Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why doesn't Washington State have self-sponsor program for the academy?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why doesn't Washington State have self-sponsor program for the academy?

    Just like the title said, why doesn't Washington have a self-sponsor academy option?

    With classes with BLEA (through WSCJTC) being cancelled due to low enrollment, I'd think that would help.

    Becoming a LEO as an entry level in the state is really hard due to the volume of candidates and low openings. Wouldn't self-sponsor save departments and cities money?

    Also, it would be nice to try to line yourself up in every way possible as the candidate.
    Last edited by Ryandus; 04-08-2011, 02:51 PM. Reason: Grammatical issues (fully spelling words)

  • #2
    There many cons for why this is, but from what I have heard from law enforcement officials and recruiters, its a public safety issue for the citizens of Washington State or any other state for that matter which does not have a self sponsorship. In California and other states that have a self sponsoring academy, gang members have been known to go completely through the academy and come back to their gang and disperse all of the information learned at the academy. Think about it, if a gang member goes rouge and is able to become self sponsored, he will get tactical weapons training, will learn the laws front to back, and will learn many other things the general public should not know or probably does not need to know and will come back 3-6 months later and teach those gang members everything he learned. That in itself can be a very dangerous and harmful thing for the LEO community and general public.

    There are other reasons why the self sponsoring is a bad idea but I think this is probably the most important.
    Last edited by Super_HKS; 04-08-2011, 03:33 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      That's an good point. When I went through my military police academy, we did go through physical apprehension techniques and base-specific security concerns that would not be a good thing to have as general knowledge.

      However, it's not like it's a college course though, where as long as you pay you're in. I believe you would still need to meet the academy's entrance standards, which includes a background check, polygraph, physical, etc. If you have a gang member pass that stuff, what says he can't pass it through a department? The WSJTC could even employ their own people to do the pre-entrance testing procedures to avoid corruption in the process.

      Doing all that stuff prior and at cost to the applicant is much cheaper for a department I would assume. I have a friend that self-sponsored in California and was picked up by a department a few weeks into the academy and did great. I do believe the failure rate for self-sponsor was higher (per his report), but again, this is on the applicant's dime, not the department's. In addition, the department doesn't pay for the academy, the entrance fees, the meals, or the lodging.

      Lateral transfers in this state are so common because you need to be sponsored by a department to even be a police officer; Some department's attitudes and advice are to just get hired then transfer to where you want to go (as clearly stated during this last Tacoma testing process). Doesn't the training for laterals also stack up for the department cost-wise for the equipment issue, shortened FTO, and staffing costs for the constant laterals?

      Is Washington department sponsor-only due to legislation, or do you know why Washington decided to go this way?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Ryandus View Post
        Is Washington department sponsor-only due to legislation, or do you know why Washington decided to go this way?
        http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=139-05-200

        It is state run to keep training oversight consistent and costs/income directed towards the state.

        Comment


        • #5
          True, I suppose I could see the difference as being a state college vs. private college. Degrees would be universally appropriate (considering accreditation standards) and the degrees would mean the same BUT it would not funnel the costs/income to the state as much.

          While regulation would maintain equal standards (by law), the income and costs would leave the state.

          Thanks for the link

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Ryandus View Post
            True, I suppose I could see the difference as being a state college vs. private college. Degrees would be universally appropriate (considering accreditation standards) and the degrees would mean the same BUT it would not funnel the costs/income to the state as much.

            While regulation would maintain equal standards (by law), the income and costs would leave the state.
            You got it.

            Comment

            MR300x250 Tablet

            Collapse

            What's Going On

            Collapse

            There are currently 4831 users online. 282 members and 4549 guests.

            Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

            Welcome Ad

            Collapse
            Working...
            X