Posted on May 9, 2023
California, other states with strong 'Defund the Police' movements ranked best to be a cop, new...
390
13
6
3
3
0
New York was ranked 9th best for law enforcement. This is surprising.
I would be interested in hearing thoughts about this from our brothers and sisters in Law Enforcement.
I would be interested in hearing thoughts about this from our brothers and sisters in Law Enforcement.
California, other states with strong 'Defund the Police' movements ranked best to be a cop, new...
Posted from foxnews.com
Law Enforcement
Police
State of New York
State of California
Policy
Posted 1 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
SFC (Join to see)
At first glance I would agree ma'am, but being familiar with studies and how premises may bias the results of a study… well that’s why I asked for some opinion from our Law Enforcement brothers and sisters.
(0)
(0)
You can see the study at https://wallethub.com/edu/best-states-to-be-a-cop/34669
They had three categories - Opportunity & Competition, Law Enforcement Training Requirements, and Job Hazards & Protections - and gave equal weight to all. If you look at the subcategories in each, they range from some being given 'half weight' up to a few given 'triple weight'.
As anyone who has done COA analysis can attest to, you have to be careful about the categories you evaluate and the weight you give to a category as you can easily skew results and/or evaluate things that don't apply to what you're trying to achieve.
While I don't dispute the rankings they gave in each category (didn't check, but don't see any reason they would fudge the results), I do raise an eyebrow on the weight and the subcategories they gave/chose.
Some of these categories would absolutely be relevant if the rankings were to determine "Which police force has the best policies for the community?", but don't apply (or don't apply in the weight they gave them) if the rankings are to show "Best/Worst state to be a Police Officer".
Additionally, without digging in and recreating the rankings they gave, it's impossible to know which way the evaluation criteria was used. For example, under "Job Hazards & Protections" a sub-category (given full weight) is "Police-Misconduct Confidentiality Law". The note states, "This metric measures whether police officers’ disciplinary records are confidential, have limited public availability or are completely public." Does that mean if they ARE confidential that it gets a higher score or does that mean if they AREN'T confidential they get a higher score?
Finally, with many sub-categories crammed into one of the three main categories, you dilute the overall contribution of those evaluations to the score (the study was nice enough to show how the overall score would be affected). For example, the sub-category of "Police Officer Hours Training Required" gives almost three times the amount of points to the overall total than "Share of Law Enforcement Officers Assaulted".
Interesting study ... but flawed in my opinion.
They had three categories - Opportunity & Competition, Law Enforcement Training Requirements, and Job Hazards & Protections - and gave equal weight to all. If you look at the subcategories in each, they range from some being given 'half weight' up to a few given 'triple weight'.
As anyone who has done COA analysis can attest to, you have to be careful about the categories you evaluate and the weight you give to a category as you can easily skew results and/or evaluate things that don't apply to what you're trying to achieve.
While I don't dispute the rankings they gave in each category (didn't check, but don't see any reason they would fudge the results), I do raise an eyebrow on the weight and the subcategories they gave/chose.
Some of these categories would absolutely be relevant if the rankings were to determine "Which police force has the best policies for the community?", but don't apply (or don't apply in the weight they gave them) if the rankings are to show "Best/Worst state to be a Police Officer".
Additionally, without digging in and recreating the rankings they gave, it's impossible to know which way the evaluation criteria was used. For example, under "Job Hazards & Protections" a sub-category (given full weight) is "Police-Misconduct Confidentiality Law". The note states, "This metric measures whether police officers’ disciplinary records are confidential, have limited public availability or are completely public." Does that mean if they ARE confidential that it gets a higher score or does that mean if they AREN'T confidential they get a higher score?
Finally, with many sub-categories crammed into one of the three main categories, you dilute the overall contribution of those evaluations to the score (the study was nice enough to show how the overall score would be affected). For example, the sub-category of "Police Officer Hours Training Required" gives almost three times the amount of points to the overall total than "Share of Law Enforcement Officers Assaulted".
Interesting study ... but flawed in my opinion.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
You are a better man than I am sir. I had suspected this, but I just don't have the time right now to dig into the guts of a study and evaluate the right from the wrong, that's why I asked for some help from more experienced people. I've seen plenty of studies over my career that were flawed from the original premise, to twisting standards, to weights of competing categories. Anyone half decent at their job will make any study stand up and sing God Save the Queen. From the few items you pick out it seems my suspicions were right. Thank you for taking the time.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
SFC (Join to see)
That's always the preferred method, but if it doesn't give the answers wanted they must go to plan "B".
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google