they have. Based on our current observations and interviews, LMPD seems to be
above average in selecting and training Detectives. That said, according to our participants and in our
review, there is room for improvement.

What LMPD training in investigations have you attended?

In the last two years, in an effort to ensure a baseline of training for all detectives, LMPD required all
Detectives to attend the 32-hour Criminal Investigations course. Senior Detectives had attended this
course years ago so in some cases this was intended to be a refresher. Twenty-eight Detectives said
they attended the LMPD Criminal Investigations course, and four Detective Sergeants also attended.
Although we were told it is no longer offered, LMPD Interview and Interrogation courses were
attended by Detectives (n=12) and Sergeants (n=1).

One of the complaints registered by the Detectives was that investigations-specific courses are not
offered in the variety and frequency as in the past. One Detective said, “Career development died
after Ferguson, MO.” While another opined, “They (command) drip-feed training, no more career
development.” It was clear from the responses of the participants that there is an uneven knowledge
33
about training opportunities and any official career development assistance beyond whatever support
they can obtain from their first line supervisor. Advertising career development services and training
opportunities needs to be improved. None of the respondents mentioned the existence of a Career
Development Section and Career Development Sergeant and the majority response to the question of
what might be available was a simple and disappointing, “I don’t know.”

While training opportunities exist, they are neither freely available nor in any kind of career
development progression or curriculum. The Detective and Sergeants provided a menu of courses
they attended but also admonished that many courses are no longer available. As opposed to the
state-mandated 40 hour annual training given to all sworn personnel, job-specific detective training at
LMPD is a self-serve operation and currently with few in-house options. The takeaway for LMPD
command and Academy, do a better job of advertising their Career Development section and a much
better effort providing the service to the Detectives.

Instructors must be certified by the KLEC and are subject to the requirements of 503 KAR 1:100 –
“Certification of Instructors” under authority of KRS 15.330(1)(a), (b), (e), (h) “Functions and Powers of
(KLEC) Council.” The problem of curricula and currency plagues all academies -- finding and keeping
Subject Matter Experts (SME’s). This was affirmed by Major Allen in an interview while he was the
Training Commander. He said that finding and keeping qualified specialty instructors was an ongoing
and unavoidable problem and the primary reason for previously offered courses no longer being
available. This was corroborated by Major Jilek in a casual conversation over a year later. Finding and
keeping qualified and KLEC certified instructors is an almost impossible task, especially in a dynamic
and rapidly evolving LMPD. Shifting departmental needs and the career and promotional aspirations
of the instructors are the most frequent drivers behind this staffing issue. There is much more to this
problem but that is a matter for a separate study.

The Detectives listed a variety of courses they had attended. It was a mixed bag and aside from the
previously mentioned Basic Investigations course, none had attended the same combination of
courses. Note that some of these courses were attended before they assumed their Detective role.
The most relevant courses, those that the Detectives felt gave them solid knowledge and skills were
Interviewing courses and warrant-writing courses.

The list of courses attended by Detectives were:

Basic Investigations. (n=28)
Interview & Interrogation: (n=12)
Search Warrant (n=14)
Electronics Warrants (n=5)
Street Crimes (n=3)
Crime Scene (n=2)
Digital Forensics (n=1)
Mk-43 for Detectives (n=2)

The list of courses attended by Detective Sergeants were:

STRIPES (LMPD’s first-line supervisor course): (n=4)
Basic Inv: (n=4)
Search Warrants: (n=3)
FLETC (unspecified): (n=1)
Narcotics: (n=1)
Interviews (LMPD): (n=1)
Hostage Negotiations: (n=1)
40 hr. PSU: (n=1)
Gold Merit: (n=1)
34
 Mk-43: (n=1)

What other training providers courses have you attended?

We specifically asked what courses Detectives and Sergeants attended that were provided by
independent vendors/providers. Once again, we were given a long list of courses where no one
Detective had attended a similar number or variety. We were advised that case demands, and
budgetary constraints have severely limited attendance in these courses. One Sergeant offered that it
was travel, hotel and per diem costs that were prohibiting factors. That is understandable but SOP
1.10.8 obligates LMPD to provide Career Development opportunities and that is, according to the
participants in this study, not being done.

Some of the following courses were equipment-specific while others were crime-specific offerings.
While this list provides a good variety, there is no structure or progression through the courses that
could be construed as a coherent career development program. Detectives and Sergeants attended:
Reid Interview & Interrogation. (n=13)
Homicide Inv.: (n=3)
PEACE Interviewing: (n=1)
Accurint Program: (n=1)
ATF Firearms recognition (n=1)
Undercover Narcotics Inv.: (n=1)
FBI (unspecified) (n=1)
Accurint Database: (n=1)
FLETC (unspecified) (n=3)
Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs (n=1)
Statement Analysis: (n=1)
Gangs and Cartels: (n=1)

Can non-Detectives attend LMPD investigations course offerings?

LMPD SOP 1.10.3 allows this, but it is restricted by the number of available seats being prioritized to
those currently in Detective roles. That puts patrol officers in potential competition with over 200
officers LMPD-wide who are already Detectives.

Did you attend LMPD investigations course offerings before you were a Detective?
To prove the above point, almost half of the participants attended the week-long Basic Investigations
course before they were selected to be a full-time Detective (n=15). Others said they completed
various online offerings from a number of different vendors. It is important to note here that
attending an investigations course as a Patrol Officer was universally seen as a major boost to their
candidacy in any Detective selection process.

General Training Comments:

Given the freeform structure of the interviews, a number of general comments regarding training
were made and are worthy of discussion here. Chiefly among these was the assertion by the majority
of Detectives and Sergeants that the Basic Investigations course should be completed before being
selected as a Detective. Others felt a new Detective should have the Basic Investigations course and
have completed a TDY assignment in investigations before being selected. Along with the formal
training some felt there needs to be an informal OJT to help learn the job. Yet others felt this OJT
needed to be formalized and structured. One participant commented that Homicide trains for a year
before they get a case lead. Impractical at the Division level, but point taken.

35
 This brings up a relevant training point and a complaint espoused to varying degrees in each
interview, Divisional Detectives feel they are on the bottom of every priority list. There is a hierarchy
of Detectives: Major crimes/Division Detectives. “Division Detectives are a catch-all for cases major
crimes don’t want to do.” Advanced courses (unspecified) were only offered for major crimes units
but needed for Divisional Detectives. While this may not be the policy, either intended or
unintentional, the perception is that the training needs of Detectives at the Divisions are, in their view,
underserved.

The Detectives with more seniority lamented there were more Detective training opportunities in
previous years. Regarding the current investigations offerings many said the “training is inadequate,”
while others said it was “generally poor.”
One participant said, “Basic investigations is a joke.”
Another offered, “Current investigations course was horrible, many parts were totally irrelevant.”
This was amplified by another Detective who offered that “many LMPD trainers have not been on
the street in years.”
Yet another who opined, “LMPD academy training does not reflect what is done on the street.”

While these comments were overtly negative it did show a thirst for contemporary, authoritative,
relevant and practical investigative training.

In addition to their critique of current offerings, the participants lamented the apparent absence of a
clear set, progressive training program, no ‘career development.’ These types of programs can provide
dividends well beyond improving the skill sets of the Detectives, institutional interest in the careers of
employees pays in increased productivity, job satisfaction and ownership (Papazoglou, et al. 2014;
Schafer, 2010; Smither, et al., 2020; Komm, et al., 2024).

The participants offered that there was no training on courthouse interaction or how to navigate the
court process. They also felt a course or training on courtroom testimony would be highly beneficial.
In the interviews it was obvious that many Detectives were at best uncomfortable about testifying in
court. While a few of the ‘old-timers’ relished the challenge and even thrived in courtroom
environments, they were in the distinct minority. One offered that Detective forums, perhaps
quarterly, could address these and other areas of concern and skill weaknesses.

Advanced communications and interviewing skills courses were identified as needed. Some of the
more senior participants felt this is becoming more essential as a number of up-and-coming
employees are exhibiting poorly developed interpersonal communication skills. The ability to talk with
people, to be able to shift gears was emphasized by a few of the participants. They noted that one
needs to be able to ‘read the room’ and go beyond your baseline personality in order to get people to
talk with you. You cannot be a ‘one-trick-pony’ when interviewing, people respond differently, and a
good communicator knows when and how to shift.

Electronics, phone information forensics, digital forensics, pawn & digital crime training needs to be
better. Include here also the use of and analysis of social media platforms. While each Detective
should have a basic understanding of these instruments and platforms attaching a dedicated analyst
like those currently working in the RTCC to assist and mentor Detectives was seen as a growing need
and training deficit.

Should there be a Detective FTO program?

Many participants responded favorably to the requirement for completing an FTO program as a new
Detective (n=17) while a smaller group were a hard ‘no’ (n=5). The majority were more thoughtful
and brought up a number of concerns that would need to be addressed. Among the hard ‘no’
36
 contingent was a Sergeant who said the caseloads do not allow this while another offered that it is
already being done in part with an FTO for 2 weeks and no solo on-call for a month. One of the
Detectives said there is such a program in the major crimes unit.

Some of the Detectives said that there was already an FTO program in their unit but it needs to be a
bit more structured (“and structured right”) than it is now. These Detectives worried that if it is like
the patrol FTO program with paperwork, evaluations and tests that it would be too much a burden on
the Detective FTO with cases plus FTO paperwork. They thought it might work if the paperwork,
checklists, evaluations and tests, were kept to a minimum. Others asked who would be the FTO, a
Detective or the Sergeant?

The feasibility of such a program is impacted by the need to keep up with the unrelenting influx of
new cases. By the time a new Detective is selected and brought on board, the existing Detectives
have been covering the empty beats and need to have the newbie working cases immediately. This
can (and does) create a ‘sink or swim’ situation for the new Detective. All of the participants
previously remarked that the workload was initially overwhelming until they learned how to handle
the cases and the volume.

Compounding the initial shock of their new responsibilities is the simple fact that many new
Detectives have not yet attended the Basic Investigations course and may not for weeks or months.
Searching for additional ways to transition and train a new Detective we also looked at other methods
to get them up to speed.

Should there be an apprenticeship or mentoring program?

Mentoring new detectives is a time-honored method for teaching them what they need to know to be
a good Detective (Greenwood, 1979; More & Wegener, 2003; Cordner & Scarborough, 2010). In fact,
in many departments mentoring is all they get. New detectives often undergo a field training program
where they work alongside experienced investigators. This apprenticeship model helps them apply
theoretical knowledge to real cases under supervision (Birzer & Tannehill, 2001). LMPD is ahead of
the curve with its 32-hour Criminal Investigations course. Every Division has an informal mentoring
process usually involving multiple mentors’ being involved as time and circumstance allows.

The majority of participants (n= 24) felt mentoring was a better alternative than a formal FTO
program and many added, if it comes without a ‘paper trail.’ Others commented that it would need to
be ‘structured right’ and could work but may be problematic or unevenly structured and managed.
Many (n= 12) said they already do this in one form or another and in an informal manner, “there is a
lot of experience in the room, not just one person.”

Through this question and other comments offered in our conversations, it was obvious that bringing
in a new Detective was a team effort. The majority of Detective units operated out of an open squad
bay so there were no physical barriers and communication, and advice can freely flow. We observed a
great variety in methods, skills and professional interests between the Detectives and it would be
beneficial for the new Detective to compare and contrast these (unofficial) mentors while they
develop their own way of doing detective work. As was mentioned previously, TDY assignments are
highly valued and are de facto mentoring programs with Detective mentors and Patrol apprentices.

Should there be a probationary period?

The majority of participants, and all Sergeants (n= 23) said ‘no’ to a probationary period with may
citing general and specific concerns. Generally, there was faith in the selection process to produce
qualified and ultimately successful Detectives. One Detective asked, “How would this work? If you
suck, we don’t have a ‘legal’ way to push you out.”
37
 Echoing this was another participant who offered, “No, but non-performers can’t be removed. It
would be considered disciplinary, and the FOP would be involved.”

For those supporting the probationary period they qualified their support with concerns regarding
who would make the decision to retain the new Detective. The yes votes also submitted a
probationary period of no more than six months while others said no fewer than three months. One
suggested, “Do a 6-month check-in separate from the annual performance appraisal.”

While there is currently no probationary period and no formal program exists, mentoring is done
when a new Detective joins the squads. As for limiting assignments, some groups said the newbie
accompanied veterans on callouts and did not go out solo on a call-out for a month. Other groups
said the solo call-out was a decision that varied and was made by the Sergeant. Whatever the nature
and extent, it is clear that while mentoring is already being done, it is currently inconsistent and may
be prone to training gaps. It may just need some specific thought and structure to become a
universally beneficial and comprehensive endeavor.

Do Detectives in your Division get regularly scheduled training? Including online, webinars, roll
call.
There was no consensus on this point. Ten Detectives specifically responded ‘yes’ while eight said
‘no.’ Many conflated this with the annual 40-hour training required by KLEC that is almost invariably
NOT detective-specific. Two of the Sergeants said once a month they get four hours of “general cop
stuff,” while others said they engage in monthly training activities and yet others said they get 16
hours a year related to investigations. From the comments we observed the volume, type and
frequency of training was inconsistent between the Divisions and Detective units.

None of the participants specifically mentioned availing themselves of the plethora of (mostly free)
online training opportunities. One participant said they did have a training budget but had no idea
how much was allotted or what external training might be authorized. What was a majority opinion
was that LMPD investigative offerings were not highly valued with some using expletives, ‘horrible’
and ‘shit.’ Referring to previous comments, the LMPD offerings may suffer from stale information
and instructors too far removed from current investigative work and requirements.

Outside of LMPD offerings are the myriad opportunities for Detectives to engage in self-directed
training, skill-building and higher education. LMPD SOP 2.24.7 “Tuition Reimbursement” outlines an
employee benefit that helps pay for coursework at available educational institutions. Additionally, the
Louisville Free Public Library System provides cardholders with a variety of excellent, free educational
offerings online via LinkedIn Learning.

Training was clearly a problem issue for a number of Detectives. They felt Divisional Detectives were
devalued and their training needs were given low priority. This was balanced by a few Detectives who
observed that caseloads prohibited them from engaging in anything more than the minimum training
required by KLEC and the department. While this does not get them more and needed training, it is
somewhat admirable that they would sacrifice their own career development for the sake of their
immediate caseloads. To avoid burnout, solutions need to be examined.

Have you personally provided training to Patrol Officers or others?

As journeyman-level members of the department, Detectives have an obligation to train and mentor
others, be they newly selected Detectives or Patrol Officers. The majority of Detectives (n= 17) said
they have personally provided training for Patrol Officers and an additional four said they did so
informally and as they are individually requested. Only four Detectives said they did not provide any
38
 training. One Detective said that they and their Sergeant put together a monthly formal training to be
done at patrol roll call. While this will be explored later, report-writing is a huge problem. Many of
the training efforts revolve around topics that will produce better and more thorough patrol reports.

Structure of Units:
How is your unit organized?
The eight Divisions generally organized by assigning Detectives to specific beats and sectors. All
reports from Patrol Officers on those beats were then handled by a specific Detective. This is a good
way of organizing as it allows each Detective to get to know the strengths and abilities of their
reporting Officers and the crime climate in their assigned beats. There is some variation on this plan
where some beats produce more cases and necessitate another Detective to deal with the caseloads.
Still in other Divisions, a Detective might have several beats or sectors under their watch. One
Division has an ‘overflow’ Detective who can be assigned cases Division-wide if the beat Detective is
overwhelmed, has a major case or may simply be absent. The whole scheme is to equitably distribute
the workload among the existing Detectives.

While most of the Divisions adhere to the above format, several have incorporated some specialty
roles among the Detectives. One Division is meeting with great success with two Detectives working
solely on thefts of and thefts from vehicles. The participants in this Division noted that such a
program should be embraced in a unit with LMPD-wide jurisdiction. As with many ‘great ideas’ in
this report, we realize that manpower allocations are the limiting factor and will be for years to come.

Another Division has a Retail Theft specialist, and this program is wildly successful with solid case
clearance and arrest metrics to back it up. This Detective works with big box and other retailers to
address the epidemic of organized retail crime. More on this elsewhere in this report.

Several Detectives (early in the interviews) opined that we needed a ‘critical infrastructure’ theft unit
to address the epidemic thefts of copper wire and copper metals. This was embraced by LMPD as
recent news stories highlighted arrests and major efforts to use surveillance technologies to monitor
systems and thwart thefts in progress. Kudos.

Another Division has what we will call here, a ‘Closer.’ This Detective’s responsibility is to take cases
assigned by the supervisor and administratively close them. The Sergeant makes a preliminary
determination that the case, for any number of reasons, does not need to be investigated and should
be simply and expeditiously closed. Among these, but not limited to are CYA reports, non-criminal
matter reports and misdemeanor reports with no evidence, suspects or witnesses. According to our
participants, these categories alone provide a surprisingly large volume of work for the Closer.

The task of the Closer is to put another set of critical eyes on the case and confirm that there is
nothing Detectives can do to solve the crime or get the wheels of justice moving on the case. The
Detective does due diligence on the case, communicates with the victim and closes the case. This
position takes a huge administrative burden off the shoulders of the other Detectives as their day is
not consumed with reviewing cases that will ‘go nowhere.’ There is, however, a cautionary tale to be
considered in the arbitrary closing of cases. As experienced by the Houston PD, merely closing a case
due to manpower limitations is not acceptable procedural justice (Lozano, 2024; Millar, 2024) and can
result in loss of Departmental esteem and community support.

39
 With the Closer position in mind, this may well be the kind of position that can be held by a well
trained and experienced civilian. It might be the perfect job for a retired Detective who wants to
serve but does not desire to come back as a sworn officer. The key is highly trained, and this would not
be an entry-level position.

One last variation on the unit structure is one Division having an on-site civilian analyst. This person
works hand in hand with the Detectives and can assist in finding data and reviewing evidence to ease
the burden on the Detectives. It is worth other Divisions examining and perhaps leading the
department to decentralize at least eight civilian analysts.

What budgetary constraints are you dealing with?

Budgetary issues were primarily discussed with the Sergeants, but we also welcomed comments from
the Detectives. Nearly half (n=11) of the Detectives said they were not affected by budget issues, but
this was from a personal viewpoint where they felt they were properly equipped and could work
overtime if and when a case required. Of the participants who said they were affected by budgetary
constraints; they spoke in terms of infrastructure and operational issues.
Vehicles are a problem (n=7), where they were noted as being poorly maintained and new cars being
unequally distributed to Divisional Detectives.
Technology: radios, in-car radios, computers and peripherals, were ageing and in some cases,
unserviceable.
Equipment: Simple tools and equipment like Faraday bags or cages for phones were not high on the
purchase lists.
Supplies: One Sergeant complained that he had only a $2,800 budget for supplies & keyboards for all
his Detectives.
Maintenance: Building (deferred) maintenance, while not the province of Detectives was noted as a
major de-motivator when working in sub-standard office spaces.
Training: The last complaint attributed to budgeting was a lack of money for training.

How would you change things?

Police Officers are by nature, fixers. They are in a demanding occupation, and they are usually
unafraid to offer critique and suggestions for improvement. These conversations were the reason for
interviewing the ‘worker bees’ rather than the Commanding Officers. We wanted the ‘view from the
trenches’ to better inform our Board and LMPD management. We offered the participants a conduit
for confidentially voicing sometimes difficult and controversial concerns. That said, the participants
were practical if not pragmatic in their suggestions and all of them understood personnel and
budgetary constraints. This section will provide the suggestions and narratives as provided in
response to this specific question.

Currently there are no appreciable incentives for Detectives, no extra pay or rank. A step up in pay
and perhaps rank was suggested. Some suggested LMPD remove on call requirement but had no
alternative for this often-vital function. Many (n=18) specifically said more Detectives are needed,
especially in higher population beats. To alleviate some of the administrative tasks some suggested
hiring clerical staff to do letters and correspondence. Expanding on the theme of civilianization, a few
mentioned employing civilian investigators and perhaps using them, among other tasks, as ‘Closers’ in
every division.

Including training for new Detectives, more and better training was mentioned by many participants
(n=12) as well as improved methods for finding and accessing training opportunities. “There is too
much change going on at LMPD and change requires training.” Training was a topic that came up at

40
many points in our conversations. What it conveyed to us is that the Divisional detectives feel they are
marginalized and not provided access to the training opportunities afforded to the major crimes units.

Vehicles were an issue for the majority of participants (n=27). They were viewed as unreliable, even
unserviceable, and in all cases, unsuitable for any stake-out or surveillance activities. Allowing
Detectives to take home cars for those who live out of Jefferson County especially if they are the on-
call Detective. (We understood this has been relaxed for marked units but do not know if it includes
any who might live out of state.)

One said the department needs to be able to lease vehicles, while others floated the idea of using
forfeited impound vehicles if the use, licensing and insurance laws would allow. Some offered that
having the ability to rent various vehicles would also address their needs for vehicles that will not be
readily ‘made as cop cars’ by suspects. Revealing latent dissatisfactions, several participants framed this
in terms of LMPD preferentially funding and serving legacy city precincts over county districts. This
was a bit surprising given the number of years since merger.

A number of participants said there should be more crime specialization at the division level, and this
included auto theft units and retail theft units. At the same time one participant voiced the opinion
that specialty units with department-wide jurisdiction are overstaffed (and over-funded) at the expense
of the divisions. In this mix several participants noted that technical services in obtaining cell phone
data have a long waiting list and suggested additional personnel to meet their ever-growing data needs.

Workspace
As a part of our study, we conducted a visual inspection of the Detective workspaces in all eight
divisions. Some were attractive modern workspaces and others were in various stages of decrepitude.
The physical workspace varied between the divisions and only half of our participants (n=18) said it
was adequate. The layout ranged from open squad bays to cube farms. Two of the division Detective
offices had recently been renovated and the participants appreciated the changes. While some had
space to grow (8th Division) others were crowded into compartments small enough that the Fire
Inspectors might find it unsafe, especially in rooms situated on the interior of buildings and with only
one egress door. One of the participants observed the security of the building was poor with too
much public access to inside doors and unrestricted parking.

The Detectives observed that open bullpens can aid in unit communication but can be distracting.
Others said cubicles offer a modicum of privacy and make it a bit easier to concentrate on tasks or
phone conversations but can impede unit communication. One commented it would be nice to have
an office with windows as it can feel isolated and claustrophobic. “It is a bunker with bad desks and
chairs.” Almost all had ancient furniture (“Crap desks and chairs”) in various stages of decay.

In regard to decay, several participants brought up constant mold, sewage and insect problems, “It is a
terrible building.” One Division had (has) an electrical problem where a circuit breaker would be
blown if one sent a document to the printer while the microwave unseen in another room was being
used. They added resetting the circuit breaker was, “A major pain in the ass.”

Technology
Hardware
The city provided laptop computers were the typical hardware configuration. This was aided
by docking stations with two LED screens, keyboard and mouse and a shared network
printer. Most (n=19) said the setup was adequate but hard to get replacement parts and
external hard drives were needed. For those who did not agree they said, “Keyboard is crap.”
41
 Impossible to get replacements or upgrades and others that hardware was, “cobbled-
together.”

Storage space was a frequent complaint and could be easily addressed with terabyte capacity
HDD’s. Others said that good headphones or speakers are needed when reviewing videos,
audio files and BWC’s. They envied the portable tablets used by Arson Investigators and
wanted to get blue-tooth printers for their vehicles. Several remarked that access to NCIC is
not readily available on all desktops necessitating a search for a Patrol Officer with an MDT to
facilitate their request.

While not a computer hardware issue, several remarked that individually lockable and power-
provided Faraday cages and bags are needed as cellphones are seized as evidence in a growing
number of cases and must await analysis due to an extensive backlog for the technician.

Software:
LMPD Detectives use MS-Office products as well as government databases and other specialty
software products to good effect. At the request of LMPD command we will not address software
issues beyond this. LMPD is well aware of Detective ‘concerns’ and is in the process of addressing
them.

Unit structure:
While some participants felt specific specialty units (retail theft, vehicle theft) would be helpful, most
felt the current unit structure was adequate and workable (n=21).

Case distribution:
Was seen by most as fair & equitable (n=19) with only a few registering complaints for heavy caseload
variations between beats. Realizing the ebb and flow of cases, one division has specifically assigned a
Detective as an ‘overflow’ as previously mentioned in this report.

Personnel:
Only one participant felt the staffing of Detectives was adequate, the majority (n=17) said there were
not enough. With the felt inadequacy of staffing one detective expressed frustration in that they, “Get
tired of people bitching about open cases.”
Another reported that staffing problems are department-wide but, “How personnel are managed is
poor.”
One of the Sergeants said, “If we get more personnel, we can do specialization.”
One complained that they were losing Detective positions in spite of a growing caseload. At the time
of this report the divisions had the following number of Detectives:

(1st Div) 8 Detectives (5th Div) 6 Detectives

(2nd Div) 6 Detectives (6th Div) 6 Detectives
(3rd Div) 6 Detectives (7th Div) 7 Detectives + 1 TDY
(4th Div) 8 Detectives 1 Analyst (8th Div) 4 Detectives

42
Supervision:
All Detectives said that they had adequate supervision and support. Many positively
supported and approved of their supervisors with accolades ranging from ‘ok’ to ‘good’ to
‘great” and ‘excellent’ (n=17). While one expressed concern about Detective Sergeants who
had not previously served as a Detective, that person was not working for either of those
Sergeants. Later in this report we will be discussing the roles of supervisors and the effect
their work has on the Detectives.

Workflow:
The workflow of cases was generally seen as adequate (n=16) but there are occasional
glitches where a case is not forwarded to Detectives in a timely manner (weeks, even months
were cited). This is highly problematic in that (non LMPD) video evidence can be (and has
been) overwritten and lost. Regarding the volume of cases, “We are drowning,” and “It is
overwhelming.”

Working:
This series of questions examined how Detectives work, what hours they work, what activities fill
their days and the priorities they assign to each. We will, however, begin with the answers to a
question we did not actually ask. The Detectives gave us a good starting point for discussing their
work and a chance to ‘start from the beginning.’

Quality of incident reports from patrol, Telephone Reporting Unit (TRU) & Internet.
This was not an original item included in the interview protocol. The problems were so
universal that it requires attention in this report. Poor incident reports affect Detectives and
slow down the investigative process. This is unacceptable but hardly a new problem as your
author has been a consumer of problematic police reports for nearly 50 years. The following
were observations offered by the Detectives and while many are paraphrased, some are
direct “quotations.”

“Reports are universally vague.”

Do realize Patrol Officers are operating under time constraints.
Paperwork & documentation is overwhelming for Patrol Officers and working 12-
hour shifts is terrible and reports suffer.
“Some Officers are former KSP and do great reports.”
“Officers who previously served on smaller or rural departments often write better
incident reports than those who have only served on LMPD.”
“Report writing is abysmal and not being addressed by department.”
“Patrol report writing is terrible.”
“Patrol report writing is poor.”
“Reports can be poor but we are working with them to improve.”
“Patrol reports are better than telephone report unit.”
Online reports should not be allowed.

43
 A lot of time spent on completing initial reports out of patrol and TRU, “Retaking
the report again.”
“TRU reports are worst on planet.”
TRU reports are hit or miss.
“Patrol writes CYA reports and those clog our in-boxes.”
A lot of time filling in info on incomplete initial reports.
Reports are routinely at or below average and often incomplete.
Quality of patrol reports is improving but still a work in progress.
Patrol reports are mediocre.
Patrol report writing skills are terrible.
Report writing is “pretty bad” incomplete, no elements of offense.

Our takeaway is that report writing needs to be improved. The pursuit of excellence in
report writing is not just an exercise of command authority but each report is an investment
in the professional development of the writer. As one of your author’s former Sergeants
said, “You write your own evaluation with every report you turn in.” Career Development
indeed.

Detectives spend an inordinate amount of time filling-in information that should have been
obtained by the reporting officer. The Detectives go to the extreme of viewing BWC’s to
gather details the reporting officer(s) failed to report. Other complaints were that the
reporting officer failed to adequately document the incident and include the basic elements
of the offense. Basic literacy (grammar, syntax, spelling and punctuation) was mentioned but
the larger issue was the production of reports with complete and actionable information
without the Detective having to go back and essentially re-write the initial report. Some of
the Detectives said having Probationary Officers do a few weeks with Detectives is a good
way to emphasize the need for complete and well-written incident reports.

Another takeaway and a condemnation of LMPD procedures and reports was that officers
who previously worked for KSP or other, smaller departments tended to write better and
more comprehensive reports. This is understandable in that LMPD bifurcates the work of
patrol and Detectives with fairly strict delineations of who does what. This policy, either
formal or informal and amplified by the exigencies of street-level policing, keeps Patrol
Officers from developing critical investigative and reporting skills. Those officers who
worked on smaller departments were more likely to conduct any and all follow-up
investigations on their initial reports. In those circumstances one quickly learns that
completeness in the initial report is invaluable. Our recommendation, based on the above, is
for LMPD to emphasize report writing from day-one in the academy and reinforce that
during the PTO program and continued by Patrol Sergeants.

What are your usual duty hours and shift length?

One of the few ‘perks’ of being a Detective is a ‘normal’ work schedule of variations on
Monday through Friday 8-hour shifts (n=36). The daytime hours varied among the
participants with 7-3, 8-4, 10-6 blocks being mentioned. With these daywork hours the
Detectives also stand rotating on call watches for after-hours crime scene and officer
assistance response. See SOP 2.20.1 “On-Call Status” for details. The Detectives also noted

44
 they were always available for questions from Patrol or other Detectives regardless of their
on-call status.

Is there an operations manual or set of directives for Detectives and Detective units?
There is no manual for Detectives, only the total LMPD SOP’s. Oddly, there was only one
Detective who said there was a manual but when asked, could not produce one. After
posing this question to all of the Sergeants, we elected to not ask the majority of the
Detectives and only obtained responses noted here as the topic came up in the stream of
conversation.

Several (n=7) Detectives said it would be helpful to extract all detective-relevant SOPs into a
concise Detective Manual. The manual should be specific to investigative operations, and
some offered that they may need to be tailored to each Division. One Sergeant thought the
manual was not needed but could be a platform for detailing state of art procedures and
techniques. We did, however find guidance in the SOP’s regarding case clearance criteria.

SOP 3.5.8 “Clearances” notes the following:

“Cases may only be cleared in the following manner:
• UNFOUNDED: The incident did not occur. A full explanation
must be provided in the narrative.
• ARREST: When any offender involved in the incident has been
arrested, summoned, cited, or otherwise arraigned.
• CLEARED BY EXCEPTION: In order to clear an incident by
exception, the following four (4) conditions must be met:
1. The investigation must have clearly and definitely
established the identity of at least one (1) offender
(e.g. name, race, sex, DOB);
2. Sufficient probable cause must have been developed
to support charging and prosecuting the offender;
3. The exact location of the offender must be known so
that an arrest may be made; and
4. There must be a reason outside the control of the
officer that prevents the arrest (e.g. prosecution
declined, victim refused to cooperate, extradition
declined, death of perpetrator).
a. Special Victims Unit (SVU) Only: Sexual
assault victim requests exceptional closure.
This may be used by SVU detectives and
supervisors only.
• INVESTIGATION COMPLETE: All possible leads have been
exhausted.”

In reviewing various records from LMPD and in this study, the OIG has observed the
following notations on case status. However, we could not find a passage in the SOPs to
45
 inform and govern officers in the application of these case status tags. While the individual
tags are largely self-explanatory, there is room for specifics as were provided in SOP 3.5.8
“Clearances.” The case status tags observed were:
• Open-Active
• Open-Inactive
• Cleared by Arrest
• Investigation Complete
• Leads Exhausted
• Closed
These provide a good starting point, but each requires an explanation and guidance on under
what circumstances that status should be applied. It is also beneficial to make the categories
mutually exclusive or as above in “closures” clearly identifiable sub-groups, again with more
exacting definitions. An example (and we are guessing on the definitions):
Case Status Categories
Open
Open-Active – currently working case (among others…)
Open-Inactive – e.g., awaiting lab results, waiting for more leads, triaged.
Closed
Cleared by Arrest – case forwarded to prosecution.
Prosecution Declined – case was not accepted for prosecution or no true
bill from a Grand Jury.
Investigation Complete – case complete through court process.
Leads Exhausted

General Caseload Considerations

Detective caseloads are heavy to the point of being unmanageable. Despite knowing this going into
the job, almost all Detectives expressed how the reality was overwhelming. This is the nature of
Investigations at the LMPD Divisions. While there are minor variations between the Divisions, the
caseload is universally heavy and unrelenting. Detectives reported to us that they could get over 20
new cases per week. As previously discussed, dealing with this burden is a major task set before the
Divisional Detectives.

Detective individual caseloads have been a concern of the OIG as we have reviewed citizen
complaints involving crime investigations. Lum et al. (2023) found that agencies with lower
percentages of crime clearances and prosecutions, had higher caseloads. Osterburg and Ward (1999)
among numerous authors, attested that heavy caseloads were the unfortunate norm of general
assignment detectives. This has downstream ramifications in the eventual adjudication of cases.

Prince (2021) noted the 2019 UCR report indicated that there were 1.2 million violent crimes
reported to the police, over half, 54.5% were never cleared. As discussed in Lum, et al (2023),
clearance rates for burglary have remained extremely low at 14%–15%. In aggravated assaults, where
the perpetrator is often known to the victim, cleared by arrest only occurs 50%–60% of the time
(FBI 2019). Of the 6.9 million property crimes in 2019, only 17.2% were cleared. Other researchers
attest these clearance rates have been disappointingly low for decades (Braga et al., 2011; Lum et al.,
2018; Scott et al., 2019; Vovak, 2016; Wellford and Cronin, 2000).

46
One might think that modern investigative techniques and equipment would expedite investigations,
improve prosecutions and clear more cases but this is not the case. Gribble (1996) presented data from
a 1985 report that computed the average completion time for investigative cases. In an update, Prummell
(2021), cited a study of 671 cases opened in a 3-month period in 2007, the results were very different. The
data in the following table shows the exponential increase in time to complete an investigation by general
crime type. (See also Rivera (2022), for additional allocation insight.) While Prummell provided data on all
crime types, for our purposes here we will extract only his results for the type of crime investigations typically
conducted by LMPD Divisional Detectives. The provided data further explains how much effort is expended
on individual cases. Keep in mind these are averages and extracted from an agency in Florida, but they may
be useful in calculating the workload of LMPD Detectives when considering personnel allocations.

Hours to complete cases by crime type

Crime 1985 2007
Armed Robbery 8.9 29.7
Assault/Battery 3.55 25.1
Burglary 5.48 12.2
Theft 3.24 6.74

What is your personal Caseload?

We were surprised by the large volume of cases so elected to include a census of caseloads
for the Detectives in this study. Despite giving the Detectives a notice to have their personal
metrics in hand at the time of the interview, few complied.

Taking the next step, we simply asked for an estimate. Each Detective admonished that the
actual totals varied from month to month and averages can be wildly inaccurate on any given
day. Moreover, the caseloads varied between Detectives and were dependent on how many
months they served (newly minted Detective v. journeyman) and how many months go by
before they did housekeeping and moved unworkable cases out of their ‘Open-Active’ file.
The following were the responses and are unfiltered here:

18 new cases/week,
500-600 open active
680/year
206 open active
Well over 100 cases per month
550 in a year
746 cases
774/last years, 43 open active.
20+ cases/week, 600 open active
700
800 open active.
20-30 cases solvable,
over 240 open/active.
200+
40-50/week, hundreds open active.
185 Open active
100+ new cases per month.
Have ‘pending,’ open active & inactive.
47
 40-120 cases/month
Currently 460 open active
600+-/ year about
1,100 total, no open inactive, either open or closed.
1,039 in 13 months
140 open active, 12-15 new cases per week
300 currently open/active.
Around 500 open active.
Over 1,000/year but very few are open/active.

One of the few Detectives who came with stats in hand offered that typically he was
assigned 500-600 cases per year with notable variations from that. Currently he detailed:
Assigned: 823 (note over 200 more than his stated averages)
Open Active: 255
Closed or inactive: 568
Cleared by arrest: 319
Warrant issued not yet served: 23
Investigation complete: 70
Leads exhausted: 48

This Detective cautioned that he was very diligent in completing his housekeeping tasks of
moving cases from open-active to inactive or closed and doing so in a timely manner. He did
say that others will wait for long periods of time before closing cases. We cannot judge the
Detectives who put off the task as it does nothing to solve active cases and the closure
process takes time to complete all the administrative requirements. Some of the Detectives
said they would set aside a day per week or days per month to ‘clear the books’ and close
cases. Still others indicated closing cases was not done in any systematic manner and
admitted that they have open cases they have not looked at in months.

Reviewing the offered estimates, the stats provided by our diligent Detective seemed
illustrative as averages (600-800 per year) although low by the few Detectives who claimed
caseloads in excess of 1,000. We followed-up by asking the Detectives to compare their case
load with their peers and they responded, ‘Light’ (n=0), ‘Average’ (n=15) and ‘Heavy’
(n=11). It became clear that Detectives all had a lot on their plates, and this affected their
methods of work, but more on that later.

Metrics
We asked the Sergeants to bring in metrics for their units and this proved problematic for
some. The software is not user-friendly for extracting case information and aggregating
same for reports. The materials supplied by the sergeants varied in completeness and was
more a demonstration of their individual ability to extract information from the database
than a profile of work completed in their shop that can be fairly compared with other
Divisions. We were also admonished (by Detectives, Sergeants and high-level command)
that any metrics provided by ‘the software’ was almost guaranteed to be inaccurate, and not
in small increments. This is also a further demonstration of the issues LMPD has with ‘the
software.’ See the following materials on metrics for a data example.

48
 Detective Sergeants are not employed to work individual cases and typically they do not
(More, et al., 2003; Osterburg & Ward, 1999; Wexler, 2025). However, Sergeants will take
the occasional case and one admitted he has taken over 100 cases to relieve Detectives who
were overloaded. All Sergeants review and assign all cases before they get to the Detectives.
In many cases this is the first step of triage as the Sergeants have the authority to not assign
an investigator to a case.

There is no written directive on how Sergeants do this, but it is the application of time-
honored rubrics that include but are not limited to, crime severity, evidence, witnesses,
suspects, and other solvability factors. It is a personal but professional judgment based on
their extensive experience and knowledge of applicable law. To their credit, it is largely a
process of routing the case to the appropriate Detective and having faith that they will
review it and dispose of it appropriately. According to the Detectives, in those marginal
cases the Sergeants demonstrated that they err on inclusivity rather than rejection – adding
to the Detective caseload. In one Division, this ‘no-go’ judgment of the Sergeant is backed
up by the aforementioned ‘Closer’ who then puts another set of eyes on it, does some leg
work and then either gets it assigned to the beat Detective or closes the case. In the other
Divisions such cases go to the beat Detective, and they will review it and close it according
to protocols approved by the unit Sergeant, their command and commonsense.

The following table represents the cases assigned to Detectives in one LMPD Division in
2024. Actual Detective names have been removed and substituted with fictional characters.
The table shows cases initiated in 2024 and any subsequent case status actions applied in
2024.

Bosch Edgar Wish Ballard Irvin Haller Rider Walling TOTALS

Cleared by Arrest 28 29 59 55 86 36 281 50 624
Cleared by Arrest
by Another 1 10 3 4 41 8 67
Agency
Closed/Cleared 9 13 10 1 15 11 59
CSU Sent to Lab 1 1
Direct Indictment 1 1
Investigation
21 4 11 46 54 1032 65 67 1300
Completed
Leads Exhausted 3 8 160 100 187 3 44 150 655
Migration Inactive 1 1 2
Open/Active 357 247 31 106 7 30 290 82 1150
Open/Inactive 1 28 21 10 2 77 21 160
Unfounded 5 6 5 10 1 2 29
Warrant Issued
2 1 17 1 21
Not Served
TOTALS 426 301 317 332 354 1130 828 381 4069

One of the confounding factors in case management and statistical reporting is what we will call
here the “end-of-year conundrum.” While criminals know no borders, crime solution knows no
49
calendar year. This is especially true of crimes committed in December barely having time to get to
the Detectives before the new year rolls in.
This table and the accompanying chart show cases opened and any action or status change that was
applied in 2024. Virtually all 2024 cases have been closed and many closed by arrest since then, but
these data do not reflect that. With these data it is merely a snapshot of a point in time, but it is a
good example of how the different case statuses breakdown for any Division. In reviewing the
numbers, the example here depicts an approximate arrest rate of about 18 percent, and this is
slightly higher than the national average for similar crime groups. Even within LMPD there is a
good deal of variation between LMPD Divisions on all of the case status indices. We elected to use
this division, “The land of milk and honey,” as it was a happy medium between less active divisions
and those who experience higher crime rates.
In this example Division they were assigned over 4,000 cases in 2024 of which they were responsible
for nearly 700 arrests. Two of the Detectives, Rider and Haller, are outliers as one is a specialist
working with civilian counterparts and the other is the “Admin Detective” or in this report, “The
Closer.” The following pie chart extracts the totals to show the work of the division in 2024.

50
 CASE STATUS
Warrant Issued But
Unfounded Not Served Cleared by Arrest
1% 1% 15%
Open/Inactive
4% Cleared by Arrest by
Another Agency
2%
Closed/Cleared
Open/Active
1%
28%
CSU Sent to Lab
0%

Direct Indictment
0%

Investigation
Migration Inactive Completed
0% 32%

Leads Exhausted
16%

To compare between divisions, another Sergeant provided the caseloads for all divisions for 2024.
We provide this table to illustrate the differences in Divisions and to further support the above
division exemplar as a fair average of all. In 2024, Patrol Bureau Detectives were assigned nearly
34,000 cases. Among these cases were violent felony crimes against persons and low monetary value
property crimes and virtually everything in between. Setting priorities and having a sense of justice
was required of all.
It is no surprise that any number of victims will have a complaint that the police are not
investigating their victimization -- they simply can’t. Explaining this to disappointed or irate citizens
takes up a lot of time for both the Detectives and Sergeants. As a group, they would like to
investigate fully each case, but the reality is that there are not enough of them and not enough time
in the day to get to every case. This explanation ignores those cases where there are simply no leads,
evidence or witnesses including all the reports of non-criminal matters.

51
 Division 2024 Cases
1 5,454
2 3,837
3 5,491
4 5,742
5 2,761
6 3,844
7 4,176
8 2,658
Total 25,962
Average
4,245
Per Division

The following chart further compares the divisions for 2024 cases. While these data are the best we
could obtain, as noted elsewhere in this report, the software can be inaccurate in its reporting of
data. There was no consistency between the metrics provided by Sergeants as requested in our
notification. This is being addressed, but the numbers presented here can vary widely from numbers
produced on a different day or by a different individual. They are, however, useful for rough
comparisons and ‘ballpark’ estimates.

2024 Cases
5,742
6,000 5,491
5,454

5,000
4,176
3,837 3,844
4,000

2,761 2,658
3,000

2,000

1,000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

52
Case conduct procedures, what do you look for?
While we were initially interested in ascertaining what the Detective does first when they get
a case, it was clear from the responses that the first step was universally multi-faceted and
simultaneous with other steps consistent with the findings of numerous researchers (Lum, et
al., 2018; Prince, et al., 2021; Eck & Rossmo, 2019; Rossmo, 2021). What we obtained were a
multitude of lists of factors the Detectives used to screen cases. Given the vast number of
cases each Detective is assigned, the immediate screening and assessment of solvability was
applied – a muti-faceted process. If we were to settle on a universal ‘first step’ then it would
be the process of case screening.

‘Triage,’ is a term used in the emergency medical field where mass casualties inundate the
local care system. See Iserson & Moskop (2007) for a detailed discussion of ‘triage.’ Triage
follows set rules and heuristics to guide decisions on what casualties are to be addressed and
in what order, and, sadly, those cases that must be deferred due to the terminal nature of the
injuries. Triage can appear brutal and uncaring but in mass casualty events, it concentrates
services and resources to those victims most in need and if served, more likely to survive.
We believe it helpful to view the vast number of new cases each week like a mass ‘casualty’
event that requires the Detective to concentrate their efforts on the most serious cases and
those that either do or may have leads. Moskop & Iserson (2007) in a follow-up manuscript,
provide a coherent discussion of the moral and ethical significance of implementing a triage
program and it has value in this study in validating the initial case screening decisions by
Divisional Detectives and Sergeants.

In criminal justice terms, triage involves a case review to determine if it has enough
information to support an active investigation. Triaging is regularly practiced in numerous
agencies for many crimes other than homicides (Lum et al., 2018). The concept shepherds
scarce resources that should not be spent on incidents that are misdemeanors or property
crimes that have low probability of solution (Lum et al, 2018). However, contemporary
studies on investigations indicated that there is often more to predicting crime clearances
than solvability factors. Scott et al. (2019), and Worrall (2016) have all observed that agencies
vary greatly over time in their crime clearance rates.
Additional authors suggest investigations can see improvements in clearances and
prosecutions with better management, training, policies, use of technology, and more robust
applications of investigative techniques (Barao et al., 2021; Braga et al., 2019; Braga &
Dusseault, 2018).

In this study the LMPD Detectives and the Sergeants began a process of triage at the very
receipt of a new case. They have no written directives or guide and each Detective set their
own criteria for judging a case. There were general rules-of-thumb, but virtually all
Detectives interjected their own priorities and sensibilities as noted in the following narrative
-- a not so simple process of personnel allocation, time, and available resources. Again, we
were looking for first steps, but we were provided with a fairly comprehensive list of
activities they engage in at some point in an investigation.

A brief word on the numbers provided here. Virtually all Detectives mentioned the
following at various points in our conversations so think of these as random thoughts with
some having a bit more of a personal priority of thought. There was great variation between

53
the participants, and nobody answered in terms of first, second and third activities, but
rather as a holistic random account of their thought processes and activities. This thought
process was an area investigated by Spandoudaki [Link]. (2019) who opined that specific
critical-thinking and decision-making training needs to be provided to Investigators. The
practical reality is that Detectives make important and consequential decisions every day and
any training that provides additional tools can be beneficial.

In addition to simply reading the report narrative (n=12), the most common activity as a first
was an assessment of solvability factors (n=28). These factors were not found in SOP’s or
other LMPD documents accessible to this office. Chiefly among the factors considered was
the type and severity of the crime, e.g. crime against person v. property crime, felony v.
misdemeanor, danger to others, etc. (n=21), and others giving first priority to any identified
suspects (n=7).

Others said they initially looked for videos and evidence with many placing great value on
any video evidence (n=18), and this included business or citizen cameras, ‘Flock’ cameras as
well as LMPD Body-Worn-Camera (BWC) footage. Additional investigative steps included:
checking social media (sometimes with assistance from the RTCC),
reaching out to the reporting officer,
looking for phone numbers,
calling the victim to see if there are additional details,
ascertaining how old is the case may be (yes, this is a problem, more later),
determining why the report exists, e.g. CYA and non-criminal reports.

All the Detectives said that they are required and do contact the victims on all of their cases.
This varied by Detective, but all said they complied with the LMPD regulation of contacting
all victims within 10 working days of the offense. Almost all Detectives said this was an
onerous, time-consuming task no longer automated by their case management software.
Some applied personal criteria with one saying he will phone felony victims, but only mail a
letter to misdemeanor victims.

Other Detectives offered a somewhat pessimistic ‘reality check’ by asserting that the “Vast
majority” of victims do not call back or answer mail. One Detective offered that 50-60% of
victims don’t respond to Detective phone calls. We followed up on this and the Detectives
said this was almost universal in misdemeanors but also in a surprisingly large number of
felonies, including those victims with serious injuries. This may illustrate a lack of trust
between the police and citizens and warrants a brief discussion here.

Carter and Carter (2016) and Lum et al. (2018) find that Detectives and commanders who
report good relationships with their communities generally have higher case clearance rates.
Simply put, better relationships engender greater community trust. With greater trust people
are more likely to report crimes or cooperate as witnesses (see discussions by Boateng, 2018;
Kwak et al., 2019). As Armstrong et al. (2013) and Decker (1995) found, when witnesses are
cooperative, the probability of solving major cases increases.

Prince (2021) found that policies that strengthen the abilities and accountability of
investigative workers, that improve resources and increasing investigative effort in

54
developing witnesses, evidence and attending more crime scenes should improve clearance
rates. This was echoed by Roth (2017), who found in neighborhoods of predominantly non-
white residents, there were lower case clearances for burglary, vehicle theft and other thefts.
Vaughn (2020) also found that homicides, and other major felonies committed in Black
communities are less likely to be cleared.

To encourage more involvement of citizens in investigations one must go outside of the

department and actively engage them – a process that Detectives can only play a part in. The
theoretical framework is already in place with the Community Policing philosophy that
underscores a proactive partnership between law enforcement and citizens to prevent and
solve crimes. Within this model, detectives are not isolated agents of the state but
collaborators in a shared public safety mission (Skogan, 2006).

In the Social Capital Theory which refers to the networks and norms of trust and
reciprocity within communities. Detectives leveraging social capital can gain access to
informal networks that yield valuable intelligence, especially in close-knit or marginalized
communities where formal police authority may be distrusted (Innes, 2003).

Finally, in the Routine Activity Theory that posits that crime occurs when motivated
offenders converge with suitable targets in the absence of capable guardians. Citizens, when
informed and mobilized, can act as capable guardians, thereby disrupting criminal routines,
aiding detection and cooperating with Detectives (Cohen & Felson, 1979).

Clearly research has revealed how citizens can join the investigative effort. The OIG
encourages LMPD trainers and Detectives to leverage these studies to improve their
relationship with residents on their beat.

At LMPD the Detective Sergeants clearly initiated the triage process with their review of
each case. They mentioned looking for contact information, a good narrative, completeness
and proper use of resources. Distribution to Detectives was primarily decided by the beat
where the incident occurred, but as previously noted, there were variations on this between
the Divisions. In regard to cases, the Sergeants’ concern was sending out bona fide cases and
attempting to equalize the workload between Detectives.

What was notable by its absence from our conversations is what the Detectives might do
when called to the scene of a crime. This may be a product of how serious crimes against
persons are funneled to major crimes, non-fatal and homicide units. The remaining crimes
where Divisional Detectives are responsible can entail a phone call or a need to go to the
scene, but such activity was not articulated by the participants. According to one
commentator, callouts prior to the inception of the Non-Fatal Shooting Unit (NFSU)
averaged weekly but now with the NFSU in place callouts are about once a month.

Lum et al., (2018) observed that investigative units that have specific goals and performance
metrics for both the unit and for investigators within that unit more frequently respond to
initial crime scenes. High performing agencies kept a log at the crime scene, to keep track of
officer and detective actions, to the extent of requiring those named on the log to submit
reports. A follow-up study might examine how often Divisional Detectives attend crime

55
 scenes and the effect that has on case outcomes. This would not, however, be applicable to
many crimes investigated by Divisional Detectives where absent exigent circumstances that
necessitate their early participation or in the many crimes that are discovered after the
perpetrator is long gone. In practice it appears most cases can simply await rolling out to the
Detectives through normal procedure.

How do you personally manage all your cases?

We used this question to find out how the detectives managed their cases. As we progressed
in our interviews it became clear that the Detectives would often NOT mention an activity
as it was so basic, so fundamental that knowledge was assumed, and it did not need to be
articulated. We did not press all participants for such specifics but gathered enough to
provide a robust answer to the present question.

The reality is that each Detective is a product of their informal mentors and fellow
Detectives in how they organize and manage their cases and caseload. As in previous
questions, there was a great deal of variety in how the Detectives work. A problem, well
known to LMPD was the need to use MS-Office software to supplement and work-around
‘the software’. This adaptation, while effective for the individual Detective, has not
contributed to the overall management of cases within the Department. Significant
investigative and organizational information is contained on the individual hard drives of
Detectives and not available to others (should they have a need) in the accessible case
management system.

LMPD gets kudos for attempting to go green and paperless, however, some Detectives
prefer to go ‘old school’ with hard copy file folder systems. The rationale was the portability
and utility of case files in court, out on the street and their usefulness as somewhat theatrical
props when conversing with suspects.

One of the Sergeants said they prioritized felony over misdemeanor cases. The downstream
ramification being that misdemeanors are generally not investigated. One Detective said if
there were a suspect, they would encourage the victim to go down to the court and swear
out a misdemeanor summons rather than engage in the investigation of the case. This,
however, was not universal and Detectives do investigate misdemeanor and property crimes
on a regular basis but rarely at the expense of any serious felony crimes on their plate. As
one said, “What violent felony do you want me to neglect while I investigate a theft of
property?” Hard choices but the reality of the job.

All Detectives and Sergeants said some form of triage was a fact of life. “You have to triage;
you cannot work every case.” Another Detective asserted that they needed to close an
average of three to five cases per day to keep up with the influx of new cases while fully
realizing that closing only five will generally keep their case load growing.

There was no consistent method for organizing and tracking cases. Some exclusively used
the case management software. A number of Detectives said the current software does not
facilitate folder construction and case archiving (the previous case management system did)
and used MS-Word and Excel to organize, sort and track cases. They would organize their

56
 cases into multiple file folders on their own hard disks and apply their own categories. One
Detective might organize by crime type and others organize by creating monthly folders and
’90-day’ review folders. Once again, this is a less than optimal solution.

While the majority will open and work on one case at a time, others would occasionally
attempt some batch processing. This was seldom done unless they noticed a pattern of
offenses or similarities in the crime specifics leading them to suspect a common perpetrator.
Batch processing was routinely done by many Detectives on the days where they were
closing accumulated unworkable or ‘leads exhausted’ cases.

Detectives and Sergeants said they are required to have periodic review and case closures
and a 90-day review was mentioned by many. They all rely on the county attorney to
prosecute their cases but only mentioned contact on specific cases. Increasing contact and
conversations with prosecutors has been an ongoing recommendation by multiple authors
throughout the last 4 decades (Greenwood, 1979; More & Wegener, 2003; Prince, et al.
2021; Lum, et al. 2023).

Applying hard-earned heuristics, many Detectives relied on a “gut feeling” when reviewing
their cases. This intuition is not to be discounted as Hollywood mythology, but rather a
product of experience, both collective and individual. In many cases it is not the actual work
done that defines the journeyman Detective but knowing what, when and how to do that
work (Rossmo, 2016). This judgement also informs Detectives when they need to close
cases that are leads exhausted, and when to do so in consultation with their Sergeant and the
Prosecutor.

What is the process to conduct non-custodial interviews of suspects?

In reading numerous LMPD reports and in our casual conversations with Police Officers,
the conduct of non-custodial interviews came into question. The responses elicited from
our participants confirmed there were issues to address. Chiefly among these concerns was
the recitation of the Miranda Warning where it was clearly not required by law.

When, where and how to issue Miranda Warnings is as much an art as it is a legal
requirement. Hours of police training and casual conversations have discussed ‘tactics’
endlessly. Do you solemnly emphasize each phrase or do it matter-of-factly? Is your
demeanor sincere or dismissive? Do you treat it as a legal obligation or a pro forma
inconvenience that just needs to be gotten-through? Some have creatively used it as a prop
or foil to encourage suspects to speak.

However, the experienced Officer knows that one of the best ways to deal with the Miranda
Warnings is to hold and structure suspect interviews in a non-custodial setting. Eric Daigle
(2025), in his analysis of Maytubby (United States v. Maytubby, No. 23-7084 [10th Cir.
2025]) discusses how non-custodial interviews can be legally conducted without reciting
Miranda and added the statements are admissible if, among other things, the officers offer
only truthful, limited assurances about how cooperation might be viewed and never imply
control over charging or sentencing.

57
 Despite such legal support four of the participants explicitly said they would read the
Miranda warnings in all interviews regardless of when and where they were conducted (n=4).
Others issued the Miranda as a cautionary, prophylactic move (n=15), and any time when in
the station (n=5), while some issued no Miranda if not in physical custody (n=6). One
actually dodged the question by stating he doesn’t often interview suspects. The others took
a more proactive approach and one opined that with the BWC, “we go to the suspect.” For
those who engage in non-custodial interviews, one said you go to them and then, “It’s just a
conversation.” This applied equally well to contact by telephone (recorded) if possible, and
just get them talking. Yet again, others said they never try to contact a suspect by phone.

Of the Detectives who said they always used Miranda, several said they did so because of the
local courts. We wondered if jurisprudence in Jefferson County was somehow different than
what has been required by the Supreme Court. When asked to expand on this they related
that the local defense counsels, abetted by “liberal” Judges and juries, have successfully
argued that any conversation in the police station is coercive and some have even extended
that to interviews conducted in the suspects’ home or on the street. One continued, “If at
station, if we close the door, it is considered custodial and Miranda required.” And although
few others stated it as plainly, there was discussion with many about this ‘open door’ method
at various points in our conversations and your author actually witnessed a few in his visits
to the Divisions. Much of their argument was based on personal experience and it is easy to
see their point, but it is not what is required by law. Again, Daigle’s (2025) discussion is
instructive and further consideration and direction by LMPD Command is needed.

How does that differ from custodial interviews?

To further enhance our understanding of the profligate use of Miranda we asked how
custodial v. non-custodial interviews were defined. The standard response was simple, if the
suspect is free to leave at any time (n=15). They said to keep mentioning on the recording
that they are free to leave, that they are not under arrest – tactics successfully employed in
the Maytubby case and demonstrated in local cases too numerous to cite here.

Our takeaway was that a standard needs to be developed and applied across all Detectives.
Simply fearing the debating skills of defense counsel is not reason enough to abandon the
benefits of a non-custodial interview. While each case is an individual set of facts and
circumstances, additional guidance and expectations need to be promulgated and followed.

How your time is spent on your cases: (Databasing, Justifying Actions, Investigative
Activities)?
Asking the participants how their time was divided was ultimately an exercise in futility.
They did not track time on tasks so their answers here and the following questions were
nothing more than educated guesses. This was also impacted by the simple fact that all cases
contain similar but potentially widely different fact patterns. Each case is unique.

We observed that Divisional Detectives have two general categories of work, Investigating
and administrative record-keeping. We identified investigating as going to crime scenes,
reading reports, checking databases, viewing evidence and videos, interviewing victims,
witnesses and suspects and documenting findings in appropriate reports that can be used by

58
 prosecutors. Administrative tasks were those LMPD-required reports that track the case,
justify the activities of the Detectives, scheduled case reviews and contact letters to victims
even on cases where no investigation is possible or intended.

For those who offered a specific answer one said, “5 minutes for no evidence cases.” Which
is remarkable as the case closure administrative tasks surely take longer than that. Others
create “Lots of case notes justifies what we’re doing not solving cases.”

In this regard some said that “equal time was spent on administrative reports as actual
investigative findings.”

“A lot of time on the phone, researching data, scanning pawn shop lists, going through
material and sending letters.”

Time spent filling out case management reports or databasing?

Many Detectives felt this was their major task (n=18) and listed a variety of tasks including:
Clear out cases once a month,
Prepare for 90 day case reviews,
8 hours a month just doing case closure documentation,
10-12 hours a month, sometimes as much as 4 hours in a day,
25% of time spent sending out letters,
30% of time (n=2)
50 + percent (n=4)
70% or more: (n=3)
many reports seem redundant,
30-45 minutes a day for case tracking notes,
Notes can take a half a day for one case,
Couple hours a day doing admin “crap,”
A lot of time waiting for return phone calls.
“I spend hours writing initial letters to victims.”
While there was no consensus on the amount of time Detectives spend on administrative
details, it was clear that those non-investigative tasks took up a large amount of their time
and in many cases an alleged greater number of hours than actually investigating cases.

Time spent writing reports documenting investigative findings?

Only one went as high as 50 percent, and one said, “several hours each day.” Combining
any percentage below 50 percent or terms like ‘minority,’ the majority of participants noted
that actual investigative activities and report-writing was a smaller task and took a minority
of their time (n=20).

Percentage of time interviewing?

According to many of the Detectives, the amount of time actually conversing with victims,
witnesses and suspects varied a greatly and was case-specific (n=23). One Detective said
interviewing was a major part of the day and another said, “very little.” Most indicated it was
a fairly small amount of their time with responses of ‘1-2 hours a day’, ‘10 percent’, ‘20

59
 percent’, etc. (n=12). Only two Detectives said that they spent 30 to 40 percent of time
interviewing but added that was almost all on the telephone.

On telephone?
As has been observed by your author in many departments over a multi-decade career, the
telephone is often the primary tool of the investigator and so it is at LMPD. The majority of
Detectives said they did most of their interviewing over the phone (n=25). Others offered
they spoke with victims on both phone and in person but witnesses mainly by phone. Only
one Detective offered that calling suspects on the phone was a useful tactic for eliciting
incriminating statements from them. Think of the phone as the ultimate non-custodial
interview.

In-person?
Like physicians of days past who used to make house calls, the Detectives find a more
efficient use of their time by working out of the office. The face-to-face interview was not a
routine activity and then among some, only for major crimes like felony assaults (n=4).
While many will make initial contact by phone, a smaller group will then set up a face-to-face
interview either at the station or in the field. Some indicated that victims of violence and
elderly were given more preferential service. One Detective said, “I like to do more in
person than other detectives.”

By letter/email?
Every case requires the Detective to correspond with the victim. First contact was attempted
by letter or email (n=5). This communication was hampered by the numerous victims who
failed to pick up the phone or return calls. A good portion of Detectives said this was all
very case-specific (n=15).

Amount of time data mining, reviewing video, physical or documentary evidence?

While the type and amount of activity varied by crime and crime type, all of the Detectives
said this was a major activity with finding, obtaining and reviewing video being the most
frequent (n=27). This was conveyed to us through educated ‘guestimates’ and a few pithy
comments:
“Big time consumers (of videos).”
“Half of my time is reviewing video evidence.”
“Video review is VERY time consuming and depends on how the video was
sent/obtained.”
Each video system is different and it takes time to figure out how to download from
each system.
“We are always teaching people how to access their own video systems.”
“Fuckin’ tons.”
A lot of time requesting and obtaining videos in addition to watching them.
All types BWC, In-Vehicle, Surveillance, very time consuming (n=2).
Can’t review all BWC footage, just too time consuming.
“A shit ton.”
2-3 hours/day (n=3).
6 to 8 hours a week.
20% or more (n=2).

60
 30-40% of cases (n=7).
“A bit easier to do with Axon and Ring portals.”
Lots of video review.
Spend a lot of time reviewing BWC to fill in Patrol report omissions and
inadequacies (n=8)

Writing reports documenting or justifying your activity?

Les than half-way though the interviews we stopped asking this question as it was clear from
the responses that this was an activity nobody measured in terms of time spent on task. For
those who we did ask, this question elicited a variety of answers and, again, for the most
part, these were estimates as none of the Detective nor their Sergeants tracked the amount
of time in actual report writing. The majority did agree that this type of non-investigative
writing took of a great deal of their time (n=9 of a sub-sample). The differences noted in
their responses said more to the innate report-writing skills and efficiencies of the individual
Detective rather than a good measure of workload.

Do you or your supervisor use a case solution matrix, solvability matrix, solvability factors
document, procedure or process?
Solvability factors and matrixes have been suggested by numerous authors since the
Greenwood, et al (1977) seminal work. Rossmo (2021) discussed the methods Detectives
use to sort and solve cases and how these affect case outcomes.

In our study, the vast majority (n=34) said there was no existing solvability factor assessment
instrument, only what they did individually in their heads and informed by their years (or
lack thereof) of experience. One said, “Policy does not allow this,” but using multiple
keyword searches of the SOP’s we could not find any mention of case solvability factor
analysis. Some of the more senior participants mentioned that with the current case
management system, they no longer use such a system. Others, (n=3) opined, “This would
be nice to have for liability purposes.” Many noted that an unofficial solvability analysis is
done organically between the Sergeants and Detectives or the Closer screening the cases as
they arrive in the unit.

Do you have Case Reviews with a supervisor, if so, how often?

We were told that policy requires a review of all cases at 90 days or before a court function
and “a hard copy” review at five months. In addition to these mandated reviews Detectives
responded that they did indeed get additional case reviews with their supervisor (n=10) and
two mentioned this could be daily if it was a big or serious case. A larger group (n=17) said
these reviews were informal, as needed or dependent on the seriousness of the case. Only a
few stated they didn’t have case reviews at all (n=4). As a part of the supervisory function
the Sergeants are required to read and approve all “investigative letters,” (LMPD-speak for
investigative reports).

Are case reviews in compliance with relevant SOP’s

Many responded that reviews were in compliance with the 90-day review SOP (n=13) but a
surprising number (n=10) responded that they had no idea if reviews were made or if they
were in compliance with SOPs, and this was hampered by the current case volume, but ‘yes’

61
 on major cases. One participant confessed, “it is not done, physically impossible given the
sheer numbers of cases.”
The one activity required by policy that was routinely if not invariably completed were the
10-day contact letters sent to crime victims.

Do you work with or coordinate investigations with LMPD special investigative units?
Police departments easily fall prey to institutional balkanization, the development of
fiefdoms and the siloing of information. Lum, et al. (2023) observed that high performing
agencies have good relationships with other units and that share information regularly.
LMPD consists of eight Divisions any one of which has more officers than most of the
other law enforcement agencies in the Commonwealth. While they all serve a common
government, each is run by aligning priorities and police methods to more surgically meet
the needs of their constituents.

This compartmentalization extends into the Department in the interaction between

Divisional Detectives and their counterparts in investigative units with department-wide
jurisdiction. In response to this question the participants were almost evenly split on their
assessment of working with and communications with the specialty units. Ten responded
“yes” and nine “no.” Another six said “occasionally,” “it depends,” “rarely,” and one added,
“Not as much as I’d like.” One of the participants did note that there was more
communication with CID as they were usually the ones that would go out and make the
arrests on Divisional Detective cases.

Is there two-way communication between Division Det. & Major Crime Inv. Units?
With years of experience in policing one sees the siloing of information. Deserved or not
but certainly felt by local police -- the FBI and various State Police agencies are famous for a
one-way flow of information. Lum [Link]. (2023) Found high performing agencies tended to
have more routine, formalized, varied, and numerous information-sharing relationships and
approaches with other units (patrol, investigations, support services). We wanted to see if
that applied to LMPD specialty units interfacing (or not) with the Divisional Detectives.

Very few of our participants said the communication and information-sharing was a two-way
street (n=5) with the modal response that it was a one-way street (n=13). Others used
phrases such as, ‘it depends,’ ‘sometimes,’ ‘not as much as should be,’ and ‘not always
reciprocal’ (n=10). Some of the detectives said it often depended on personal connections
with members in the other unit so personal connections were seen as valuable in
communicating. Knowing people in those units helps (n=7).

While we understand the need for operational and information security in many cases,
improving information-sharing should be examined by LMPD especially in cases where
officer safety or potential harm to the community might be an issue.

Case Closure criteria/process:

Case closures are one of the metrics routinely reviewed by managers and researchers alike. In
fact, as previously presented here, closer rates featured large in the Rand report and
subsequent examinations of police effectiveness. Spohn and Tellis (2010) noted there were

62
 inconsistencies between agencies in how cases are listed as “cleared,” and others noted there
are different definitions of what might constitute a case “clearance” or “resolution”
(Baughman, 2020).

The distinct majority of participants (n=33) said case closure was a decision made by the
investigating Detective. As one said, “100% my call.” This was modified by some who said
it was ‘sometimes’ in consultation with their Sergeant (n=11) and ‘sometimes’ also in
consultation with the prosecutor (n=8). The reality is that all case closures should be
monitored by the Sergeants and no case would then be arbitrarily and unilaterally closed by
one Detective. For those who need to end an investigation on a major or perhaps
controversial case, they obtain a ‘no prosecution’ letter from the prosecutors. SOP 3.5.8
addresses this in part.

One of the Sergeants provided an incomplete list of case status tags or criteria where ‘Leads
Exhausted’ essentially closed the case; ‘Open Inactive’ was usually applied in a case with
evidence processing pending at the lab and ‘No Evidence’ cases were routinely closed. One
participant said there were four case status categories: “Open-Active, Open-Inactive,
Investigation Completed, and Administratively Closed.” This of course omits the previously
mentioned ‘Leads-Exhausted’ status.

We conducted a keyword search of LMPD SOP’s and could not find any guidance on how
cases status is derived and how each criterion is defined and applied. One command officer
did find that the current case management software offers a list of case status labels but
noted many of them were labels that LMPD does not apply to cases. (This is due to the
software not being proprietary and not LMPD exclusive.) The ramification is that the case
status category used by an individual Detective is guided by past practices and under no
written guidance.

Just as Spohn and Tellis (2010) noted there were inconsistencies between agencies in how
cases are listed as “cleared,” (case status tags) and others noted there are different definitions
of what might constitute a case “clearance” or “resolution” (Baughman, 2020), there should
be internal consistency at LMPD through clearly articulated policy.

Does the Supervisor alone close assigned cases?

Hollywood movies and police procedurals are replete with the theme of some callous and
questionably motivated superior arbitrarily shutting down an ongoing criminal investigation.
It makes for good cinema, and there may be some basis in fact, but we wanted to see if there
was any substance to it in our work here. The unanimous response (n=36) was that the
Sergeants do not make the singular decision to close down a case. In point of fact, several
(n=5) Detectives said they are sometimes pushed by the Sergeant to keep a case open, and
one Sergeant said he might, “Issue the occasional strong guidance” to keep a case open or
close a case. One Sergeant did say that at 120 days he would close ‘Leads Exhausted’ cases,
but this was always with the knowledge and agreement of the case Detective.

One of the Sergeants said, “I spend up to 4 hours a day dealing with complaints that I will
not assign to Detectives, and these are mostly civil and non-criminal matters.” This, once

63
 again, points to an LMPD convention of taking any and all reports requested by citizens
clogging an already overburdened system. Further complicating the matter are complaints
from known ‘frequent fliers’ who are dealing more with mental health issues than criminal
victimization. Dealing with these cases, while they could be easily dismissed, requires the
Sergeants to take a more humane approach and explore alternative city or state services to
meet the needs of these complainants. These cases are usually not routed to Detectives as
they may require a great deal of time to vet and properly resolve. While it is admirable that
the Sergeants take on this task it is a condemnation of our mental health system if the police
are at the forefront of serving this population -- a matter far beyond the scope of this study.

Is the system sustainable, working?

Regardless of the volume of cases and the relentless addition of new cases every day the
consensus was that the system is sustainable and working (n=18) and only a few responded
with a hard ‘no’ (n=4). One detective said, “It’s a numbers game. You must close 3.5 cases
per day to keep up.”

Many of the participants took a more pessimistic view offering the following unfiltered
commentary:
“Working but we obviously need more Detectives.”
“Depends on how you define, ‘working.’”
“Yes, but we are struggling.”
“Yes, but not for long.”
“Has its flaws.”
“Probably not working.”
“It is not efficient.”
“’The software’ does not help.”
“Stuff will slip through the cracks due to case load.”
“As best as can be but not really (working)… too few people.”
“The detectives need to close 3 to 4 cases per day just to keep above water.”
“Not sustainable but presently working.”

General comments on working investigations and other random thoughts.

The following statements were gleaned from side comments made by the participants while
we were conversing about investigations. These were not in answer to any specific question,
but we feel they present a great insight into the thoughts of the Detectives, the issues that
matter to them and worthy of presenting to our audience:

While beyond the scope of this study several Detectives felt that County Prosecution
does not aggressively pursue justice. With multiple variations this is a mantra voiced by
literally thousands of police officers nation-wide. The OIG recommends this should be
the focus of an independent study by the prosecutors and judiciary.
Cannot obtain a subpoena for evidence in misdemeanor cases. Must go get a search
warrant from Judge.
Liberal Judges are bad for justice.
Juvenile justice system is completely broken – no consequences.
Recruiting new cops is essential.

64
 Go recruit at military out-processing centers.
Detectives must be prepared for interviews with all players. They need to know how to
talk to people from all walks of life and be able to shift gears to effectively communicate
with them.
They offered the advice that making Miranda a matter-of-fact phrase can mitigate its
effect.
Misdemeanor cases still require a phone call or letter, and this practice should end. (See
Greenwood, 1979).
Paperless offices are a nice idea but, “You can’t be a detective without a case file in
hand.”
Where work is done: “Police work is out there, you can’t get it done in the office.”
Reverse the trend of Officers backing away from proactive policing.
Need to have an honest, software-generated, boilerplate letter to close no-lead cases. The
current letter process is immensely time-consuming.
Need to have two Sergeants to run investigations.
Not about how to close cases out, but when.
Case delivery to detective can take weeks and this often loses video evidence as DVRs
overwrite.
Look into “Captis ODSI” facial recognition software.
People can go down to courthouse and swear out their own misdemeanor warrants.
Currently a lateral transfer, selection as a Detective should include a monetary raise or
promotion.
“I can’t remember the last time I was in a trial.”
LMPD needs to get commercially available people tracking software for phone numbers
and addresses, etc.
Get a DSLR (Mirrorless) camera with interchangeable lenses for photos.
Get fingerprint kits, both latent and “rolled.”
Vehicles are crap, high mileage, in poor condition and time wasted in inspections (n=17).

Motivation:
What keeps you coming to work each day?
Hundreds, if not thousands of books have been written about developing and keeping a
motivated workforce. There are numerous competing theories on motivation and the science
continues to embrace new theories to explain how people are motivated at work
(Karageorghis, 2025; Komm et al., 2024; Carrell, et al., 1997). The most visible contemporary
examples are players in team sports at the intercollegiate and professional levels.

Police Officers have a job that can provide motivators as supplied by the organization in the
form of structure, rules, pay, perks and appreciations. These, however pale by the intrinsic
motivations brought to the job by the Officers themselves and what value they find in their
work. The participants in this study offered an extensive list of motivations and while some
voiced similar motivations, there were many who expressed other motivating factors. The
surprise for us was that none were singularly motivated, and none went negative and
articulated demotivating factors imposed by the job or the department. See Kohn (1993) for
65
 an excellent discussion of how organizations can demotivate workers through well-meaning
but poorly implemented reward systems.

The most mentioned motivator was various forms of ‘helping people/victims’ (n= 17) with
several adding, “It is my calling.” While this motivator requires external actors, it is the
Detectives who internalize that relationship and use it to fuel their job satisfaction and
motivation to stay in the job.
A phrase heard often in police circles when a plan works out or a major case is made was
offered here, “I can’t believe they pay me to do this job.” Similarly, others expressed
enjoyment or love of the job (n=7).

The second most mentioned motivator was being a part of a team, enjoying the group and
camaraderie (n= 13). While each Detective has their own case load, teamwork is essential
when doing field work and in working complex and serious cases. Having a capable and
pleasant workgroup was highly valued.

As one might expect some were pragmatic (and perhaps bluntly honest) who said it was
simply for a paycheck (n=7), “Gotta put food on the table.” This may illustrate that not all
find policing “a calling” but there are legitimately those more motivated with providing for
their families through the financial compensation they obtain from the job. The caution for
the employer is the long-known fact that money is not a long-term motivator (Kohn, 1993;
Deming, 1986).

Many of the Detectives felt their work was meaningful and challenging and that kept them
focused. They mentioned the following, some noted as direct “quotations:”
“Big nerdy problem solver, Detective work is a jigsaw puzzle.”
“The opportunity to dive deep in a case.”
Love the thrill of the hunt.
Solving the crime (n=12)
The cases that are interesting.
I like what I am doing, I enjoy the job (n=4)
Be a positive change agent.
I enjoy what I do.
“Frustrating but love it.”
“I enjoy what I do but I am overwhelmed.”
“I am very motivated on any crimes against children.”
“The ‘pros’ outweigh the ‘cons.’”
“It’s in my blood.”
Like knowing what’s new.
The hourly work schedule and the flexibility (n=5)
(Sergeant speaking) Enjoy passing on work knowledge. Prepare Det to move on.

What keeps you focused?

Victims (n=8)
Like to see resolution in court, positive outcomes, justice (n=5)

66
 The sheer volume of cases, just keep at it to keep up with the case flow “No choice
but to stay focused.” (n=8)
“Just knowing I am trusted to do the job.” (n=2)
I love who I work with, knowing I’m part of a good team (n=4)
(Sgt. responding) Knowing they (Detectives) are overwhelmed & making it easier.
Being a dedicated professional (personal drive): (n=2)
Every day is different (n=3)
Just working the case, satisfaction in cleared by arrest and exciting to close a case by
arrest. (n=8)
Ability to organize my day (n=3)
“My job, don’t want to go back to Patrol.”
Each case is a puzzle (n=3)
Doing the small parts that I enjoy.
I like successful operations.
My personal work ethic (n=2)
Know what needs to be done.

Are you here by choice or is this required by circumstances?

In some organizations, choice in assignment is not provided. In other situations, choice is
informed by personal circumstances and constraints. For the participants in this study,
nearly all (n=33) said there were there by choice. Of those who responded otherwise this
was necessitated by personal circumstances and they were loath to change that in any way.
While not feeling forced, they did admit that this might affect their mobility within the
department. This limitation was previously observed in a local study and how this affected
officers eligible for promotion (Whetstone, 2001).

What role do supervisors play in your motivation?

When answering this question, the participants conflated supervisory role in motivating with
the way their respective supervisors interact with them. In tabulating the responses, we
combined these semi-tangential responses with those on point as they essentially said the
same thing, ‘good supervisors are good motivators.’

The majority of the Detectives said their Sergeants played a big role -- as both good (and
bad) examples and motivators, ‘they (Sergeants) support the mission and challenge,’ ‘best
I’ve ever had,’ ‘ready to help,’ ‘involved’ (n=24). One opined, “If supervisor is respected, the
Detectives do more work.”

A few participants responded that their supervisor contributes a fair amount to their
motivation if they are a ‘good supervisor’ (n=2).
“They get what I am doing.”
“Have freedom with support.”

The last group to mention were those who responded with phrases such as, ‘Not much,’
‘None’ and ‘you must be self-motivated’ (n= 7) with one adding, “I don’t rely on anyone for
my motivation.”

67
What changes would you make to improve Detective work at LMPD?
In the law enforcement community, it is considered a God-given right for officers, among
themselves, to express unfiltered opinions on their job, their supervisors, the department,
the law and their general lot in life. However, they are fully aware that there is no corollary
that anyone needs to listen to them. A major premise of this study and the way it was
constructed was to listen to them and at the very least give them a collective voice in a way
that gives them a modicum of confidentiality.

To the non-police citizens, sworn officers can appear aloof, restrained and if actually talking,
laconic. We conducted 36 individual interviews and had in each one to break the ice,
establish a common goal, secure trust through assured confidentiality, and demonstrate a
baseline of understanding and appreciation of the Detectives’ work. This question was
asked over half-way through the interview and by that time the participants were usually
conversing rather freely having, in most cases, gotten past their initial distrust and
trepidation. The answers and comments formed an extensive list that contains a few
immediately actionable items and others that will take further time, analysis and
contemplation.

Chiefly among those ‘pie-in-the-sky’ suggestions was assigning more Detectives (n=22) with
some putting it in terms of lowering caseloads or having more time to work cases. As one
Detective put it, “More time to plow into cases.” Several (n=4) suggested that an additional
Detective Sergeant would be beneficial. Throughout the interviews it became obvious that
all the participants were offended by the reality that many of their cases will never get justice
for the victims simply because they could not get to them. While they are resigned to that
reality, it is a constant source of frustration.

Another suggestion along the line of personnel shortages was to civilianize some of the
reporting tasks, and to help work the misdemeanor cases. As previously discussed, a
properly trained civilian could do this job under the supervision of the Detective Seargeant.

Training (n=9) was another item on the Detectives’ ‘wish list,’ and started with suggesting
there be prerequisites for applying for a Detective position and citing demonstrated good
report writing, a TDY assignment with Detectives and successful completion of the LMPD
Basic Investigations course. They noted the Academy does not offer remedial writing skills
but should.

Additional suggestions (included in ‘training’ tally above) were, “Better up-front training
(n=3), “Better training and more of it,” “Provide schools that improve skills,” “More in-
depth investigative training courses.” As noted elsewhere, the Detectives wanted more and
better training. It might benefit the Academy to survey the Divisional Detectives, do needs
and gap analyses to seek specific training needs they might be able to address.

Along the line of personnel and resource management, they provided the following
thoughts:
Command staff is not planning ahead.
“How are the number of detective slots determined for each division?”
“Is there equitable distribution of manpower?”

68
 Better ‘software’ (n=21)
Time involved in BWC audits, 2 videos per Detective every month, could be time better
spent.
“Better division of work with specialty units.” (More on this later)
“More resources and tools (n=3)
Technology needs improvement (example given was ABC Field Agents’ use of I-pads)
(n=2).
“Improve on-call rotation to get a better work life balance.”
“Better compensation for on-call days.”
“Make sure you have great CO’s.”
“Lift up Detectives.” (Clarified to mean, make Detective a promotion.)
Centralize Detectives as a Division.
Make realistic policy.
Extract SOP’s that pertain to Detective work into a manual (with added best practices
and technique materials).
Provide Prosecutor and Judge approved computerized search warrant templates.
Several of the more pessimistic Detectives said the court system is the problem (n=4)
with one stating, “Louisville has a crime problem because prosecutors and courts are not
doing their jobs.”
Better intel sharing (n=5)
Hold information sharing meetings with Detective Sergeants, both in the units and
across the Divisions (A Worker-Bee level Comp-Stat type activity).
Make a LMPD-wide Retail Theft unit.
Make a LMPD-wide Auto Theft unit.

Satisfaction and Perceived Value Questions

We used Likert-Type questions to test the level of satisfaction of each participant. Having
pilot-tested the instrument with the Sergeants, we added two questions to the protocol used
for the Detectives. The participants were provided a ‘cheat sheet’ that listed the required
responses as their level of agreement with a set of statements we read to them. A few tried
to split with decimals but we made it a forced choice to a specific level of agreement.

For the satisfaction questions we read them the instructions, “Rate your agreement with the
following statements with 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Undecided, 4 = Agree
and 5 = Strongly Agree. We then asked the following series of questions and noted their
numbered response or level of agreement or disagreement with the statement:

I am satisfied with my current position.

My opinion is valued by my peers.
My opinion is valued by Command.
I am satisfied with my direct supervisor.
I am satisfied with Command support.
I am satisfied with SOPs, manuals.

69
Employee Satisfaction Survey Results: Comparison Between Sergeants and Detectives

Sgt Mean Det Mean Δ (Det - Sgt)

Survey Item

I am satisfied with my current position. 4.29 4.46 +0.17

My opinion is valued by my peers. 4.00 4.57 +0.57

My opinion is valued by Command. 3.71 3.86 +0.15

I am satisfied with my direct supervisor. 4.57 4.86 +0.29

I am satisfied with Command support. 3.86 3.82 -0.04

Combined average Satisfaction Scores. 4.09 4.31 -0.22

Average satisfaction as percentage. 82% 86%

LMPD letter grade for satisfaction. B- B

Key Observations:
Detectives report higher satisfaction in peer recognition (+0.57) and supervisor relations (+0.29).

Near-parity in "Command support" scores suggests systemic trends.

Detectives and Sergeants didn’t exhibit much difference overall in their level of satisfaction with the
Detectives being slightly more satisfied (Δ= -0.22)

Retention:

What are your career goals?

As predicted and previously discussed, promotion was the most frequent career goal (n=14)
and the most likely to siphon-off journeyman level investigative talent. Only two mentioned
wanting to promote to Lieutenant, one adding that being a Sergeant was a thankless job at

70
 LMPD. Only two outright dismissed promotion as a goal while others (n=7) indicated that
retirement was the goal, and on the horizon for some of them.

While not dismissing promotion as an eventual goal, others wanted to move into specialty
investigative units like Homicide, Narcotics, Robbery, Fugitive, Crimes against Children,
SWAT, Dignitary Protection, and unspecified Major Case units (n=12). Others were content
to remain in place and continue to do the work they were good at and enjoyed (n=4).

Of the Detective Sergeants promotion to Lieutenant was on the radar for over half (n=5)
and to their credit two said it was wanted but were in “no hurry” to leave their current
position.

Where do you see yourself in 5 years?

To further examine the aspirations of the participants we asked the follow-up question of
where they saw themselves in 5 years. We found the results compatible with the previous
question and just provided a bit more detail in the form of loose timelines.

Once again revealing the dedication of the participants is the majority desire to stay in
LMPD but most visualized themselves in a different role. Only a few (n=6) saw themselves
remaining a Detective, “Right here at the same desk.” A few more said they did not know
where they would be (n=4) while five said they would be retired.

Of those remaining at LMPD a fair number said they saw themselves with Sergeant’s stripes
(n=8) and more ambitious Detectives phrased it, “At least Sergeant” (n=3). The majority of
the Sergeants visualized gold bars and a promotion to Lieutenant (n=5). Those participants
not mentioning promotion saw themselves in other investigative units and specifically
mentioned CID, Major Case, Robbery and Homicide squads (n=5).

What role do your supervisors play in your career goals?

The participants were knowledgeable consumers of good leadership. We initially expected
only responses like ‘not much’ or a ‘great deal’ but pleasingly we were given more robust
answers articulating supervisory traits and behaviors.

Almost half of the Detectives said that supervisors play a ‘historically’ big role in shaping
their career goals (n=10). There were a few who had negative commentary with one saying,
“There is potential to influence, but there is a lack of supervisory leadership.” This critic was
joined by others who simply said their supervisors played no role in their career goals (n=6).
As a counterpoint another said they, “Lean on them for good advice.” A couple referred to
supervisors as ‘teachers/trainers’ (n=2) and were joined by a few others who agreed that “A
good Sgt. is a good mentor” (n=3) and “supportive” (n=5).

One participant simply stated that supervisors need more involvement in career
development. This was joined by a few of the Sergeants who felt a major part of their job
was as leader and supporter of Detectives. One of the Detectives used the phrase, “My
Sergeant is a Servant Leader.” To this end the Sergeants embraced the rolls of being
supportive, training and mentoring the next generation of leaders (n=6). In a throwback to

71
 previous work of this author (Whetstone, 1994), one of the participants opined, “We need a
360-degree evaluation process.”

Do you want to stay in policing?

This was a remarkably dedicated group of professionals who wanted to stay on the job. All
but one participant said they wanted to stay in policing (n=35) with the outlier saying that
retirement was going to sever their ties to the job. Nobody provided a hard “no” to the
question.

Would you support a Detective/Investigations career path?

Large police agencies have more options on how they deploy resources. Among the choices
is organizing all investigative units under one centralized command and offering the
personnel a career and promotional path within that structure. The question in our mind was
two-fold:
“Is there any interest in such a career path change?” and
“Is LMPD large enough to form and benefit from a ‘Detective Bureau’?”

We can authoritatively answer the first question but only offer a conservative “maybe” to the
latter. The overwhelming majority of the participants embraced the idea of a career path for
investigators (n=32) with only two saying a hard ‘no.’ One of the ‘no’ participants offered, “I
disagree, a lot of good experience as a sergeant is gained in patrol. They need to be a patrol
Sgt. for at least a year.” Good point. A similarly-minded participant offered that the career
path will limit candidates, “Each officer should have the ability to select a career path and
train to attain.” One offered that it is ‘sort-of like that now.’ Another said yes, but it could
be easily abused. And lastly one said that they need an officer mentorship program, beyond a
peer-support program.

Our takeaway was that the Participants saw merit in some kind of career progression as a
Detective. While such a program could have many shapes, the idea of starting in a general
investigative role and then progressing to more serious crimes and specializations
accompanied by a potential promotional path within investigations. Among the features
desired by the participants was to make Detective a promotion instead of a lateral move
from uniformed patrol.

Have you searched for jobs elsewhere?

Contrary to what one might see in a Hollywood production, police officers (usually) cannot
go from one department to another and retain their rank and seniority. Each department is
an entity entirely of itself. However, in policing there are destination departments and
‘whistle-stops.’ The ‘whistle-stops’ are where officers obtain their state-wide policing
credentials, put in time, gain experience, and then move on to bigger or better police
departments. Officers contemplating such a switch must consider the fact that they will enter
the new department as an entry-level employee with zero seniority. Their reason can be
purely monetary, but most will also include in their calculus the eventual specialization
options within the bigger departments. LMPD appears to be a destination department.

72
 Our participants gave us a majority response indicating that they had not looked for jobs
elsewhere (n=27) with only eight saying they have indeed looked at other opportunities
outside of LMPD.

Have you applied for jobs elsewhere?

Further examining any real desire to leave LMPD we asked if any of the job seekers had
actually applied for other work and only three had “Yes” (n=3), “No” (n=32). These results
should be encouraging to LMPD Command but also a call to keep improving working
conditions, employee support and career development programs.

Policing is a high stress occupation no matter where one might work within the department.
Phenomena observed in civilian businesses can easily be amplified by the exigencies and
pressures of police work. There is the potential for officers to remain simply due to “job
Lock” as noted by Fischer, et al, (2016) where the cost of leaving a job is just too high. This
‘job lock has been a phenomenon studied by organizational behavior scholars under the
guise of ‘cost of leaving’ and supported by additional prescriptive work by Sillaman (2023).
For those who are stuck there is a personal and an institutional cost in burn-out (Komm et
al, 2025; Crumley, 2025), quiet-quitting (Sillaman, 2023; Corbin & Flenady, 2024; Mahand &
Caldwell, 2023) and even more difficult to observe, quiet-cracking (Crumley, 2025; Starner,
2025). All of these work to impact employee satisfaction and organizational effectiveness.

Communications/Direction of Activities:
How many people do you report to?
This item was a reality test of LMPD SOP 1.12.4 “Unity of Command (KACP 4.3)” which
requires each member to report to one supervisor. While some participants reported
‘informally’ to all Commanding Officers most (n=30) reported directly to their immediate
supervisor. The sergeants were equally split and responded that they reported to either or
both their Lieutenant and the Division Major. Only one participant complained that the
Division Major would occasionally directly impose additional duties on Detectives to staff
some ‘pet project.’ And this was explained that these were not under exigent circumstances
but rather a ‘planned activity.’

Is communication two-way or one-way?

Keeping with observed behaviors the open-door policy of all Sergeants also included
effective two-way conversations and flow of information (n=36). In this regard they were a
collegial group.

How are you directed in your work?

Police Officers after probation almost exclusively work independent of direct supervision.
As such they need to be self-starters and able to engage in meaningful self-directed activities.
The participants responded to this as they considered how they were directed by their
supervisor who assigns cases, approves reports and generally keeps track of the unit.
Everyone (n=38) said this was usually in person and also via email (n=25). When getting

73
 new cases, there is just the delivery of the case and no instructional memo is needed or
expected.

Who directs your work?

Our follow-up question reinforced the independent nature of our participants the majority
of who stated they were self-directed (n=28). They also confounded our results by providing
multiple responses by saying they were also directed by their Sergeant (n=14), Lieutenant
(n=4) and their Major (n=4). After asking a few clarifying questions we found that Division
Majors are often the directors and the Lieutenants seemed to be out of the command loop.

Staffing:
For the staffing questions we read the participants these instructions: “Rate your agreement
with the following statements with 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Undecided, 4 =
Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree. We then asked the following series of questions and noted
their numbered response or level of agreement or disagreement with the statements:
Command anticipates staffing needs and plans ahead.
Detective staffing in this Division is adequate.
Selection criteria for Detectives is adequate.
New Detectives are adequately trained.
I am satisfied with the hours I am expected to work.
I get too much mandatory overtime.

74
Staffing & Work Conditions Survey Results: Comparison Between Sergeants and Detectives

Det. Δ (Det -
Survey Item Sgt. Mean
Mean Sgt)

Command anticipates staffing needs and plans

3.14 3.14 0.00
ahead.

Detective staffing in this Division is adequate. 2.29 2.29 0.00

Selection criteria for Detectives is adequate. – 3.79 –

New Detectives are adequately trained. – 2.82 –

I am satisfied with the hours I am expected to

4.43 4.64 +0.21
work.

Combined average Working Conditions Scores. 3.29 3.34 -0.05

Average Working Conditions Scores as

66% 67%
percentage.

LMPD letter grade for Working Conditions. D D+

Key Observations:
Staffing Concerns: Both groups agree that detective staffing is inadequate (lowest scores:
2.29).
Work Hours: Detectives report slightly higher satisfaction with expected hours (4.64).
Similarity: Almost no difference between Detectives and Sergeants on their assessment of
working conditions.
Low Letter Grade: This was largely driven by low scores related to staffing.

75
Notes:
 "–" denotes missing data for Sergeants on selection/training items. Sergeants were the pilot
study, and the Training and Selection items were added for the Detective interviews.
 Scores ≤2.5 highlight critical areas needing attention.

Supervising:
Do you work the same shift/hours as your supervisor?
Policing is a 24/7 business. It is not uncommon for specialized units to work shifts and in
so doing may work different hours than their direct supervisor and upper command
personnel. We believe that first line supervisors must work the same shift as their immediate
reports (Wexler, 2018; IACP, 2024; Garner, 2024). Divisional Detectives and Sergeants do
this with some occasional variations for special details, surveillance, and stakeouts. The
participants said that they worked the same shift as their supervisor (n=16) while others
reported that their shifts overlapped with their supervisor (n=19).

How often do you see your direct supervisor?

Sergeants were routinely accessible to the Detectives (n=28) who saw their direct supervisor
daily with the odd leave, sick or training day otherwise. Open door policies and informal
communication channels were the rule throughout the Divisions. Sergeants saw their
Lieutenants more or less daily but had less concern for this daily contact than they were with
staying accessible to their Detectives.

Do you have regularly scheduled meetings with your supervisor?

The participants presented a mixed result regarding meetings. A little less than a third of the
Detectives and Sergeants said ‘yes’ to having regular meetings with their supervisor (n=11)
with once a week and monthly meetings being mentioned as a schedule. More participants,
however said ‘no’ to regularly scheduled meetings (n=10) and a slightly larger group said
meetings were ad hoc or varied (n=12). Some of the participants said meetings were not
really necessary as all they had to do was walk in and talk with the Sergeant (or Lieutenant or
Major) as needed.

Do you get regular feedback from your supervisor?

Informal communication reigns in the Detective squads and it is through this conduit that
feedback arrives. The majority of Detectives said they get regular feedback from their
Sergeants (n=25), nobody responded ‘no.’ Three, however, said feedback was provided
‘sometimes’ or only when asked for (n=3). The Sergeants were not unanimous in getting
regular feedback from their supervisors with the majority (n=6) saying they did and the
remainder saying they did not get regular feedback from their supervisor (n=2).

Does your supervisor direct your activities on investigations?

It was clear that Sergeants assign cases but in general do not dictate how a case should be
pursued. The vast majority (n=21) said they are self-directed but can get direction from the
76
 Sergeant if needed/asked (n=4) and others said it would be in the form of an occasional
discussion (n=3).
Yet others said the Sergeants will offer input, help brainstorm cases. One of the younger
Detectives admitted the department is young and Officers need to go to the Sergeant more
often. The Sergeants (n=5) responded as a general rule they do not direct and one said only
occasionally.

Do you have regular case reviews/direction from your supervisor?

There was no consensus in the responses to this question where a third said they did indeed
have case reviews (n=10) and a third said they did not (n=10). A few more hedged and said
‘Sometimes’ (n=6),
‘Not really (n=2) and only on ‘big or serious cases’ (n=2). One of the Sergeants mentioned a
‘five-month review,’ two said they did have regularly scheduled case reviews and three said
they did not.

How often do you have these reviews?

Our last exploratory probe into supervisory input and control of Detectives and their work,
specifically asked how often the Sergeants held formal reviews. All eight Sergeants said these
reviews were ad hoc or when necessary (n=8) but then also added ‘weekly’ (n=4) and
monthly (n=2). Our takeaway was that while the bulk of reviews were informal and
unscheduled, the Sergeants were doing more than handing out cases, they remained aware
and engaged when and where needed to assist their Detectives.

Evaluating:
Employee performance appraisals are a cornerstone of organizational human resource management,
yet their methodologies and effectiveness continue to evolve. Traditional appraisal methods, often
reliant on supervisory ratings and case clearance rates, have been criticized for subjectivity and
limited scope (Engel & Worden, 2021). The Los Angeles Police Department uses a competency-
based assessment system for Detectives (LAPD, 2025). This modern appraisal system adopts a
competency framework tailored to detective work emphasizing judgment and decision making.
LAPD currently uses the following competencies in evaluating candidates for Detective:
 Attention to Detail
 Objectivity
 Job Knowledge
 Fact Finding
 Interpersonal Skills
 Teamwork
 Credibility
 Written Communications

Such competency-based assessments use structured behavioral indicators and clearly articulated
scoring rubrics to reduce bias compared to traditional rating scales (Fyfe & Wilson, 2022; LAPD,
2025).

77
Research indicates that traditional annual reviews are increasingly being replaced by continuous,
development-focused approaches. Traditional systems, often characterized by annual reviews and
rigid rating scales, have faced criticism for their lack of flexibility, subjectivity, and demotivating
effects (Cappelli & Tavis, 2016). The Louisville Metro Government has embraced what appears to
be a continuous performance management (CPM) philosophy and operationalized it in their one-
size-fits-all appraisal instrument. Research by Adler et al. (2016) found that frequent feedback loops
embodied in a continuous performance management program, improve employee performance and
engagement by providing timely, actionable insights.

A meta-analysis by Smither et al. (2016) demonstrated that continuous feedback systems correlate
more strongly with performance improvements than traditional ratings-based systems. These CPM
systems often incorporate:
 Regular one-on-one meetings between managers and employees (Rock & Jones, 2015).
 Real-time feedback tools enabled by digital platforms (Pulakos et al., 2019).
 Goal-setting frameworks like Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) to maintain alignment
(Doerr, 2018).

In addition to the CPM model LMPD is encouraged to explore multisource feedback programs, or
360-degree reviews. These have gained traction as a means of reducing rater bias and providing
holistic performance insights (Bracken et al., 2016). This approach gathers input from peers,
subordinates, supervisors, and even clients, offering a well-rounded assessment. Empirical studies
suggest that 360-degree feedback enhances self-awareness and leadership development (Whetstone,
1994; Nowack & Mashihi, 2012). However, challenges remain, including inter-rater reliability
(inconsistency) and the potential for feedback overload (Gregory et al., 2021). While they are
constrained by overarching LMG policy, LMPD should explore integrating innovative views,
technology, and employee-centric approaches, adopting hybrid models that combine continuous
feedback with periodic formal reviews (Pulakos et al., 2019) and focusing on development rather
than solely evaluative outcomes (Cappelli & Tavis, 2016).

How is your performance on individual cases assessed?

According to many of the participants, assessments of performance on individual cases was
not done (n=11) and others (n=6) didn’t know. One said, “The Sergeant sees paperwork but
there’s no critique.” The responses indicated a continuance of the informal way of
communicating with comments of:
Case-specific, ad hoc, informal, verbal (n=6)
“The Sergeant keeps on top of cases and trends.”
“Mostly about case closures.”
“Not generally but good cases get kudos.”
“You hear about bad stuff but not the good.”

The Sergeants were concerned with cases being, as a whole, completed to the extent
possible. One offered that this may not be answerable as everything is very case-specific.
Others said they just make a note that the case is complete, and all file reviews and work has
been done. The Sergeants all agreed that metrics are available from ‘software’ but only with
‘A LOT’ of effort.

78
Do you receive an annual performance appraisal?
All participants receive an annual performance appraisal from their immediate supervisor. It
is not tailored to their work as a Detective but rather is the generic city-wide appraisal form.
While ‘evaluation’ time might be stressful for some, it is an opportunity to formally
demonstrate support for and appreciation of the work done by the employee and support
their aspirational goals. Sadly, the way it is offered minimizes the impact on the employee be
it either negative or positive.

What are your annual performance measures?

When asked what performance measures were evaluated the majority responded, “I don’t
know (n=21). Several responded with guesses, “Daily performance, Attitude, work
product.?” “What are my goals?” One generously responded, “Seems like a chore for
them.” One did say the evaluation rated their “work ethic, goals and appearance.”

Others said it was a meaningless/useless process (n=3). One participant was entirely
negative about the form used and the process being a waste of time, “The Metro eval is a
joke. Not used for promotional purposes.” As currently constructed and delivered, it is good
that it is not so used.

This item revealed the individual and institutional disinterest in conducting a meaningful and
helpful performance appraisal program. However, for this study it proved a springboard for
a deeper discussion of what might be good measures of Detective performance and are
discussed after the following two questions.

Data-Driven Performance Metrics

Many agencies employ quantitative metrics such as:
Case resolution rates (adjusted for complexity)
Arrest Rates
Evidence integrity compliance
Timeliness of investigative milestones
Community and victim satisfaction scores (Smither, et al., 2020)

Although currently problematic due to ‘the software’ being difficult to access, ‘Big Data’ analytics
further enable real-time performance tracking, identifying training needs proactively (Ratcliffe,
2023). However, a cautionary note here, data-driven investigative units have the potential for
engaging in overly aggressive police tactics in pursuit of ‘stats’ (Sains, 2025). Such systems
incentivize police officers to prioritize quantity of arrests or case closures over quality police work.

Rather than focusing on complex investigations or building relationships with the community to
address root causes of crime, officers may feel pressured to make arrests for minor offenses or
engage in unnecessary stops and detentions simply to meet departmental quotas or performance
targets. This can lead to increased arrests for minor infractions, potentially impacting vulnerable
populations and creating a cycle of criminal justice involvement for individuals who might be better
served through alternative interventions.

79
While much of the foregoing is aimed at street-level policing, e.g., patrol and impact units,
Detectives can bolster their own stats by simply closing as many cases as possible regardless of any
solvability factors – a reason why honesty and integrity are valued by our participants. While it is
necessary to track police effectiveness as a department, metrics are difficult to apply fairly across
Detectives even within a single Division. One of the Sergeants posed the following questions that
should be explored and if discoverable, applied to the metrics for the unit (not individual
Detectives).
What are case closures on substantive crimes?
Are serious cases being solved?
Prosecution rates, is it justified?

Do you or your supervisor keep track of your personal arrest stats?

Metrics are not a priority in the managing of Divisional investigations, however half of the
respondents said arrests were tracked (n=20), two said they did not know (n=2) and others
responded with a hard ‘no’ to arrests being tracked (n=8). Some of the Detectives said they
don’t but their Sergeants keep track of Arrests (n=3), and others said it is not tracked but
‘findable.’ Of the Sergeants half said they do track arrests (n=4), two were a hard ‘no,’ and
one said he was “working on it.”

Do you or your supervisor keep track of your personal case closures?

As it was one of the measures used in the UCR data we checked to see if LMPD was
tracking case closures at the level of the assigned Detective. Our finding – not by policy and
not consistently.

While the majority of participants said case closures were tracked (n=21), a minority said
closures were not tracked (n=8). Some said the Sergeant might track closures (n=4), but
they (the Detective) do not and one alleged, “there are no analytics anymore.” Mirroring
their responses in the arrest stats question, half the Sergeants said they track closures (n=4),
two were a hard ‘No,’ and one said he was “working on it.”

Participant suggestions for better, more accurate individual and unit performance metrics.
Looking at arrest and case closure stats were not seen as valid measures of individual
Detective performance. The case closures were subject to the ebb and flow of cases dealt to
the Detective and each case’s individual solvability. This can vary widely across the seasons
and between assigned Beats and Sectors. At best closures could be used as aggregated unit
tallies but problematic as an individual performance measure.

Perhaps even more problematic would-be using arrest stats. Plainly put, Divisional
Detectives make very few arrests, even on their own cases. They work up their cases, get
warrants and when obtained the arrest is more often made by CID, Impact Units and Patrol
Officers. The Detectives might make the arrest if they know the location of the individual
and can get there in a timely manner and on the scene of crimes where the perpetrator had
the poor luck or bad judgment to remain on scene. So, for these reasons, arrests are often
attributed to other police personnel and not the Detective and their hard work.

We found it interesting and somewhat damning that most of the metrics proposed by the
participants eschewed the use of the LMPD software system. This is understandable as we

80
 were informed by multiple sources both among our participants and external sources that
the software is routinely inaccurate and can give results to queries that are off by double digit
percentages. Only one participant suggested looking at cases closed v. cases assigned. Other
suggested measures would require supervisors to access data outside of LMPD proprietary
systems, such as Court Net and data held by the Commonwealth and County prosecutors.

Most floated the idea that they could use arrest warrants and summonses and direct indictments
issued as a fair metric (n=18). These would at least put the stamp of approval of an
independent professional authority on the efficacy of the Detectives’ work. A few more
added “signed by a Judge.” A few others suggested looking and the number of Grand Jury
true bills issued in the Detective’s cases. We agree with the notion that obtaining measurable
outcomes as an indication of Detective effectiveness is a worthy objective. Having any
metrics or data backs up the often vague and imprecise narratives currently used in
performance appraisals.

Wrap-Up:
We concluded our interviews with asking the following previously discussed question, “I’ll be
interviewing other Detectives, who in your unit is most unlike you?” This procedure selected our
antithetical participants. See the methods section for this discussion.

We also asked, “What additional information should I obtain to get a better picture of Detectives &
their work?” The responses to this question were inserted into the answers of previous relevant
items and in the immediately following section.

Lastly, we asked, “What questions do you have?” At this point in the interview aside from a few
clarifying where the results will be distributed, none of the participants had any questions we did not
already answer during our dialogs.

Suggestions and comments from participants.

Realizing some of this goes beyond the scope of our study, the participants weighed in on a
number of issues affecting their work with some involving the overall structure and
management of LMPD. We include them here as fulfillment of our contract with the
participants to faithfully present their thoughts.

LMPD-Wide & Division-Centered Specialty Units. Some participants suggested there

should be a CID fugitive/U.S. Marshall task force, Violent Crimes Unit and Division-level
Impact for warrant service.

Retail Theft Unit. In an article on the growing scourge of retail theft, CNN reporter Parija
Kavilanz (2023) reported that national retailer Target was expecting to lose half a billion
dollars due to rising theft rates. That is one retail chain among many experiencing the similar
losses. While many thieves may be one-time offenders, there are career criminals who are
major contributors to these losses. The ultimate victim in these crimes will eventually be the
citizens as retailers raise prices to cover the losses.
81
Serial offenders are often not a one trick pony. They are opportunists who may engage in a
wide variety of criminal activities to support their lifestyle (Bouchard & Morselli, 2014;
Simons & Burt, 2011; LeBlanc, 2002; Maguire, 1988; Kyvsgaard, 2002). Nationally broadcast
videos depict individuals brazenly walking out of big box retail stores with shopping carts
full of merchandise, or mobs blitz attacking a store and running off with armfuls of goods.
The narrative accompanying these stories is typically a litany of corporate rules prohibiting
employees from preventing the theft or confronting the thief, or a condemnation that the
crime will not be aggressively prosecuted. This may embolden others to give retail theft a try
with the stakes seemingly so low.
It may be beneficial to think of retail theft as a ‘Broken Windows’ type problem (Wilson &
Kelling, 1982). In the greater scheme of things, single acts of retail theft are low priority
crimes, this attitude bolstered by perceptions that there is no individual victim, only a
faceless corporate entity and in most cases, nobody got hurt. However, in aggregate, retail
theft has a huge cost to both the retailer and the community. This is especially the case in
the ‘organized’ theft syndicates or networks between thieves and their fences.
If we aggressively pursue retail theft perpetrators and syndicates, we may prevent more
serious crimes from occurring. While this assertion cannot be supported by existing data it
intuitively makes sense. Retail theft investigations are often bolstered by videos and many
times supplemented by facial recognition. This provides Detectives with a solid foundation
upon which to construct their cases, obtain warrants and make arrests. While not easy, these
cases aided by advanced video techniques, net an arrest rate far and above those Detectives
who are engaged in general investigations within the Divisions.
While we could present a synopsis of the following email, we feel it has more power if
presented verbatim. Wishing to give credit where credit is due, we obtained written
permission from Detective Underwood, allowing us to reveal his identity for this specific
program. Also, kudos to 7th. Division Command and Sergeant Whitney for authorizing and
supporting this initiative. We asked Detective Underwood, “In your opinion, how many
Detectives would be the minimum for a new Retail Theft Unit, and how many the ideal? Be
realistic but also don’t be a slave to the current manpower shortage in your response.” The
remarkable response was:
“Crunching the rough numbers with my sergeant the divisions
each, on average, respond to or investigate about 1,300 cases
of retail theft a year each. The vast majority of those being petty
theft- but a numerous amount engages in Organized Retail
Crime (ORC). I believe that with the resources that civilian
partners provide, while every case cannot be worked, the vast
majority could be addressed in a way that does not currently
happen.
In my, and my sergeant's opinion, the optimal number of
personnel that will be required to be effective would be nine.
One for each division, and an overflow to manage vacations
and trainings such as (this Sergeant) employs. However,
manpower is hard to come by, so an absolute minimum of 4
would allow roughly 1,300 cases a year taken away from the
division investigators, per division, and put 2,600 cases on each
82
 ORC investigator. That is an unsustainable workload- but one
already shouldered by division detectives. Though most of
them do their best to work them all- these crimes are usually
deemed low priority and take little attention.”
“Retail crime investigations are unique, as they usually have
video, a good description for a starting point, and a network of
AP/LP personnel that are versed in developing case files on
repeat offenders. Cases often are tied to robbery suspects,
burglary suspects, and provide an easy way to document these
offenders for lesser offenses that get their mugshots and tattoo
photos into the system. It is a relatively easy way to ID suspects
with a propensity to operating by an illicit MO.”
Detective Underwood gets all the retail theft cases in the Seventh Division. He combines an
‘old school’ approach with new investigative tools and technologies. His arrest and case
closure metrics eclipse those of his contemporaries, so he is clearly on to something here. If
our study does nothing more than help kick-start an LMPD-wide ORC unit then it was
worth all the effort. A last encouragement to field such a unit. Eighth Division HQ has a
modern facility with a turnkey ‘cube farm’ large enough to house a fully staffed ORC unit.

Non-Fatal Shooting Unit. Revise the policy and criteria for assigning jurisdiction of cases
to the newly formed Non-Fatal Shooting Unit (NFSU). As the Detectives explained it, the
bullet must penetrate otherwise it goes to the Division. They led us to believe this included
grazing and non-penetrative hits. Many allowed that cases where random shots are fired by
perpetrators engaged in wanton endangerment should stay with the Division. However, the
view was that in cases where there was aimed fire at an intended victim, the case should go
to the NFSU.

The logic was that it was an intended homicide and was non-fatal or didn’t connect simply
due to poor skills and marksmanship. The intent to harm that individual was there and as
such, the case should be the province of the NFSU. Some Detectives were sympathetic and
offered that the NFSU has plenty on their plate, but this was countered independently by
others who said the NFSU Detectives could do their own case triage for these ‘swing-and-a-
miss’ shootings and otherwise use whatever information gleaned as intelligence for other
cases and perpetrators. NFSU might have better intel on who the shooters are and who are
the shot callers, information that is not necessarily in the hands of the Divisional Detectives.
For many the ‘no hit’ policy was arbitrary and not well considered.

Digital evidence, particularly cell phones is playing an increasingly important role in a

variety of incidents. See Garcia (2025) and Elliott & Mathews (2025) for two outstanding
LMPD examples. Detectives and Sergeants would like the ability to process cell phones at
the Division level. There is an enormous backlog for analysis. While they understood there
is a huge training requirement, one that is never-ending, the current personnel allocation is
inadequate, and cases languish for weeks and months waiting in the analysis queue. If not
physically assigned to the Divisions, additional technicians and an equitable distribution of
cases/phones would be a welcome improvement. The detectives did agree that in the
manner of medical emergency rooms, sometimes the less urgent cases must be delayed while
the more exigent cases are attended. However, it does not serve justice or the citizens to
83
continually pass over these low priority cases. Consider investing more resources in digital
forensics.

DNA Evidence has become a staple of the Crime Scene Investigators and needs to be more
widely collected by Detectives. Just applying forensic techniques can make a difference.
Roman et al. (2009) conducted an experimental evaluation of the impact of DNA testing on
burglary cases, with increased case resolution. More generally, Higginson et al. (2017) found
that the collection and testing of DNA can increase convictions in court (irrespective of plea
bargaining and other factors beyond the scope of police inputs). Even if only as a collected
sample put into evidence, one might think of this banked physical evidence as an intelligence
tool.

Software choices must be a matter of LMPD-wide participation during all phases of the
process from identifying needs at all consumer levels within the department (and, perhaps
beyond), identifying software possibilities, assessing the features and the interface with
representatives from all end user groups, e.g., patrol, Detectives and managers, beta testing
and a robust user training program. While we have been informed to the contrary by
command personnel, the participants in this study felt their needs were not considered and
instead of facilitating their work the software adds difficulty, less utility, and more work. The
supervisors added that the metrics are prone to major errors and the process for extracting
meaningful data is difficult, obscure, and time-consuming. They felt COs should have a
wealth of information, and the software does not facilitate this.

Make Detective a promotion. Personnel Considerations included a suggestion/desire that

Detective should be a promotion, to corporal or similar (n=22). In many departments
selection as a Detective carries with it a rank and pay step up from uniformed Patrol Officer.
One Detective asked, “Why are we NOT modeling bigger departments?” While the FOP
would certainly be involved in any such change, this could be implemented. Part of the
rationale is that as a general rule, Detectives get little, or no overtime and many Patrol
Officers take home a fatter paycheck due to overtime details. While the Detectives can don a
uniform and get assigned a patrol slot almost any time they wish, the job of Detective with
the attendant caseloads is more than most can handle. As one Detective voiced it, “Being a
Detective is a lot more difficult than people think.”

Removal of Detective for Cause. Several participants (n=5) noted there is ‘no way’ to get
rid of a lazy & inefficient Detective. A few more noted that if a removal was attempted, the
FOP, “would be all over that.” Lum et al (2023) found that the high performing agencies
her group observed had processes to remove detectives due to poor performance, although
removal was rarely done.

Workspace consideration: Investing in infrastructure is also an investment in the well

being of your people.

Metals/Critical Infrastructure Theft Unit: Before one was actually formed several
Detectives suggested the formation of a metals theft unit or task force.

84
This ended the formal interview process with the Detectives. The Principal Investigator wishes to
thank the participants for their openness and often frank discussions. We are privileged to have you
serving our community and pleased we had the opportunity to get to know you and the essential
work you do on our behalf.

85
 RECOMMENDATIONS

Recruitment & Selection

1. Reconsider Lowered Educational Requirements: Reinstate higher educational standards
for entry-level personnel to ensure a more qualified workforce.
2. Formalize Prospect Identification: Implement a system for supervisors and peers to
nominate Detective candidates, rather than relying solely on self-nomination.
3. Increase Minimum Patrol Experience: Raise the minimum patrol experience requirement
from 3 years to 5–7 years to ensure candidates have sufficient field knowledge and proven
integrity.
4. Prerequisite Training: Require completion of the Basic Investigations Course and a
Temporary Duty (TDY) assignment in investigations before applying for Detective roles.
5. Written Test for Selection: Introduce a validated written test to supplement the interview
process and reduce subjectivity.
6. Peer Reviews: Incorporate peer feedback into the selection process to provide a more
holistic assessment of candidates.
7. Career Path for Returnees: Allow retired Detectives returning to LMPD to bypass the 3-
year patrol requirement if they have prior Detective experience.

Training & Development

8. Enhanced Report Writing Training: Emphasize report writing from day one in the
Academy and offer remedial workshops for current officers.
9. Writing Coaches: Consider hiring civilian “grammar mavens” or English composition
teachers (retired or moonlighting) to review all recruit writing and work with them to
correct deficiencies, and for journeyman officers as noted above.
10. Structured Mentoring Program: Formalize a mentorship program for new Detectives,
pairing them with experienced investigators.
11. Detective Field Training for Recruits: Assign recruits to work with Detectives during
their probationary period to expose them to investigative work early.
12. Miranda as a Prophylactic: Work with prosecutors and Judiciary to develop a KLEC
certified course on the specifics of when the Miranda Warning is required and the specifics
of when and where it is not. Alternatively, offer continual updates on this topic.
13. Specialized Training Offerings: Provide advanced courses in digital forensics, courtroom
testimony, interviewing techniques, and electronics warrants.
14. Career Development Section: Improve advertising and accessibility of career
development resources for Detectives.
15. Quarterly Detective Forums: Host regular forums to address training gaps, share best
practices, and discuss emerging investigative challenges.
86
 16. Civilian Analyst Training: Train civilian analysts to assist with case management and
administrative tasks, freeing up Detectives for investigative work.

Workload & Case Management

17. Increase Detective Staffing: Allocate more Detectives to divisions with high caseloads to
ensure manageable workloads.
18. Specialized Units: Establish department-wide units for Organized Retail Crime, Auto
Theft, and Metals/Critical Infrastructure Theft to improve case focus and clearance rates.
19. Closer Role: Establish the use of civilian "Closers" to handle administrative case closures,
reducing the burden on Detectives.
20. Go Knock on Doors: Policing is “out there” you can’t get the job done if only in the
office.
21. Push for the Non-Custodial Interview: You don’t have to know everything, but you
might.
22. Digital Evidence Processing: Increase resources for digital forensics to reduce backlogs
in cell phone and electronic evidence analysis.
23. Case Triage Guidelines: Develop formal solvability criteria and triage protocols to
standardize case prioritization across Divisions.
24. Automated Victim Notifications: Implement software to automate victim contact letters
for misdemeanor and low-priority cases.

Supervision & Performance Evaluation

25. Performance Metrics: Shift focus from arrest stats to more meaningful outcomes like
summonses, warrants issued, grand jury true bills, and prosecutorial success.
26. 360-Degree Evaluations: Incorporate peer and subordinate feedback into performance
appraisals for a more comprehensive review.
27. Continuous Feedback: Supplement (replace) annual performance appraisals with regular,
development-focused feedback sessions.
28. Supervisory Training: Provide specialized training for Detective Sergeants on managing
investigative units and mentoring Detectives.
29. Case Review Compliance: Ensure adherence to SOP-mandated 90-day case reviews and
streamline the process with better software tools.

Technology & Infrastructure

30. Detective workspaces: Upgrade and modernize. Repair and renovate substandard rooms,
replace old desks and chairs, provide team meeting spaces with magnetic whiteboards and
large visual display equipment.
87
 31. Non-Custodial Interview Rooms: Construct rooms with immediate egress from the
building, sterile but with comfortable furniture for a more relaxed setting.
32. Upgrade Software: Replace or improve existing software to facilitate better data tracking,
reporting, and accessibility.
33. Modernize Workspaces: Renovate Detective offices, replace outdated furniture, and
ensure adequate meeting spaces with visual aids.
34. Vehicle Upgrades: Replace aging fleet vehicles and consider rental and leasing options for
unmarked cars suitable for surveillance.
35. New vehicle distribution: Re-evaluate priorities. Many in current detective fleet should be
redlined.
36. Tech Tools: Equip Detectives with DSLR cameras, fingerprint kits, Faraday bags, and
portable tablets for fieldwork.
37. Facial Recognition Software: Explore tools like "Captis ODSI" and AI applications to
enhance suspect identification in video evidence.

Policy & Organizational Structure

38. Make Detective a Promotion: Elevate Detective to a rank (e.g., Corporal) with a pay
increase to reflect the role's demands.
39. Centralized Detective Bureau: Consider consolidating investigative units under a single
command structure to improve coordination and career progression.
40. Non-Fatal Shooting Unit Policy: Revise criteria to include cases with aimed but non-
penetrative gunfire and near miss shootings with intended victims under NFSU jurisdiction.
41. Two-Way Communication with Specialty Units: Improve information-sharing between
Divisional Detectives and major crime units. This is critical when Officer safety may be
jeopardized.
42. Remove Non-Performers: Establish clear criteria and processes for reassigning
underperforming Detectives, with FOP involvement as needed.

Community & Procedural Justice

43. Victim Engagement: Develop strategies to improve victim cooperation, such as
community outreach and trust-building initiatives.
44. Retail Theft Crackdown: Expand the Retail Theft Unit to address organized retail crime
(ORC) and reduce losses for businesses in all Divisions.
45. Prosecutorial Collaboration: Strengthen partnerships with prosecutors to ensure cases are
pursued aggressively and efficiently. Critiques and case post-mortems need to be provided.
46. Embrace the Courtroom Role: Confidence and composure comes with experience. Always
ask the Prosecutor for a ‘hot wash’ on your performance.

88
 47. Mental Health Diversion: Work with city and state agencies to divert non-criminal mental
health cases away from Detective workloads.

Miscellaneous
48. Military Recruitment: As suggested by the Detectives, target military personnel during out-
processing for recruitment into LMPD.
49. Childcare Support: Advocate for policies like H.R.2722 ("Providing Child Care for Police
Officers Act") to support officers with family responsibilities.
50. Realistic Case Closure Letters: Create standardized, transparent templates for closing
cases with no leads to save time.
51. Detective Manual: Create a manual of operations for Patrol Bureau Detectives. Start with
extracting relevant SOPs into one focused document.

These recommendations aim to enhance Detective recruitment, training, workload management,

supervision, technology use, and overall organizational effectiveness at LMPD.

Final Thought: The report underscores that while LMPD Detectives are highly committed,
systemic improvements—especially in training, technology, and workload equity—could transform
investigative outcomes. Implementing even a few key recommendations would yield significant
benefits.

89
 REFERENCES & BIBLIOGRAPHY
AIG. (2025a). Position Paper: Ensuring Independence and Integrity Through Unobstructed Conduct of
Investigative Interviews. Association of Inspectors General, 4/4/25. Online: AIG-on-Interviews
AIG. (2025b). Position Paper: Ensuring Independence and Effectiveness Through Unobstructed Access to
Overseen Entities’ Privileged Information. Association of Inspectors General, 4/4/25. Online:
AIG-on-Privileged-Information
Anderson, G.S., Litzenberger, R., & Plecas, D. (2002). Physical evidence of police tress. Policing: An
International Journal, 25(2), 399-420.
Armstrong, J. (2010). Naturalistic inquiry. In Encyclopedia of research design pp. 881-885. SAGE
Publications, Inc., Sage Research Methods - Naturalistic Inquiry Full article at: Naturalistic-
[Link]
Armstrong, J., Plecas, D. and Cohen, I.M. (2013). The Value of Resources in Solving Homicides: The
Difference between Gang Related and Non-gang Related Cases. University of the Fraser Valley:
Centre for Public Safety & Criminal Justice Research, Abbotsford, pp. 1-10.
Baker, D. (2024). Enhancing Recruiting and Retention: Employee Child Care for Law Enforcement Agencies.
Lexipol, 12/11/24. Online: Recruiting & Retention: LEO Child Care - Lexipol
Baker, D. (2025). The State of Police Recruitment and Retention: A Continuing Concern. Lexipol, 3/10/25.
Online: The State of Police Recruitment and Retention - Lexipol
Barao, L. M., Braga, A. A., Turchan, B. S., & Cook, P. J. (2021). Clearing gang- and drug-involved
nonfatal shootings. Policing: An International Journal, 44(4), 577–590. Online: Clearing nonfatal
shootings
Baughman, S.B. (2020). How effective are police? The problem of clearance rates and criminal
accountability. Alabama Law Review, 47(1):47. 47-130. Online:
[Link]
Bayley, D. H. (1994). Police for the future. Oxford University Press.
Bayley, D. H., & Bittner, E. (1984). Learning the skills of policing. Law and Contemporary Problems,
47(4), 35-59. [Link]
Binns, C. & Sackman, B. (2023). The Art of Investigation Revisited: Practical Tips from the Experts.
Routledge.
Birzer, M. L. (2003). The theory of andragogy applied to police training. Policing: An International
Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 26(1), 29-42.
[Link]
Birzer, M. L., & Tannehill, R. (2001). A more effective training approach for contemporary policing.
Police Quarterly, 4(2), 233–252. [Link]
Bloch, P. & Weidman, D. (1975). Managing Criminal Investigations : Prescriptive Package. Washington,
DC : US Government Printing Office.
Boateng, F. (2018). Crime reporting behavior: do attitudes toward the police matter? Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 33(18), 2891-2916.

90
Boone, H.N. & Boone, D.A. (2012). Analyzing Likert Data. The Journal of Extension, 50(2), Article 48.
Online: [Link]
Booth, R.C. (2024). Innovation in child care is coming from a surprising source: Police departments.
Vox, 7/5/24. Online: Police departments’ surprising new benefit: Child care | Vox
Bouchard, M. & Morselli, C. (2014). Opportunistic Structures of Organized Crime, in Letizia Paoli
(ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Organized Crime, Oxford Handbooks: Oxford Academic.
Bracken, D.W., Rose, D.S., & Church, A.H. (2016). The evolution and devolution of 360° feedback.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(4), 761–794. [Link]
Braga, A. A., & Dusseault, D. (2018). Can Homicide Detectives Improve Homicide Clearance
Rates? Crime & Delinquency, 64(3), 283–315. [Link]
Braga, A. A., Flynn, E. A., Kelling, G. L., & Cole, C. M. (2011). Moving the work of criminal
investigators towards crime control. Moving the Work of Criminal Investigators Towards Crime
Control, 38. [Link]
Braga, A. A., Turchan, B. S., & Barao, L. M. (2019). The Influence of investigative resources on
homicide clearances. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 35(2), 337–364.
[Link]
Brantner-Smith, B. (2014). The Manager's Role In a "Not Today"
Organization. [Link], [Link]
today-organization/docview/1534603725/se-2
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE.
Campbell, R. (2006). Rape survivors’ experiences with the legal and medical systems: Do rape victim
advocates make a difference? Violence Against Women, 12(1), 30–45.
[Link]
Cappelli, P., & Tavis, A. (2016). The performance management revolution. Harvard Business Review,
94(10), 58–67.
Carrell, M.R., Jennings, D.F. & Heavrin, C. (1997). Fundamentals of Organizational Behavior. Prentice-
Hall.
Carter, D. L. & Carter, J. G. (2015). Effective police homicide investigations: Evidence from seven
cities with high clearance rates. Homicide Studies. Advanced Online Publication.
[Link]
Carter, D.L. & Carter, J.G. (2016). Effective police homicide investigations: evidence from seven
cities with high clearance rates. Homicide Studies, 20(2), 150-176.
Casey, M. (2025). Charges dropped against 120+ defendants, including assault suspects, because they can’t get attorney.
Associated Press/[Link], 7/23/25. Online: Charges dropped because they can't get attorney
Chowdri, P. (2024). Emerging Tech and Law Enforcement: What Are Geofences and How Do
They Work? Lexipol. Online: Emerging Tech and Law Enforcement: Geofences - Lexipol
Cochrane, R. E., Tett, R. P., & Vandecreek, L. (2003). Psychological testing and the selection of
police officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(5), 511-537.
[Link]

91
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach.
American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. Online: [Link]
COPS (2005). Standards and Guidelines for Internal Affairs: Recommendations from a Community of Practice.
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice.
Corbin, T.A., Flenady, G. (2024). Quiet Quitting as Compensatory Respect: Meaningful Work,
Recognition, and the Entrepreneurial Ethic. Philosophy of Management 23, 461–480 Online:
[Link]
Cordner, G., & Scarborough, K. (2010). Police administration (8th ed.). LexisNexis.
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE). (2012). Quality Standards for
Federal Offices of Inspector General (Silver Book). CIGIE, 8/1/12.
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE). (2019). Quality Standards for
Digital Forensics. CIGIE, 6/18/19.
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE). (2020). Quality Standards for
Inspection and Evaluation (Blue Book). CIGIE, 12/1/20.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design (4th ed.). SAGE.
Crumley, B. (2025). How to Respond to ‘Quiet Cracking,’ a New Workplace Threat. inc. Newsletter,
7/4/25. Online: How to Respond to ‘Quiet Cracking,’ a New Workplace Threat
Daigle, E. (2025). Confession or Coercion? Constitutional Clarity in United States v. Maytubby. DLG, 7/1/25.
Online: Confession or Coercion? in US v. Maytubby - DLG
Daly, Y. M. (2011). Judicial oversight of policing: investigations, evidence and the exclusionary
rule. Crime, Law and Social Change, 55(2-3), 199-215. [Link]
9279-4
Decker, S. (1995). Reconstructing homicide events: the role of witnesses in fatal encounters.
Criminology and Criminal Justice, 23(5), 439-450.
Deming, W.E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering
Study.
Dempsey, J.S. (1996). An Introduction to Public & Private Investigations. St. Paul: West Publishing.
Demsas, J. (2024). The Evidence on Policing and Crime: Revisiting the need for police, four years
after international Black Lives Matter protests. Interview with Jennifer Doleac. The Atlantic.
Podcast: The Evidence Atlantic
DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education,
40(4), 314–321. [Link]
Doerr, J. (2018). Measure what matters: How Google, Bono, and the Gates Foundation rock the world with
OKRs. Portfolio Publishing.
Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public
opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57–79.
[Link]
Eck, J. E. (1983). Solving crimes: The investigation of burglary and robbery. Police Executive Research
Forum.

92
Eck, J.E. & Rossmo, D.K. (2019). The New Detective: Rethinking criminal investigations.
Criminology & Public Policy, 18: 601-622.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. [Link]
Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace. Wiley.
Elliott, M. & Mathews, A. (2025). Q&A with LMPD detective who reviewed digital evidence in the
Crystal Rogers case. WLKY News, 7/17/25. Online: Q&A with LMPD detective who
reviewed digital evidence in the Crystal Rogers case
Engel, R. S., & Worden, R. E. (2021). Measuring police performance: A systematic review of
methodologies. Criminal Justice Review, 46(3), 245-267.
[Link]
Ericson, R. V. (1981). Making crime: A study of detective work. Butterworths.
Fahsing, I. A., & Ask, K. (2018). In Search of Indicators of Detective Aptitude: Police Recruits’
Logical Reasoning and Ability to Generate Investigative Hypotheses. Journal of Police and
Criminal Psychology, 33(1), 21-34. [Link]
Fahsing, I.A. & Ask, K. (2015). The making of an expert detective: the role of experience in English
and Norwegian police officers’ investigative decision-making. Psychology, Crime & Law, 22(3),
203-223. [Link]
Fairley, S. (2024). The Impact of Civilian Investigative Agency Resources on the Timeliness of
Police Misconduct Investigations. Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 26(3), 563-624 Online:
[Link]
Famega, C. N., Frank, J., & Mazerolle, L. (2005). Managing Police Patrol Time: The Role of
Supervisor Directives. Justice Quarterly: JQ, 22(4), 540-559.
[Link]
FBI (2019). Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). Online: FBI — Burglary
Ferguson, A. G. (2017). The rise of big data policing: Surveillance, race, and the future of law enforcement. NYU
Press.
Findley, K. A., & Scott, M. S. (2006). The multiple dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal
cases. Wisconsin Law Review, 2006(2), 291–397.
Fisher- Flores, L. & Phelps, K. (2024). Trauma Informed Interviewing Techniques: Best Practices for Working
with Trauma Survivors. Tahirih Justice Center/Fenwick & West. Online: D2-Session-
2_Trauma-[Link]
Fisher, G.G., Ryan, L.H., Sonnega, A., & Naudé, M.N. (2016). Job Lock, Work, and Psychological
Well-being in the United States. Work, aging and retirement, 2(3), 345–358.
[Link]
Forst, B (1978). What Happens After Arrest. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office
Gaines, L. K., & Miller, R. L. (2019). Criminal justice in action (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Garcia, J. (2025). LMPD: Man robbed victims at gunpoint, chased 12-year-old inside apartment:
Louisville police found the suspect's phone inside the apartment. [Link], 7/16/25.
Online: Louisville police arrest man who robbed victims inside home | [Link]
93
Garner, G. (2024). Common Sense Police Supervision: Practical Tips for the First-Line Leader. 7th Ed. Charles
C. Thomas.
Geberth, V.J. (2015). Practical Homicide Investigation: Tactics, Procedures, and Forensic Techniques, 5th Ed.
Copyright 2015: Routledge.
Government Accountability Office (2024). Government Auditing Standards: 2024 Revision GAO-24-
106786. Comptroller General of the United States.
Government Accountability Office (2025). Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (The
Green Book) GAO-25-107721. Comptroller General of the United States.
Greenberg, B., et al, (1977). Felony Investigation Decision Model: An Analysis of Investigative Elements of
Information. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Greenwood, P.W. (1979). The Rand Criminal Investigation Study: Its Findings and Impacts to Date. The
Rand Corporation. Online: The RAND Criminal Investigation Study
Greenwood, P. W., Chaiken, J. M., & Petersilia, J. (1977). The criminal investigation process. Lexington,
MA: D.C. Heath & Company.
Greenwood, P. W. & Petersilia, J. (1975). The criminal investigation process volume I: Summary and policy
Implications. (The Rand Report). Santa Monica: Rand.
Gregory, J.B., Levy, P.E., & Jeffers, M. (2021). Best practices in 360-degree feedback: A research-
based approach to ensuring effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, 50(2), 100785.
[Link]
Gribble, E. A. (1995). Allocation of personnel: Methodology for required staffing of detectives.
Retrieved July 9, 2025, from the Florida Criminal Justice Executive Institute at FDLE
Online: Microsoft Word - Gribble _pdf_.doc
Harter, J. (2022). Employee engagement vs. Employee satisfaction and organizational culture. Gallup
Workplace, 8/13/22. Online: employee engagement
Hawk, S.R. & Dabney, D.A. (2014). Are All Cases Treated Equal? Using Goffman’s Frame Analysis
to Understand How Homicide Detectives Orient to Their Work. British Journal of Criminology.
54. 10.1093/bjc/azu056.
Higginson, A., Eggins, E. and Mazerolle, L. (2017). Police techniques for investigating serious
violent crime: a systematic review. Australian Institute of Criminology. Trends and Issues in
Crime and Criminal Justice, 539, (Oct).
Horvath, F., Meesig, R. T., & Hyeock, Y. (2001). A national survey of police policies and practices
regarding the criminal investigation process: Twenty-five years after Rand. A National
Survey of Police Policies and Practices Regarding the Criminal Investigation Process:
Twenty-Five Years Rand, 179. [Link]
Houston, K. A. (2010). Training to detect deception: Can it be done? Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 4(9), 630–640. [Link]
IACP. (2024). Training Key 548 First-Line Supervision: A primer for aspiring line officers. International
Association of Chiefs of Police. Online: #548 First Line [Link]
IACP. (2020). Successful Trauma Informed Victim Interviewing. International Association of Chiefs of
Police. Online: Final Design Successful Trauma Informed Victim [Link]
94
Innes, M. (2003). Understanding social control: Crime and social order in late modernity. McGraw-Hill
Education.
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group
polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707.
[Link]
Iserson, K.V. & Moskop, J.C. (2007). Triage in Medicine, Part I: Concept, History, and Types.
Annals of Emergency Medicine, 49, 275-281. Online: [Link]
James, A., & Mills, M. (2012). Does ACPO Know Best: To What Extent May the Pip Programme
Provide a Template for the Professionalisation of Policing? Police Journal, 85(2), 133–149.
[Link]
Jasiński, A.M., & Derbis, R. (2022). Work Stressors and Intention to Leave the Current Workplace and
Profession: The Mediating Role of Negative Affect at Work. International journal of environmental
research and public health, 19(21), 13992. [Link]
Kääriäinen, J., Lintonen, T., Laitinen, A., & Pollock, J. (2014). Burnout and stress among Finnish
detectives. Policing: An International Journal, *37*(2), 345-360.
[Link]
Karaffa, K. M., & Koch, J. M. (2016). Stigma, pluralistic ignorance, and attitudes toward seeking
mental health services among police officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(6), 759–777.
[Link]
Karageorghis, C. (2025). Motivation in Sports Psychology. Sports Performance Bulletin. Online: Coping
with emotions - Motivation in Sports Psychology
Karlsen, J.T., Gottschalk, P., Glomseth, R. and Fahsing, I.A. (2007) ‘Managing police investigations
by projects’, Int. J. Innovation and Learning, Vol. 4(4), 391–410.
Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010).
Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior,
34(1), 3–38. [Link]
Kavilanz, P. (2023). Why retail theft is soaring: inflation, the economy – and opportunity. CNN,
5/23/23. Online: Why retail theft is soaring: inflation, the economy – and opportunity
Kelly, M. (2024). Tennessee police consider daycare for children of law enforcement: Metro
Nashville Police Department considers opening childcare center. [Link],
5/17/24. Online: Nashville PD considers opening daycare center for children of law
enforcement
Khairi, G. (2025). Introduction to… Vicarious Trauma in the Contact Centre. Call Centre Helper
Online, 5/16/25. Online: Introduction to… Vicarious Trauma in the Contact Centre
Kingshott, B., Walsh, J. & Meesig, R. (2015). Are We Training Our Detectives? A Survey of Large
Law Enforcement Agencies Regarding Investigation Training and Training Needs. Journal of
Applied Security Research. 10. 00-00. 10.1080/19361610.2015.1069635.
Klockars, C. B., Ivkovic, S. K., & Haberfeld, M. R. (2006). The contours of police integrity. Sage
Publications.

95
Kohler, J. & Krull, R. (2023). A Detective Sabotaged His Own Cases Because He Didn’t Like the
Prosecutor. The Police Department Did Nothing to Stop Him. ProPublica/Riverfront Times.
10/10/23. Online: St. Louis Cop Sabotaged His Own Cases
Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by Rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, praise and other bribes.
Houghton Mifflin.
Komm A., Weddle, B. & Maor, D. (2024). What employees say matters most to motivate performance.
McKinsey & Company, 8/21/25. Online: employee motivation starts with listening
Kwak, H., Dierenfeldt, R. & McNeeley, S. (2019). The code of the street and cooperation with the
police: do codes of violence, procedural injustice, and police ineffectiveness discourage
reporting violent victimization to the police? Journal of Criminal Justice 60, 25-34.
Kyvsgaard, B. (2002). Escalation in the Seriousness of Crime. In The Criminal Career: The Danish
Longitudinal Study (pp. 169–184). chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LAPD (2025). Competency Model for Police Detective Class Code (2223). City of Los Angeles
Personnel Office, 7/18/25. Online: doc LAPD [Link]
LeBlanc, M. (2002). Offending Cycle, Escalation and De-escalation in Delinquent Behavior: A
Challenge for Criminology. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 26(1),
pp 53-83.
Lee, Y. H., & Sujung, C. (2021). The Different Crime Solving Styles of Police Agencies across the
United States.: A Latent Class Analysis of Criminal Investigation Goals. American Journal of
Criminal Justice: AJCJ, 46(3), 496-527. [Link]
Louisville Metro Government (LMG)/FOP #614. (2023). Collective Bargaining Agreement by and Between
Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government and River City Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #614,
Police Officers and Sergeants. 7/1/23.
Louisville Metro Government (LMG) (2025). Childcare Assistance Program FAQ. Metro Ordinance
35.006. Online: Childcare Assistance Program [Link] & 2024-2025-lmg-benefits-guide
p.25.
Lozano, J.A. (2024). Committee says lack of communication, training led to thousands of dropped
cases by Houston police. Associated Press News. [Link]. Online: Committee says lack of
communication, training led to thousands of dropped cases by Houston police ([Link])
Lum, C., Wellford, C., Scott, T., Vovak, H., & Scherer, J. A. (2018). Identifying Effective Investigative
Practices: A National Study Using Trajectory Analysis, Case Studies, and Investigative Data. Fairfax,
VA: George Mason University, Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy.
Lum, C., Koper, C.S., Barao, L., Egge, J., Lewis, M., Mastroianni, C., & Goodier, M. (2023). Evidence-
Based Assessment of Seattle Police Department Investigations. Fairfax, VA: Center for Evidence-
Based Crime Policy, George Mason University.
Lum, C., Wellford, C., Scott, T., Vovak, H., Scherer, J. A., & Goodier, M. (2023). Differences
Between High and Low Performing Police Agencies in Clearing Robberies, Aggravated
Assaults, and Burglaries: Findings From an Eight-Agency Case Study. Police Quarterly, 27(2),
135-157. [Link] (Original work published 2024)
Maguire, M. (1988, Dec.). Searchers and Opportunists: Offender Behaviour and Burglary
Prevention. Journal of Security Administration, 11(2) pp 70-76.
96
Metzger, G. E. (2015). Agencies, Polarization, and the States. Columbia Law Review, 115(7), 1739-
1787. [Link]
states/docview/1761431728/se-2
Miller, K. (2024). Houston Police trying to contact victims after 4,017 sexual assault cases were
shelved, chief says. Associated Press News. [Link] Online: Houston Police trying to
contact victims after 4,017 sexual assault cases were shelved, chief says | AP News
Miller, L. (2007). Police officer suicide: Causes, prevention, and practical intervention strategies.
International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, 9(2), 113–124.
More, H.W., Wegener, W.F., & Miller, L.S. (2003). Effective Police Supervision, 4th ed. Anderson
Publishing: Cincinnati, OH.
Moskop, J.C. & Iserson, K.V. (2007). Triage in Medicine, Part II: Underlying Values and Principles.
Annals of Emergency Medicine, 49, 282-287. Online: [Link]
Nowack, K. M., & Mashihi, S. (2012). Evidence-based answers to 15 questions about leveraging
360-degree feedback. Consulting Psychology Journal, 64(3), 157–182.
[Link]
O’Hara, C. E., & O’Hara, G. L. (2003). Fundamentals of criminal investigation (7th ed.). Charles C
Thomas.
OIG/LMPD (2023). Memorandum of Understanding. Louisville Metro Office of Inspector General and
Louisville Metro Police Department
Oldham, S. (2006). Decision Making 101. Law & Order, 54(3), 16. Online: decision-making
Ombea. (2025) 5-Point Likert Scale: The Key to Easily Understanding Your Audience. Ombea the XM
Platform Website, 5/6/25. Online: The Ombea Blog: 5-Point Likert Scale
Osterburg, J.W. & Ward, R.N. (2000). Criminal Investigation: A method for reconstructing the past. 3rd ed.
Anderson Publishing.
Owen, J., Ellis, C., & Goffman, E. (2008). Naturalistic inquiry. In The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative
research methods. pp. 547-548. SAGE Publications, Inc., Research Methods - Naturalistic Inq
Papazoglou, K., & Andersen, J. P. (2014). A guide to utilizing police training as a tool to promote
resilience and improve health outcomes among police officers. Traumatology, 20(2), 103–111.
[Link]
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE.
Peterson, J., Sommers, I., Baskin, D., & Johnson, D. (2010). The role and impact of forensic
evidence in the criminal justice process. National Institute of Justice, NCJ 231977.
Phillips, S. W., & Terrell-Orr, A. (2013). Attitudes of police supervisors: do volunteers fit into
policing? Policing, 36(4), 683-701. [Link]
Prenzler, T. (2009). Police corruption: Preventing misconduct and maintaining integrity. CRC Press.
Prince, H., Lum, C., & Koper, C. S. (2021). Effective police investigative practices: an evidence-
assessment of the research. [Effective police investigative practices] Policing, 44(4), 683-707.
[Link]

97
Prummell, W. (2021). Allocation of Personnel: Investigations. FDLE Online: FDLEDetecivesPrummell
[Link]
Pulakos, E.D. (2009). Performance management: A roadmap for developing, implementing, and evaluating
performance management systems. SHRM Foundation.
Ratcliffe, J. H. (2016). Intelligence-led policing. Routledge.
Ratcliffe, J. H. (2023). Big data and AI in policing: The future of performance measurement.
Criminology & Public Policy, 22(1), 45-67. [Link]
Riddle, S. (2025). Nearly 60 cases dismissed due to corruption in Ala. police department. Associated
Press/Police1, 5/9/25. Online: Nearly 60 cases dismissed due to corruption in Ala. PD
Rivera, M. (2022). The Allocation of Personnel and the Investigative Divisions. FDLE Online: Rivera,-
[Link]
Roach, J. (2013). Introduction to special issue on investigative decision making. Journal of Investigative
Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10(2), 139. [Link]
Rock, D. & Jones, B. (2015). Why More and More Companies Are Ditching Performance Ratings.
Harvard Business Review, 9/8/15. Online: Companies Are Ditching Performance Ratings
Roman, J., Reid, S., Chalfin, A. & Knight, C. (2009). The DNA field experiment: a randomized trial
of the cost-effectiveness of using DNA to solve property crimes. Journal of Experimental
Criminology 5(4), 345-369.
Rossmo, D.K. (2016). Case rethinking: a protocol for reviewing criminal investigations. Police Practice
and Research, 17:3, 212-228, DOI: 10.1080/15614263.2014.978320. Online:
[Link]
Rossmo, D. K. (2021). Dissecting a Criminal Investigation. Journal of Police and Criminal
Psychology, 36(4), 639-651. [Link]
Roth, J. (2017), “A city-level analysis of property crime clearance rates”, Criminal Justice Studies, 30(1),
45-62.
Rutledge, D. (2012). How to handle lawyers and Miranda warnings: Are warnings necessary during a
lawyer’s presence? [Link].
Sains, A. (2025). Ex-officer says he regrets failure to stop beating of Tyre Nichols as he takes stand in state trial.
Associated Press/Police1, 4/30/25. Online: Ex-officer regrets failure to stop beating of Tyre
Nichols
SAMHSA. (2014). Practical Guide for Implementing a Trauma-Informed Approach. the Substance Abuse & Mental
Health Services Administration. Online: Practical Guide for Implementing a Trauma-Informed
Approach
Schafer, J.A. (2009). Developing effective leadership in policing: perils, pitfalls, and paths
forward. Policing, 32(2), 238-260. [Link]
Schafer, J.A. (2010). Effective leaders and leadership in policing: traits, assessment, development,
and expansion. Policing, 33(4), 644-663. [Link]
Schafer, J.A. (2011). The future of policing: A practical guide for police managers and leaders. Journal
of Criminal Justice Education, 22(1), 124–126.

98
Scott, T., Wellford, C., Lum, C. & Vovak, H. (2019). Variability of crime clearance among police
agencies. Police Quarterly, 22(1), 82–111. [Link]
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011).
Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of
Management, 37(4), 1262–1289. [Link]
Sillaman, N.K. (2023). When You’re Stuck in a Job You Can’t Quit. Harvard Business Review,
1/31/23. Online: When You’re Stuck in a Job You Can’t Quit
Silverman, D. (2020). Qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage.
Simons, R. L., & Burt, C. H. (2011). Learning to be Bad: Adverse Social Conditions, Social Schemas,
and Crime. Criminology: an interdisciplinary journal, 49(2), 553–598.
[Link]
Skogan, W. G., & Hartnett, S. M. (2005). Community policing, Chicago style. Oxford University Press.
Smith, N., & Flanagan, C. (2000). The effective detective: Identifying the skills of an effective SIO. Home
Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit.
Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2020). Does performance improve following
multisource feedback? Human Resource Management Review, 30(3), 100732.
[Link]
Spanoudaki, E., Ioannou, M., Synnott, J., Calli Tzani-Pepelasi, & Ntaniella, R. P. (2019).
Investigative decision-making: interviews with detectives. [Investigative decision-
making] Journal of Criminal Psychology, 9(2), 88-107. [Link]
0005
Spohn, C., & Tellis, K. (2010). Justice denied? The exceptional clearance of rape cases in Los
Angeles. Albany Law Review, 74(3), 1379–1421.
Starner, T. (2025). ‘Quiet cracking’: Is respect the solution to employee disengagement? HR
Executive, 5/27/25. Online: With 'quiet cracking' on the rise, what can HR do?
Swanson, C., Taylor, R.W., Territo, L., Fox, B. & Chamelin, N. (2023). Criminal Investigation, 13th
Edition ISBN10: 1260836800 | ISBN13: 9781260836806
Thacher, D. (2020). The Learning Model of Use-of-Force Reviews. Law & Social Inquiry, 45(3), 755-
786. [Link]
Tong, S., & Bowling, B. (2006). Art, craft, and science of detective work. Policing: A Journal of Policy and
Practice, 1(3), 326-337. [Link]
Tracy, S. J. (2020). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact (2nd
ed.). Wiley.
Turney, J. J. (2014). Police supervisory attributes that influence attitude towards Critical Incident Stress
Management programs (Order No. 3619257). Available from Criminal Justice Database.
(1531331418). [Link]
attributes-that-influence
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts.
Russell Sage Foundation.

99
US House of Representatives. (2023). Childcare for Police Officers. H.R.2722 - 118th Congress
(2023-2024): Providing Child Care for Police Officers Act of 2023 | [Link]
Vanida, B. (2022). A Case Study Evaluation of a Fast-Track Detective Scheme Carried Out by a Police Service
in the South of England (Order No. 30614066). Available from Criminal Justice Database.
(2877959953). [Link]
track-detective-scheme
Vaughn, P. (2020). The effects of devaluation and solvability on crime clearance. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 68, May-June. 101657. [Link]
Verrecchia, P.J. (2024). Learning from the Perceptions of Women in Policing: A Survey of Women
Police Officers, Police Chief Online, March 20, 2024. Online: Learning from the Perceptions of
Women in Policing - Police Chief Magazine
Vogt, W.P. (1999). Dictionary of Statistics & Methodology: A nontechnical guide for the social sciences. Sage.
Vovak, H. (2016). Examining the relationship between crime rates and clearance rates using dual trajectory
analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. George Mason University. Criminology, Law and
Society | Criminology, Law and...
Wellford, C., & Cronin, J. (2000). Clearing up homicide clearance rates. National Institute of Justice.
Wexler, C. (2018). Promoting Excellence in First-Line Supervision: New approaches to selection, training and
leadership development. Police Executive Research Forum, 10/1/18. Online:
[Link]
Wexler, C. (2025). Developing a training curriculum for investigative supervisors 50 years after the RAND study.
Police Executive Research Forum, 6/28/25. Online: Developing a training curriculum for
investigative supervisors 50 years after the RAND study
Whetstone, T. S. (1994, June). Performance evaluation of supervisory personnel by subordinate
employees. The Police Chief, 61 (6), 57-63, 66.
Whetstone, T. S. & Wilson, D. G. (1999). Dilemmas confronting female police officer promotional
candidates: Glass ceiling, disenfranchisement or satisfaction. International Journal of Police
Science and Management, 2 (2), 128-143.
Whetstone, T. S. (1999). Post consent decree minority promotions: Discrimination, disinterest,
disenfranchisement or unrealistic expectations. International Journal of Police Science and
Management, 1 (4), 403-418.
Whetstone, T. S. (2000). Getting stripes: educational achievement and study strategies used by
sergeant promotional candidates. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24 (2), 247-257.
Whetstone, T. S. (2001). Copping-out: Why officers decline to participate in the promotional
process. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 25 (2), 147-159.
Wilson, J. Q. & Kelling, G. E. (1982). Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety.
Atlantic Monthly, March. Broken Windows - The Atlantic
Worrall, J.L. (2016). Investigative resources and crime clearances: A group-based trajectory
approach. Online in Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(2), 155-175.
[Link]

100
Wright, M. (2013). Homicide Detectives’ Intuition. Journal of Investigative Psychology & Offender Profiling,
10(2), 182–199. Homicide Detectives' Intuition - Wright - 2013
Zheng, X. (J.), Nieberle, K. W., Braun, S., & Schyns, B. (2023). Is someone looking over my
shoulder? An investigation into supervisor monitoring variability, Subordinates' daily felt
trust, and well-being. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(5), 818–837.
[Link]

Case Law & Administrative Rules

503 KAR 1:100 – Certification of Instructors
503-KAR-1:170. Career Development Program Section 11, Law Enforcement Officer Investigator
Certificate
KRS 15.310, Definitions.
KRS 15.330(1)(a), (b), (e), (h). Functions and Powers of (KLEC) Council
KRS 15.382, Minimum qualifications for certification.
KRS 15.404, Basic training and in-service training for peace officers and constables.
KRS 67C, Consolidation of Local Governments in Counties Containing Cities of the First Class.
United States v. Maytubby, No. 23-7084 (10th Cir. 2025) Non-custodial interviews, offer only
truthful, limited assurances about how cooperation might be viewed and never imply control
over charging or sentencing.

Other Documents
Collective Bargaining Agreement by and Between Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government
and River City Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #614, Police Officers and Sergeants.
7/1/23. Louisville Metro Government
House Bill H.R.2722 H.R.2722 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Providing Child Care for Police
Officers Act of 2023 | [Link]
Human Resources Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), 2024. Louisville Metro Government
Human Resources Personnel Policies, Rev 3/24/25. Louisville Metro Government
LAPD (2025). Competency Model for Police Detective Class Code (2223). City of Los Angeles
Personnel Office, 7/18/25. Online: doc LAPD [Link]
Louisville Metro Government (LMG) (2025). Childcare Assistance Program FAQ. Metro Ordinance
35.006.
LMCO (2020). §36.70 Establishment of the Civilian Review & Accountability Board. Louisville Metro
City Ordinances (LMCO). Louisville (KY) Metro Government.
LMCO (2020). §36.78 Establishment of the Office of Inspector General. Louisville Metro City
Ordinances (LMCO). Louisville (KY) Metro Government.
LMPD. (2025). BlueTeam Instruction Manual, Rev. 2/2/23. Louisville Metro Police Department

101
Standard Operating Procedures. Louisville Metro Police Department

102
 APPENDIX
Appendix 1 Copy of email notice sent to participants.
Appendix 2 Copy of Employee Witness Statement
Appendix 3 Copy of Demographics Collection Sheet
Appendix 4 Copy of Interview Protocol
Appendix 5 Example of No Leads Letter to Victims
Appendix 6 Example of Detective Annual Performance Appraisal Form

103
Appendix 1 Copy of email notice sent to participants.

Subject: Intent to Interview

Best Practices in Detective Units
NOTE: Lieutenants, this is just an FYI for you. You are not being interviewed.
This is a notice of intent to interview you in regard to the Best Practices in Detective Units Study
being conducted by the OIG. I would like to interview you and the other Detective Sergeants
before I move on to your Detectives. Please respond to this email with your availability. The
interview will last approximately 2 hours. As noted below, I will come to your workplace as a part of
this study is an evaluation of the adequacy of your facilities and equipment.
This study has been discussed with the Chief, LMPD legal counsel and your Division
Commanders. It has also been discussed with the leadership of the FOP. These groups have
contributed to the structure and conduct of this study and are aware of the scope and your required
participation. By now you should have been informed by your Division Commander of your role in
assisting with this study. Following are a few details regarding this study.
WHO: Detectives & Sergeants
• All eight Division Detective Sergeants
• Minimum of two Detectives from each Division to start
WHAT: The OIG will examine a wide variety of factors impacting Detectives and their work.
• The study is designed to provide a confidential conduit for Detectives and their first line
supervisors to discuss:
• How they work,
• what works and
• suggestions for improvement – Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, & Threats.

WHEN: Beginning interviews ASAP.

WHERE: Where you work. All I need is a private space that does not have recording devices.
WHY: Based upon,
• findings presented in the Hillard Heinz report,
• findings presented in the DOJ report.
• and complaints received by OIG,
• Doing interviews because surveys are routinely unreliable.
HOW: This study is a confidential platform designed to collect only anonymous answers from the
participants.
• Semi-structured interviews will be conducted one-on-one.
• NO recordings will be made and
• While participants are compelled, sworn statements will NOT be required.
• Honesty and professional integrity are requested.
• Individual answers will not be tied to any name and will not be shared (to the extent allowed
by law) with anyone. Moreover, when the information is collected it will be databased and
only shared in an aggregated form, without personal attributions.
The overarching philosophy embraces the concept that those who do the actual work, and their first
line supervisors are the best people to describe and critique all things impacting their work and
productivity.

104
Sergeants, to prepare for the interview:
Please have unit metrics available, e.g. case loads, closures, prosecutions, arrests, in-house
performance measures, etc.
Latest annual report (if any) generated by your unit.
A blank copy of the personnel appraisal form currently used for Detectives.
Any other documentation that will provide a better picture of how your unit contributes to the
LMPD mission.
Be prepared to speak about:
• What your unit is doing well and how other units can incorporate your methods.
• The adequacy of office facilities and equipment.
• Constraints imposed by budget and overtime restrictions.
• Impact of computer technology, databasing and learning software systems.
• The latest Detective selection process, e.g. recruiting, screening committee, interview
questions, work evaluation, etc. and how it may be improved.
• Any suggestions for improving Detective units at LMPD.
I know this is an imposition on your operations and we will appreciate your time and thoughtful
cooperation. I look forward to meeting all of you and learning about your units.

Ends with email and phone contact information of Principal Investigator.

105
Appendix 2 Copy of Witness Statement form

LOUISVILLE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

OFFICIAL LMPD EMPLOYEE WITNESS STATEMENT

CASE: LMPD/OIG Detective Best Practices Study

Today’s date is: ________________

This is an interview with: _______________________________________

This interview is being conducted at:

The Office of Inspector General, 609 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 30, Louisville, KY 40202

Other Location: ________________________________________________________

Confidentiality:
This is a confidential conversation! This interview is not being recorded. Your name will not appear
on the form collecting specific data points, nor will it appear in any database used in this study. To
the extent allowed by law, any statements you may make will not be revealed to anyone not affiliated
with the conduct of this study. The information you provide will not be retained except as combined
data from all respondents. Do you understand this? ___________

You are not the subject of this review under §36.82(A)(2) being conducted by the Inspector
General’s Office; you are present as a witness only.
As this is a review authorized under §36.82(A)(2), you may not discuss the format of, or questions
asked, the scope of this review or any statements given in this review with anyone other than legal
counsel. Do you understand this? ______
Has anyone threatened you in order to obtain this interview? _______

I UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE INFORMATION.

Signature: _______________________________________ Date: __________ Time: _______

Witness Signature: ________________________________ Date: __________ Time: _______

106
Appendix 3 Copy of Demographics Collection Sheet

Respondent Demographics:
Division:
Sub-Unit:
Age:
Gender:
Race:
Ethnicity:
Years LMPD:
Years Detective:
Prior LMPD Assignments:
Prior Policing:
Military Service:
Rank/MOS:
Education Level:
Major:
Previous Jobs:
OPTIONAL:
Marital Status:
Children:
Single Parent Child Care:

107
Appendix 4 Copy of Interview Protocol
Interview Protocol
Tell me about yourself.
Tell me about your job.
What do I need to know about detective work at LMPD?
Recruiting:
Who is looking for the next detective?
How do you identify good prospects, what characteristics?
Have you done any grooming of prospects?
Have you used any Patrol Officers in your investigations (SOP 1.11.3 allows this)?
Testing & Selecting:
What are the minimum qualifications?
What, if any, should be changed, modified, added or eliminated?
Oral Interview board --
What did you do to prepare for your interview?
Who was on your interview board (ranks/positions only)?
What were the elements of the selection process?
Questions, What questions were you asked?,
Hypothetical (what if?) situations,
Assessment center.
How long was the interview?
Was the process fair and equitable?
Was your prior performance evaluated?
What factors should be considered when selecting Detectives?
What criteria is given the most weight?
Do existing Division Detectives have any input?

Training:
What LMPD training in investigations have you attended?
What other training providers courses have you attended?
Did you attend LMPD investigations course offerings before you were a Detective?
What training is exclusively provided to currently assigned Detectives?
What additional training have you personally attended?
108
 Approximately how many hours?
When & what was the last training course you attended?
Should there be a Detective FTO program?
An apprenticeship or mentoring program?
A probationary period?
Do Detectives in your Division get regularly scheduled training? Includes online, webinars,
roll call.
Have you personally provided training to Patrol Officers or others?
Structure of Units:
How is your unit organized?
What budgetary constraints are you dealing with?
Are there specialists in your unit?
How would you change things?
Workspace
Technology
Hardware
Software
Unit structure
Case distribution
Personnel
Supervision
Workflow
Working:
What are your usual duty hours and shift length?
Should new Detectives serve a probationary period, if so, how long?
Should they be assigned a partner or T.O.?
Is there an operations manual or set of directives for Detectives and Detective units?
What is your personal Case Load?
Is that load normal, light, heavy, by comparison with your peers?
Case conduct procedures, what do you look for?
How do you personally manage all your cases?
What is the process to conduct non-custodial interviews of suspects?
How does that differ from custodial interviews?

109
 How your time is spent on your cases: (Databasing, Justifying, Inv. Findings)?
Filling out case management reports or database?
Writing reports documenting investigative findings?
Percentage of time interviewing?
On telephone?
In-person?
Percentage of time data mining?
Percentage of time reviewing video, physical or documentary evidence?
Writing reports documenting or justifying your activity?
Do you or your supervisor use a case solution matrix, solvability matrix, solvability factors
document, procedure or process?
Do you have Case Reviews with a supervisor, if so, how often?
Are case reviews in compliance with relevant SOP’s
Do you work with or coordinate investigations with LMPD special investigative units?
Is there two-way communication between Division Det. & Major Crime Inv. Units?
Case Closure criteria/process:
Your decision
In consult with supervisor
Supervisor alone.
Is the system sustainable, working?
Motivation:
What keeps you coming to work each day?
What keeps you focused?
Are you here by choice or is this required by circumstances?
What role do supervisors play in your motivation?
What changes would you make to improve Detective work at LMPD?
Rate your agreement with the following statements: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly
Agree.
I am satisfied with my current position. ___
My opinion is valued by my peers. ___
My opinion is valued by Command. ___
I am satisfied with my direct supervisor. ___
I am satisfied with Command support. ___
I am satisfied with SOP/s, manuals or directives for Detective operations. ___
110
Retention:
What are your career goals?
Where do you see yourself in 5 years?
What role do your supervisors play in your career goals?
Do you want to stay in policing?
Would you support a Detective/Investigations career path?
Have you searched for jobs elsewhere?
Have you applied for jobs elsewhere?

Communications/Direction:
How many people do you report to?
Is communication two-way or one-way?
How are you directed in your work?
In person, verbal, Email, Other
Who directs your work?
Self, Peers, Sgt., Lt.
Staffing:
Rate your agreement with the following statements: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly
Agree.
Command anticipates staffing needs and plans ahead. _____
Detective staffing in this Division is adequate. ______
Selection criteria for Detectives is adequate. ______
New Detectives are adequately trained. _____
I am satisfied with the hours I am expected to work. ______
I get too much mandatory overtime. _____
Supervising:
Do you work the same shift/hours as your supervisor?
How often do you see your direct supervisor?
Do you have scheduled meetings with your supervisor?
Do you get regular feedback from your supervisor?
Does your supervisor direct your activities on investigations?
Do you have regular case reviews/direction from your supervisor?
How often do you have these reviews?

111
Evaluating:
How is your performance on individual cases assessed?
Do you receive an annual performance appraisal?
What are your annual performance measures?
Do you or your supervisor keep track of your personal arrest stats?
Do you or your supervisor keep track of your personal case closures?

Wrap-Up:
What questions do I need to ask that we have not covered?
I’ll be interviewing other Detectives, who in your unit is most unlike you?
What additional information should I obtain to get a better picture of Detectives & their work?
What questions do you have?

112
Appendix 5 Copy of a Detective’s “No Leads” Letter to victims.

CRAIG
GREENBERG

MAYOR

Re: Louisville Metro Police Report Number LMPD25-xxx

Date:

This letter is to notify you that your recent report of a criminal offense has been received
by the Louisville Metro Police Department. After careful review, it has been determined
that there are no leads at this time that may assist Detective's in identifying a suspect.
However, if you believe there is information that may be missing from the report, video
that needs to be submitted, or information that may otherwise point Detective's towards a
suspect please contact your assigned Detective.

Reasons why your report may have been determined to have No Leads:

1. No identifying suspect information / No suspect listed.

2. No Video/Photo Evidence / Property isn't identifiable if found. (Non-Existent/Missing

Serial # )

3. No Eyewitnesses or other information that may help identify a suspect.

4. Report was requested for insurance purposes only.

Your report has been assigned to the below Detective from the Louisville Metro Police
Department’s XX Division.

Detective: Email:
Phone #:

Please be assured it is our desire to serve the people of this area with the most effective
police service possible.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

113
Appendix 6 Copy of LMG Personnel Appraisal Instrument.
Note: There is no hard copy form of this instrument. It only exists as an interactive program on the
LMG “Workday” net. The program uses a series of drop-down menus and option lists that are not
included here. The “form” was extracted and is re-formatted here for readability.

Employee Performance
Evaluation
Employee Name
Position Title: Organization:
Manager: Location:
Evaluated By: Evaluation Period:
Competencies
Job Knowledge
Evaluates employee’s technical knowledge and skills for accomplishing work assignments.
Includes level of knowledge/ skill, training and improvement, and knowledge sharing.
Employee Evaluation
Proficiency Rating:
Comment:

Work Quality
Evaluates employee’s work results according to the established quality standards. Includes
accuracy, diligence, and responsiveness to feedback.
Employee Evaluation
Proficiency Rating:
Comment:

Accountability
Evaluates employee’s adherence to the agency’s mission and vision, and the work practices the
employee demonstrates when completing tasks. Includes resource utilization, timeliness of work,
integrity, and responsibility.
Employee Evaluation
Proficiency Rating:
Comment:

Relationship Management
Evaluates employee’s effectiveness at developing and maintaining positive professional
relationships with customers, coworkers, and management. Includes communication and conflict
management, customer service orientation, and collaboration.
Employee Evaluation
Proficiency Rating:
Comment:

Innovation & Problem Solving

Evaluates employee’s contributions to the agency’s organizational culture, mission, and vision
through operational improvements. Includes initiative, problem solving, and process
improvement.
Employee Evaluation
Proficiency Rating:
Comment:

114
Safety Focus
Evaluates employee’s ability to adhere to all workplace and job-specific safety laws, regulations,
standards, and practices.
Employee Evaluation
Proficiency Rating:
Comment:

Supervision & Planning

Evaluates employee’s ability to create work plans, direct and check work of employees,
encourage workforce development, coach, promote high morale, delegate, demonstrate effective
problem solving, cultural competency, and equitable treatment of all employees.
Employee Evaluation
Proficiency Rating:
Comment:

Summary
Employee Evaluation
Proficiency Rating:
Comment:

Goals

115