PD Anti-Feedback

[fmxmyway]

Question: What is the reasoning behind police departments not giving feedback to their applicants? I know they receive a bunch of applicants that aren't worth their time, but I would assume there are a lot of good aspiring applicants that get screwed by not knowing what they need to work on. Is there anyway to find out this information?

[Falconis]

Multitude of reasons. Sometimes things turn up in their background where if they turn over the information, they may incite an incident. Candidate may have just missed the cut off point where "X" number of candidates were better than him or her and revealing such information may start an incident they don't want to deal with because "feelings" were hurt. If there is something lacking in the candidate, I was told, part of the process is for the candidate to figure out themselves.

The above is NOT a full explanation, but just a few in a nutshell type things. Don't get too hot and heavy over the background thing, bad and good facts are usually verified. Problem becomes when bad facts are verified, more than one person usually is the source.

Short of hiring an attorney and forcing a department to hand over records, I have not heard of another way. My department wont release background information on myself to me or another person's to them even if asked and we all work for the place.

[fmxmyway]

Gotcha, thank you Falconis I appreciate the insight. Ill take that mindset to heart and figure it out for myself. Its a little easier to deal with knowing its just apart of the process.

[PsychGuy274]

Plus think about how time consuming it'd be to respond to all applicants who were denied.

[Big D]

Try a FOIA request

[Big D]

Sorry i guess that only applies to the feds

[fmxmyway]

Thanks Big D, if I run across that with the feds ill keep that in mind but they've been pretty forward thus far. So far its just the sdpd that denied me.

[bRiT636]

They gave no reason? I know L.A.P.D has responds with a pre-written set of responses (maturity etc).

[yzErnie]

The Commission of Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) prohibits departments from disclosing much of the information that relates to a disqualification or substandard qualifying requirements. What many departments have started doing is an outright disqualification of an applicant if they do not meet requirements. For others who do meet the requirements but are a less than desireable applicant they will place them into a "Group 4 or Group 5" catagory. This is done instead of issuing a "thanks for applying" letter and having to deal with the fallout from the millions of questions that result from a straight up DQ. When there are 100+ people in Group 1, the chances of ever hitting Group 2 and above is pretty small....at least on my department

The issue is there are so many applicants these days that departments have the ability to choose the best available candidates from the talent pool. My department is seeing a large influx of military who are completing their tours and applying near their time of discharge. Heck, back when I got hired if you were not a vet you would never get hired.

[Notorious]

Sorry i guess that only applies to the feds

There is the CPRA that applies to California Public Agencies. Trust me... everything the feds have, CA has to double down on, like having our own EPA and Veteran's Affairs Departments... anyone wonder why we're broke?

[tyrist]

At what stage were you disqualified?

[fmxmyway]

At what stage were you disqualified?

Just the interview with the background investigator.

[BoJackUSMC]

Do you mind sharing the reason why they disqualified you during background interview process?

[fmxmyway]

Not at all. If I knew I wouldn't be inquiring as to why they don't submit feedback to their applicants. I received a very vague 1 size fits all rejection letter. Received another interview after that due to a Sergent recommending they re-interview me. I emailed the BI detective only for her to say I didn't make the cut a few weeks later.

It is possible that I could be one of those douche bags that say all the wrong things during an interview but being as though I at least have the self-awareness to consider it herein, I don't think I am that guy.

I will say that both background detectives were really quick to assume and seemed as though they wanted to assume the negative in any given situation. I was honest and told the truth, no drug use, dont drink, no violations with the exception of 2 speeding tickets and a parking violation. I have no LE/MIL experience and my bachelors is in global business, so no criminal justice degree. Other than being too honest and not use to anyone treating me as if I am a criminal, I cant say I was so off the rocker that I could not move forward to the poly and panel interview.

To their credit I'm sure they deal with a bunch of lieing dirtbags all day. I mean people don't exactly call the police when they are having a good day. But being as though I am an applicant and dedicated towards making LE my career, I would like to think they would be able to differentiate between a criminal and an honest applicant. Maybe they think I am too soft? Or perhaps to likely to move on to another agency?

[yzErnie]

On my dept if your two speeding tickets were within the last year that is an auto DQ. Credit problems are an issue that rsults in a quick exit. I don't know why you were stopped from continuing, these are just examples.