A Monograph Titled:
Homicide Investigation Training (HIT)
Developed from a Doctoral Dissertation: A Naturalistic Study of Homicide Investigation Expertise:
Implications for Continuing Criminal Justice Education
Copyright 2001
By: Wayne A. Johnson Ed.D.

Wayne A. Johnson is the former Superintendent of Police/Inspector General for the Town of Cicero, Illinois. He has been an adjunct faculty member at several Chicago Area Universities since 1992 and is now serving at Loyola University. Previously he was Chief Investigator for The Chicago Crime Commission for 5 years after serving as a member of the Chicago Police Department for over 24 years. He earned his Doctor of Education degree from Northern Illinois University, and a Master of Science degree in Criminal-Social Justice from Lewis University in Romeoville, Illinois. He serves the Chicago-land area as an investigative consultant and as a training consultant. He has authored and co-authored articles in Law Enforcement and Education, most notably the Chicago Crime Commission's last Organized Crime Report titled “The New Faces of Organized Crime 1997". His research, the subject of this monograph, follows a Special Report published by the Chicago Crime Commission in their Spring/Summer 2000, Action Alert Newsletter titled “Homicide.” That report presented a probable cause for this research. This dissertation is available in its entirety for a fee, through Bell and Howell Information Services-ProQuest Digital Dissertations at wwwlib.umi.com/dissertation.

Introduction

In looking at the pattern of homicide solution rates over the last forty years, I see that homicide professionals seem increasingly less capable of solving these crimes as time goes on. While law enforcement and the crime itself continue to change, homicide investigation and its associated training seem static at best. This research was carried out under a hypothesis that homicide professionals can drastically improve solution rates, if law enforcement in large urban settings improve specialized training and administration under the principles associated with adult education.

This study examines the realities of formal and informal patterns of training and learning associated with homicide investigation. Data was collected from some of the best homicide professionals in the Chicago area through qualitative interviewing techniques. This data captures the experiences of the respondents associated with their successes and failures in the field of homicide investigation. Data was analyzed and themes developed that form a strategy for improved training and administration. Problems in this process indicate that the homicide investigation field, as it currently exists, is operating within a system that was designed and implemented to solve the crimes of the past. What must be recognized is that law enforcement can learn their way out of these problems.

Methodology

Qualitative research as the method of choice, lends itself to this topic for several basic reasons. Homicide and the related training is a relevant topic that excites not only those in law enforcement, but the public in general and has a bearing on the quality of life in our society. It allows me to draw honest and meaningful experiences and opinions from a group of respondents considered masters in the field. It further draws on a rigorous phenomenological examination of my own experiences. Critical reflection will produce new training paradigms in an urban landscape where the homicide solution rates are at a critical stage. Chicago, as a site for this study, has recently led the nation in homicide totals (see, Chicago Crime Commission, Action Alert, Spring 1999 edition). The observations concerning training methodology assisted in identifying emerging themes, thus contributing to the literature of adult continuing education and other professional literature in law enforcement.

Realistically, the experience of the homicide detective is paramount, but isolated in their ability to impact training reform. Although culturally isolated, homicide practitioners do lack congruity from big city to big city. To keep this study as concise as possible, it was carried out primarily in Chicago, but counterparts from Los Angeles, New York and Chicago's suburbs facing the task of homicide investigations and training contributed through curricula samples and a questionnaire.

Revealing insights and experiences that address shortcomings is a potentially hazardous undertaking for those dealing with the phenomenon of homicide. It can devastate careers and be injurious to actual cases, mostly in the appellate phase of adjudication. The need for individuals with verifiable experience of the phenomenon was crucial along with gaining their written permission to be studied. Protecting the human subjects involved in this study remains a cardinal concern.

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

In the course of conducting ten interviews, the responses were folded into three major categories addressing: (a) administrative Issues, (b) training Issues, and (c) adult education principles and practices. This matrix effectively encompasses the six descriptive categories or themes that focus on education, training and a prior background in law enforcement as endemic to Homicide Investigation Training (HIT) and homicide investigations.

While several themes emerged from the data, most pertained to issues enveloping the homicide training phenomena being investigated; some were obvious, while others were not. This investigation brings to the fore several germane observations in the context of homicide training, as it exists in Chicago. What we will observe in the coming pages is whether or not education is a functional component of homicide investigation in Chicago.

Background Issues

The education of the respondents in this investigation far exceeds those of most others in law enforcement. A great majority of these respondents have graduate degrees, and participate in continuing education, both through the course of employment and by self-directed means. Some of these respondents teach as adjunct faculty at local universities. Some of the respondents obtained college educations as adults, balancing families and careers, while others received their college educations as traditional students prior to starting their careers. Many previously held or currently hold positions of leadership in their organizations. While graduate degrees are not nearly as rare in today's world as they once were, I would venture to say that overall they represent less than 20% of all law enforcement professionals in the Chicago area. This penchant for formal education may provide a glimpse as to why homicide professionals are considered a cut above other investigators in law enforcement.

In 1967 the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice issued a report, Task Force Report: The Police. This advisory task force appointed by the President of the United States made observations and recommendations to leaders in law enforcement. They felt the most appropriate manner to address current law enforcement problems at the time was in recognizing the value of and increasing the education level of this country's police officials:

While such recommendations come to pass periodically, mandates have been resisted by government entities that control law enforcement and labor unions representing officers in their respective environments. Studies confirming the value of such formal accreditation and the importance of Continuing Professional Education in job effectiveness have been widely circulated in the field and have influenced the formation of professional organizations such as the American Police Association (APA), the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers (ASLET) and the International Homicide Investigators Association (IHIA).

Benefits associated to education include, but are not limited to: (a) intelligence and cognitive abilities in understanding complicated scenarios, (b) understanding and applying new and emerging technologies in homicide investigations, (c) allowing for the use of deductive and inductive means in solving crimes, and (d) exceptional communication, problem solving, and people skills. The commitment demonstrated by higher education and degree acquisition also shows a tenacity that has come to be a hallmark in homicide investigations.

Unique Qualities of Homicide Training

In my review of recent training curricula, I find no indications of substantial changes in the last several years. In taking a detailed look at homicide training as it exists, we cannot help but consider the administrative issues that present a major stumbling block in the success of investigative outcomes and training efforts.

Lackluster appraisals are not to be construed as anti-education or anti-training, but as a dissatisfaction of the product delivered by the police department. In noticing the draconian effect training programs have left upon the psyche of seasoned veterans, I do find opinions supportive of this current effort and reflective of the self-directed learning common in the field. Some dedicated administrators feel the current training to be an effective mesh of classroom training and mentoring now being enhanced with the inclusion of seasoned detectives as instructors. However, the structure provided for in the field training officer program (recruits) is not carried into the detective training program.

Other considerations such as outside training, which has become a perk only available to those of rank, and denials of requests for outside training due to a lack of funding, have fueled an ever-burning fire in the hearts of those dedicated to improvement. Only now is such funding being considered as part of the detective division budget. Consider the beliefs of these respondents in training as a necessary part of the homicide investigation task, as clearly stated here:

“I feel the secret is training, I think it's the future, if they're going to try to put success back into the murder investigations, then training by practitioners is going to have to get on track otherwise the slide (decreased solution rates) is going to continue.”

While noting an abundance of seminal work done in the field of investigation, no seminal text is used in current training programs, leaving investigators to acquire such texts on their own. The training provided over the last two decades continues to be delivered with military models of instruction. However, these models, unlike their military counterparts also tend to be void of evaluation. The need for more exotic skills for our detectives has been ignored and the training provided only contains rudimentary theory and skills to carry out a very complicated task. The current generic training is not received well by its constituents, as exemplified by the respondents. While these generic programs have administrative underpinnings, the emotions of the respondents run high in this topic, as demonstrated here:

“The problem with our training is we do not go into these things (specialty areas). When you make Homicide Detective you should probably go to classes (generic) for at least a week at the academy and then go into the specialties for 3 weeks.”

“If you don't train your people in a regimented course specific to the crimes that they are investigating, you can't expect to improve the quality of detective.”

Within this training context many detectives indicate displeasure with how they are treated in the training environment. An officer with many years of experience who now gets promoted to detective will take exception to being treated like a recruit during detective school, sometimes by instructors who have less time and experience on the street than they. I think it is common assessments as this that mandate a shift to adult education principles and practices as articulated here:

“Not only can they (adult education principles and practices) help, it's a natural vehicle for it, because the very practitioners we're talking about are in fact adults with work experience, having gone through a uniformed career, they are the very group of people that adult education in the academic world is aimed at. They're looking for more tools and self-improvement; it's the natural vehicle to offer this police group.”

Mentoring remains probably the most visible feature of law enforcement training. However, an over reliance on mentoring and on-the-job training has emerged and displaced other necessary concepts of equal significance with a mentoring system that features little structure, training or direction. This, coupled with the current trends in retirements, reflects a great shortage of competent detectives in the areas who are barely proficient enough to investigate a homicide, much less train someone else how to do it:

“Mentoring used here (homicide unit) unofficially, it was everything, coupled with on-the-job training, actually doing the job, were the two components that, if you accepted criticism and go about self-improvement, will produce a pretty good product within you.”

“Mentoring exists to a degree, but again, it's an individual effort, how much does that seasoned detective want to get involved with a new guy coming in, or how many people want to communicate rather that hiding their own tips and clues; it all depends on the attitude of the individual detective.”

Homicide training has been characterized as a form of pre-service and in-service training albeit the officers exposed to it are veterans at some level. As in any other true profession, training should be continuous and certain. In that regard I approach yet another adult education concept, in-service training. This falls within the realm of continuing professional education. Aside from the manner in which adults are treated, practitioners have a great deal of information that can help improve the training environment. Making these seasoned practitioners stakeholders in this objective and assuring them they will receive some training from time to time is of vital significance in the process.

While an active discourse has defined adult education concepts within current training models, I must consider the manner in which it is presented. A common practice in large training environments is to pass a class plan onto an academy instructor and say, do it. The recruits may not know the difference, but detectives are going to see through this immediately and you are going to lose them. Academics in this arena had best have some practical experience, as lettered instructors hold little value to street cops and may even be resented for those accomplishments. While common concerns relative to instructors who may never have worked in the homicide field are considered, a challenge of sorts is cast upon the masters of their trade under the shroud of experiential instruction:

“There's nothing like having to teach and articulate things that you thought you knew and might have known in your gut, but you've got to communicate it to others, make sure they understand it, and know that you can't fool them; it's the best way to learn anything. So whether you're learning or teaching, it's continuous.”

As I close this commentary on homicide training, I want to add a new dimension to the field as it appears today. Many attacks on law enforcement, especially in the area of homicide work, center around concerns previously restricted to the field of law. These emerging ethical concerns should be addressed with vigor unmatched in the current curricula.

Homicide Detective Qualities: Implications for Assignments

Homicide detectives hold a profound status in our modern society. Every media outlet holds this position on a pedestal above that of any other police official. I wonder if this status is warranted; is this lofty position justified or only media manufactured, as are so many other perspectives in our society? In analyzing the qualities of homicide detectives, I reflect on the observations of the respondents in the field of law:

“Of the policemen that eventually reached another level, perhaps outside the department, but of the policemen who went to law school, who became judges, or who ended up heading other police departments, almost without exception they were homicide detectives, that didn't happen in the other divisions, that just didn't happen.”

In painting a portrait of a good homicide detective, I look to the past in what has been the incidental promoting of quality individuals from days gone by. These experienced souls gravitate to each other and form effective partnerships in tackling homicide cases. It makes me wonder what may be found if specific criteria were put forth and persons with pre-existing skills were sought out of a large pool of applicants. What seems endemic to this field is the tenacity of these individuals who balance their dogged persistence with the patience of a priest. Skills calling for an ability to reason, organize, analyze and tolerate, balance with good gut instincts that cannot be taught in a classroom, but can be garnered from a seasoned mentor.

The debate on education has gone on for decades and only recently has been introduced as a precursor to homicide work. Most notably, the Presidential Commission of the 1960s put forth a strong and important recommendation for college-educated police officers. Detractors have since emerged in police administration, political and judicial arenas. However, these respondents have considered such reactions and respond:

“I'm a strong believer in college, two years, if you get a person who's a great policeman with zero college, he can't help but be a better policeman with a couple years of college or even a degree.”

To move beyond these general attributes, I look to abilities learned prior to being assigned to homicide. These skills take some time and effort to gather and consist of a deep cultural awareness from working in the community we serve. I learned to proceed carefully and cautiously at crime scenes, recognizing the sensitivity of outside forces and how they can affect evidence. In this vein, I see a need to be aware of and to utilize all available resources in the homicide field and to let the ancillary professionals who assist me know how important their efforts are to me.

While this power and authority must be held in check, it develops in the detective a skill set that lends itself to leadership, collaboration and the ability to supervise support staff. These are all necessary functions of a successful homicide detective. Experience and homicide training go together, but it seems most detectives arrive at this location through various paths. I also arrive at a perspective that police experience and homicide experience are two separate and distinct skill sets as reflected here:

“There is a big difference between wearing a uniform as a patrol officer and putting on the suit and tie as a homicide detective. Now instead of going on the street and mandating certain behavior, you have to knock on the citizen's doors and say: Hey folks, I need help here. This is a learning experience for you; suddenly you have to reach out, you have to become part of the community, that goes hand in hand with the training, it's a whole different aspect of police work. Many times, unfortunately, the police are in a hostile environment to begin with, where they're not liked, but they are there because of a particular crime, especially a murder; you have to draw information out of people and to reassure them that you are there to help them, you are there for the long run and you care, you are not just a flash in the pan, here today, gone tomorrow.”

Probably the most misunderstood talent a homicide detective depends on is communication. While many patrol officers bring this talent to the Detective Division, you can succeed in patrol without it, yet you will not succeed in homicide.

While a revelation in law enforcement vernacular, ethics is now a substantial concern to prosecutors and detectives alike. Recent criticisms have brought this issue to the fore and it remains on the minds of the respondents:

“The detective's attitude has got to be that I'm going to let the chips fall where they may, if my investigation indicates that the person I think responsible may not be responsible, I'm going to report that part of the investigation anyway. I'm going to report the inculpatory as well as the exculpatory and let the prosecutor worry about it, let the judge or the jury worry about it; a total picture has got to be given here.”

As far as a fraternal quality, homicide detectives provide a strong support system for each other. Homicide detectives often find themselves in the midst of conflicts between families (victims and offenders), prosecutors and even their own administrators. Moving forth on politically sensitive cases, and bumping heads with prosecutors and defense attorneys often lead to homicide detectives being abandoned and professionally censured.

Developing Expertise: Experiential and Intuitive Processes

Experience in not something that is packaged and doled out the first or last day in a homicide environment. It is a developmental continuum of previous years in patrol and other investigative assignments and is enhanced by the skills one brings to the assignment with them. This continuum is further enhanced by a hunger for knowledge, fed by self-directed activities and academic study outside the work place. It is also provided by participation in professional organizations and the training they provide. In a big city environment as Chicago is, expertise is accelerated by immediate hands-on exposure to cases and enormous caseloads. Active and immediate participation in functions of homicide detectives such as statements, felony review, court testimony, and post-mortem attendance will often lead to mistakes by young detectives. In looking at a homicide investigation from a practitioner's standpoint, we realize it is a very delicate undertaking and items such as small typographical errors in reports, saying the wrong thing to a suspect or giving too much information to the media can ruin a case. In taking on these important duties under the watchful eye of a highly skilled senior detective or supervisor, detectives spend a great deal of time watching and listening before developing their own style. However, detectives tend to make mistakes and consider that as part of the process of learning. Be that as it may, this is homicide and it is of the utmost importance that detectives minimize their mistakes to the very smallest of percentages:

“It depends on who you're assigned with in a car and whether or not they themselves have developed some pretty good talents.”

“The supervisors will tell you, listen, you have any questions, make sure you ask people, well, 90% of that is asking the right person.”

One unique aspect about most homicide settings in Chicago is the relationship between supervisors, prosecutors and peers. This collaborative functioning is unique to homicide and unheard of in other areas of law enforcement. This function helps to develop expertise in detectives and is part of a process that includes passing skills onto others. While I look to immediate supervisors as mentors and those charged with matching senior and junior detectives, in this task I again evaluate the supervisors and the preparatory measures that they may or may not receive to prepare for this duty; I consider direct experience as necessary to carry out this function:

“It takes four or five years to become a good detective in homicide; why should it be any different for a sergeant? I think one of the biggest assets in any unit is having supervisors that have experience.”

Detectives entering this homicide fraternity quickly learn the extent of this commitment. Cases are not completed in minutes or hours. Attending as many post-mortem exams as possible is a grueling exercise in commitment, and spending days and weeks non-stop in pursuing cases and leads speaks volumes to the extent of how hard homicide professionals work:

“I used to work 24, 36 hours, then I'd go home and go to bed and tell my wife, get me up, I gotta get up in 3 hours, I gotta get back to work, we gotta stay working on this suspect, we're close, she'd come in and wake me up and as dog-tired as I was, everything would start running through my mind, I couldn't go back to sleep if I wanted to, I would hit the shower and go back to work, we would finish that one and in a day or two wind up with a new case, same routine.”

The partnership between the State's Attorneys Office and the homicide detective receives little recognition in the training environs of either field. Many detectives and prosecutors tend to misinterpret this relationship, treating it as adversarial instead of collaborative, as it truly should be. A close association between these groups of true homicide professionals will develop the abilities and increase the successes of both. Training for prosecutors traditionally has contained progressive programs in-house and on the outside. Mentoring for prosecutors is also highly structured and could serve as a model in law enforcement environs. It is of the utmost importance that law enforcement takes these associations and relationships into consideration if they truly want to improve the field in homicide investigations:

“The ability of a Chicago prosecutor to have the area detectives that worked that case go back out, pound the pavement, find witnesses, and work on the case pretrial and during trial is a tremendous benefit to a successful prosecution.”

Obstacles to Success: Investigative Barriers

Obstacles to success is a relative term that in this context will include not just the success of homicide training with its administrative underpinnings, but success in the mission of solving and bringing to justice the perpetrators of each and every homicide committed in the Chicago area. Prior administrative changes in the Chicago Police Department over the last twenty years are causative factors and amongst a litany of obstacles that keep homicide investigators from carrying out their duties and responsibilities to the utmost. These changes are aggravating factors in the dismal solution rates Chicago is suffering in the area of homicide investigations. These viewpoints, as presented by the respondents, provide a devastating portrait of the current state of homicide training, investigations and effects to the urban landscape. I make no apologies for such damning observations and hope for an active discourse to result from it.

In 1981, when the Chicago Police Department, at the behest of the city government, decided to reinvent its detective division, it immediately removed homicide as an investigative priority and, in doing so, dismissed the efforts of the dedicated personnel who handled the most daunting task in law enforcement. What added to a resistance from within was the top-down manner in which the changes were carried out. The most rudimentary of business practices would advise any such changes to include input from the rank and file in order to make the transition plausible.

What followed this plan was a gradual reduction of the size of the detective division and an effort to reinvent the position of detective, making them generalists by trade, being able to investigate a multitude of crimes without sacrificing the skills or successes of prior specialty areas. Other policies emerged over the following years that made solving homicides an even greater task. One of the most detrimental of changes was a policy that allowed supervisors with no homicide or (sometimes) investigative experience to work in violent crimes units where they oversaw active homicide investigations. The ability to go to the supervisor or sometimes the lieutenant and ask for advice and answers to complicated questions were no longer an option for many homicide detectives. A second policy, that to this day is problematic for homicide detectives, is the mandatory transfer out of the detective division for detectives who test and are promoted to sergeant. While this change of assignment may appeal to some detectives, it is not viewed favorably by those who work on homicides. No other factor keeps experienced personnel from taking promotional exams more and in doing so; no other factor robs the supervisory ranks of some of the brightest and best police officers in the entire department.

Probably the most apparent shortcoming affecting the success of homicide investigations is the gradual absence of the true masters in the field. Currently in Chicago, a division of approximately 700 detectives, over half have only 2 years of investigative experience. In such areas there remain only 5 or 6 seasoned detectives capable of solving the most complicated homicides, and of area “violent crimes” supervisors, less than half have prior investigative or homicide experience. Priorities seemed fueled by media pressures and new priorities have emerged centering on community policing, domestic violence and violence in schools. Homicide has been moved down on the food chain of resources and training. Police administrators, especially those inexperienced in homicide, have done little to offset the constant flow of highly talented investigators to the ranks of the retired for the last ten or more years. These conditions still have not changed and the retirements continue at a record pace. Those very sentiments are displayed in the responses below:

“You may find yourself one of 5 or 6 people in an entire area (5 areas in Chicago) within a detective division of 700 people or so, that has the tools to solve the worst murders.”

What continues to aggravate the loss of experts is the ambiguity of exactly what is expected of an investigator on the street. That and a shortcoming in skilled supervision, inexperienced investigators working together, and detective areas unable to cope with training needs when promotions are made, give the disastrous results society is experiencing today:

“When you have two new detectives that team up and work for a sergeant who was never a detective, and we're wondering why we're in trouble.”

The most important function of a homicide investigation is the trial. Success in this endeavor falls upon the shoulders of a highly overworked State's Attorneys Office with the continued assistance of the case investigators from the areas. However, within the police department it is not stressed enough as to just how important it is that the detectives stay involved working the case during trial and beyond. Many homicide investigators, especially those with little experience, cannot foresee the devastating effects that this shortcoming can bring. A loss of a trial, a reversal of a conviction as we are seeing on a regular basis now, may be followed by civil litigation. This scenario sends shock waves through the entire criminal justice system. Inexperienced police administrators who allow and sometimes encourage investigators not to attend hearings or carry out tasks that assist prosecutors aggravate this situation. A fatal condition continues to fester, that allows investigators to see themselves as adversaries instead of partners in this judicial process and a confusing of responsibilities is apparent.

Additional obstacles to success surround the personal attributes of detectives, both experienced and non-experienced. Many-seasoned homicide detectives fail to recognize the value of formal education despite newly introduced mandates. These same senior detectives tend to be critical of their inexperienced counterparts and see them as uninterested, not persistent, and lacking of the exceptional dedication needed to be a successful homicide detective. The need for speed in investigations has emerged through administrative pressure and this leads to detectives failing to listen, or to refocus investigations. While tenacity is a strong attribute of homicide investigators, it can detract from progress when other leads or theories need consideration. These elements can have a negative effect on relationships with citizens and co-workers. Rudimentary shortcomings in crime scene processing and court presentation skills have seemed to emerge as two of the most common problems for inexperienced detectives.

While I attempt to consummate this litany of obstacles to success, I choose to close this section with obstacles directly related to training. First and foremost in this area of concern is the absence of specialty training for homicide detectives. What aggravates this situation even more is the manner in which homicide detectives are assigned. This assignment is not carried out until the end of a generic four-week training program where a great deal of time is wasted exposing detectives to material that they will not use. I know this statement may seem redundant in light of the fact there is no homicide unit in Chicago, but I feel it warrants emphasis. This is further underscored by the fact that there is no homicide-training mandate for supervisors working in homicide units and no training offered for inexperienced academy instructors who carry out detective training. The fact that most of these trainers have little or no knowledge of adult education concepts seems almost a moot issue at this point.

In looking at the current curricula reviewed in this study, I see topical concerns that include shortcomings in the areas of: pathology, social skills, techniques, ethics, rudimentary skills, new technology, legal issues, and of course, profiling. Additional shortcomings in training curricula have come to light through input by prosecutors. Paperwork prepared during the course of a homicide investigation is often crafted to suffice only in a law enforcement setting; it falls short in associated court settings. Training can and must prepare the detective to fulfill both mandates.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The analysis of data cultivates several germane observations regarding how investigators are prepared to take on the task of homicide investigations. The issue that remains dominant to a perceived dysfunction in the processes of pre-service training, in-service training and practitioner-ship is administrative in nature. While in contrast to other issues at hand, training and adult education principles and practices help to fully construct, what I feel can be a “matrix of change” in homicide investigation training.

While considering how current training affects the outcome of homicide investigations in a large urban environment such as Chicago, I cannot escape the administrative issues involved in this enormous and most critical function of urban law enforcement. I believe at this time that a governmental commitment to support the efforts of homicide investigators and those who train them does not exist, but is paramount in any future improvements or successes desired in the field.

Sociologists (Smith & Zahn, 1999) go to great lengths to explain the phenomenon of homicide and its explicable characteristics, as they are juxtaposed with those of thirty years prior. This shift from intimacy to random has made the crime of homicide a great deal more difficult to solve and has an impact on our abilities to solve them, as reflected in current statistics. These changes can and must be overcome by innovative training curricula and investigative processes. Further citations on current remedial training programs prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is an occupational resistance by law enforcement administrators to proposed changes and I can only assume a prospect of resistance to adult education principles and practices in training. It becomes crystal clear that current training does not sufficiently provide detectives with the skills they need to solve these crimes, as they exist today. This resistance is a partisan mannerism fueling the current crisis in law enforcement that continues to erode our hopes of respect, effectiveness and professionalism.

Administrative Issues

This study identifies a multitude of problems and/or barriers in the homicide investigation field that include union concerns, recruitment, unit configuration, political process and meta-policy within the police department.

Additional administrative efforts must ensure getting personnel most suited to work homicide and working with union officials to exempt homicide detectives from collective bargaining agreements. The process of locating talent must be made part of the existing bureaucracy.

While recently a topic of great debate from police agencies to legislative chambers, homicide investigations call for professionals in the field as well as policy makers in government to reflect on their own ethical stance in facilitating effective homicide investigations. It demands a prioritization beyond partisan politics and class issues.

Once this commitment is established, enabling effective homicide training and its subsequent investigations, along with incorporating zero tolerance for ineptitude and corruption in the practice, will prove to the public at large that we are concerned with their safety and committed to preventing future crimes and solving all of those that have been committed in an effective and timely manner. We must move beyond the rhetoric!

Since 1981, the Chicago Police Department has not maintained an exclusive homicide unit, either citywide or at the area level. Economic hardships of the late 1970s led to its demise and further fueled already declining solution rates. This action was a mistake according to the respondents and support to change this system would not become a reality until the cause is taken up by law enforcement administrators, homicide professionals themselves, the community at large through public outrage, and finally, support from federal, state and local policymakers. I think a true commitment from government along with all the resources needed must be guaranteed. The barriers to success in the field are personal and systemic and cry for the re-establishment of effective homicide units.

The Chicago Detective Division since 1981 has been reduced from an all- time high of approximately 1,500 detectives to its current strength of about 700. It is safe to say that this cost cutting effort left the division in disarray and less able to solve the ever- complicated murder cases of the 80s and 90s.

I also note that there remains no prior experience or training mandate at any level to enter a homicide unit other than rudimentary/generic training as a new detective. Often detectives from other units transfer to homicide, usually to take advantage of additional overtime opportunities with no training at all. Furthermore, sergeants inexperienced in homicide investigations are assigned to violent crimes units all over the city with little experience and not even the rudimentary training offered to new detectives.

Keep in mind that current training paradigms require mentoring and on-the-job training (OJT) to realistically provide about 80% of what new detectives need to know.

While current training falls short of what it should provide, much of this is fueled by a local governmental interest that only concerns itself with homicide totals while never speaking of the dismal 50% or less solution rates the CPD currently experiences. It seems in Chicago, law enforcement and government alike become complacent when homicide totals remain short of those posted in New York City.

While these issues seem endemic to urban law enforcement, suburban environments that surround cities such as Chicago suffer the proliferation of violent crimes that transcend jurisdictional demarcations to saturate the entire Chicago Metropolitan Area with violent crimes once restricted to the “big city.” This increased activity traumatizes suburban law enforcement and their constituency every time a violent crime occurs in their jurisdiction. These cases, occurring in communities once considered free of violent crime, have become the subject of intense media coverage in light of the failure of some departments to solve them. The central issue here emerges to ask: What is the suburban law enforcement administration doing to improve their investigative capabilities? This is an enormous task for administrators of agencies who themselves may possess no homicide or investigative experience. The thoughts of suburban officers have greatly contributed to this investigation through survey questionnaires. Currently suburban agencies have been pro-active in facilitating quality training opportunities and task force support systems but still lack the hands-on mentorship that can only be accomplished through cross-training efforts with large urban departments. It is this issue that must bring departments of every size together to facilitate the training needs of their law enforcement counterparts.

This is a time for critical changes to the administration of homicide investigations. In Chicago, a citywide homicide unit must be re-instituted and staffed with the few experienced homicide investigators that are left, and similarly experienced supervisors. Mandates of prior investigative and patrol experience of three and five years respectively should remain as provisos to assignments in homicide. The department must put into place mechanisms that seek out individuals with skills commensurate to homicide work and limit supervisors to those that have prior homicide experience and partake in the same training as their subordinates. The Detective Division should be brought back to prior strength and division budgets increased to cover training needs both for in-house and outside training programs. I think seasoned homicide investigators who max out on pension requirements be maintained as training elders in a civilian capacity until staffing and experiential shortcomings can be rectified. The Detective Division should encourage better communication and rapport between all employees, regardless of rank. The homicide field should adapt learning and training as a cultural trait that would be carried out through a detective's entire career. Considerations should be made to keep the talent in the field by making detective a mandatory rank before officers can be promoted to sergeant or grade detectives so they can rise in rank within the division and allow detectives promoted to sergeant to remain within the division to share their expertise and wisdom.

Along with the re-emergence of a homicide unit, the police academy should establish a true Homicide Investigation Training (HIT) program with a full- time staff working at the academy. These staffers will be experienced in homicide and versed in adult education principles and practices. This unit will work full time at producing pre-service training programs for new detectives, in-service training programs for current detectives, and in-service training programs for supervisors and administrators responsible for homicide administration. These programs must be specific to the topic of homicide investigation and will include the utilization of professionals from related fields to carry out this mission.

Training Issues

In considering how detectives are currently prepared to investigate homicides, at this time, true Homicide Investigation Training (HIT) does not exist in Chicago. Everything I learned about homicide that was substantive was learned in the field through mentoring, self-directed means, reactions to media pressure, and mostly trial and error. Considering that the Illinois Local Governmental Law Enforcement Officers Training Board (ILGLEOTB) holds no certification mandates for the most important task of law enforcement, dire consequences are no surprise. It can get worse than solution rates below 50%.

There exists in the Chicago-land area a noticeable gap between theory and practice in the field of homicide investigation. This gap is reflected in solution rates that become obscured by rhetoric only concerned with totals and flawed cases of the past. It is further exemplified by a shortage of training made available to active homicide detectives. One of the respondents of this study, in close to twenty years in the field, was only availed two days of additional training. He and others succinctly state that current training that is available does not enhance task performance. This shortcoming proves that current training is inadequate in providing the skills, techniques and ethics necessary for all homicide detectives to become masters of their field. Those that reach that level have gotten there through self-directed means. Additionally, current training is clearly authoritarian based from models that have been proven insufficient in adult education settings and mired by outdated materials.

True Homicide Investigation Training (HIT) must be initiated for reasons other than damage control and to please civil courts from pending litigation. Training must be developed to bring homicide detectives to the professional status that they warrant by this momentous responsibility. Training must be developed by those with expertise in the specific field of homicide in conjunction with adult education principles and practices. Police departments such as those in Chicago should evolve into organizations that value training as much as the business world does in the year 2001.

Law enforcement officials must train administrators about the aspects of homicide that affect them. Administrators must support and facilitate training opportunities on company time. They must institute a mandatory training program and even consider certification similar to that mandated of private detectives in Illinois. This program should be constructed under the auspices of Pre-Service Training upon promotion and Continuing Professional Education (CPE) as professed by Houle (1980) and Cervero (1988).

A full-time HIT staff should be employed as part of the training academy function and be composed of faculty with experience in homicide and adult education principles and practices. This faculty would be responsible for both pre-service and in-service training in the area of homicide on a continuing and certain basis.

HIT must be developed into a balanced program of classroom, OJT and structured mentoring, much like that of the field training officer program. Current training curricula as reviewed previously in this study has been found inadequate in incorporating sufficient state of the art technologies and philosophies that encourage a proactive approach to investigations. Additional shortcomings are speculated in the delivery mode of this material and in the use of ancillary professionals to present courses in a four-week program. Training curricula must be developed that cover all related topics, both new and old. No other metropolitan area in the country is home to a more prominent array of homicide professionals than Chicago. These professionals must be brought together to attack this training crisis in a collaborative manner and emerge as stakeholders in the process.

A need is present to train detectives to carry out investigations, not only for the arrest, but also for everything that follows the need to be thorough in terms of ethics and the need to accurately report for the reporters', administrators and prosecutors' needs. This must include substantial topics that relate to homicide and are considered state of the art, such as profiling and are paramount to the success of investigators. The current four-week training program of the Chicago Police Training Academy presents a sufficient amount of time to provide new detectives with the knowledge of what is needed to know in homicide investigations, if the full term is dedicated to the task at hand and not watered down with generic offerings of a “one size fits all” curriculum. This specialty training will mandate homicide assignments being made prior to training instead of after, as is currently the norm.

A substantial in-service program must be developed by the HIT staff and be brought to the field (area) on a regular basis (two days a year, per detective), using experienced supervisors and outside experts to present training sessions. In formulating these programs we should consider current criminal law training paradigms and those of profession