Police Departments Have The Data To Stop Misconduct Before It Starts. Most Don’t Use It.

Red flags are overlooked far too often during law enforcement hiring, according to new research. Before a single complaint is filed, before a lawsuit lands, before a community loses faith in the officers meant to protect it, there is often a paper trail. A prior domestic violence citation. A termination under unfavorable conditions. A string of jobs held and abandoned in quick succession. Police departments routinely collect this information during the hiring process. And then, according to a major new study, they largely ignore it.

Published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, the study tracked 6,075 officers across more than 150 municipal, county, state, and federal agencies over five years. Researchers found that specific behaviors candidates disclosed before being hired reliably predicted the misconduct those officers later committed on the job. The red flags were there. And yet disclosing a negative incident in prehire screening reduced a candidate’s chances of being hired by only 5% on average, a difference that was statistically insignificant. That gap has real life consequences.

Officers who had previously been cited for domestic violence were nearly six times more likely to be detained, arrested, or charged with a crime after joining the force. Candidates with prior complaints about racially offensive behavior faced a 1,359% greater likelihood of being named in a misconduct lawsuit, the highest figure in the entire dataset, though researchers note that estimate is based on a small number of cases and should be interpreted with some caution.

These were not hidden risks. They were disclosed. Agencies hired these candidates anyway.

The Prehire Data Police Agencies Are Sitting On

Researchers from Baruch College, Elon University, and the University of Minnesota organized prehire misbehaviors into four broad areas: occupational trouble and employment instability, prior trouble in law enforcement roles, a history of temper problems and violence, and irresponsible personal behaviors like bad credit or DUI charges. Each was matched against posthire misconduct records provided confidentially by agency chiefs.

Across nearly every category, past behavior predicted future behavior. Officers fired under unfavorable conditions were 93% more likely to be flagged for inappropriate weapon use and 88% more likely to face excessive force complaints on the job. Bad credit, reported by nearly a third of all applicants, was linked to a significantly higher likelihood of outcomes ranging from written reprimands to arrests. Even a history of moving violations predicted greater odds of at-fault accidents and intentional property damage on duty.

One finding upended a widely held assumption in law enforcement hiring. Prior police experience, often treated as a credential that makes a candidate more trustworthy, actually elevated misconduct risk in 11 of 15 categories examined. Officers who came from previous law enforcement roles were more likely to face citizen complaints of unprofessional conduct, sexual harassment, and excessive force, with risk for those specific outcomes running 47% higher than for officers without that background. Former military personnel showed a similar pattern, with nearly double the likelihood of racism accusations on the job. Leaning on prior experience as a shortcut for suitability, the data suggest, may be trading one problem for another.

A Troubling Asymmetry at the Heart of Police Misconduct

What makes agencies’ inaction harder to excuse is that they demonstrably know how to act on misconduct. Once an officer commits a violation on the job, departments respond decisively. Officers with a misconduct record were more than six times more likely to be terminated than peers with clean records. Sexual harassment and criminal charges elevated termination odds more than 12-fold.

Agencies clearly take bad behavior seriously, just not before it occurs, when the data already pointed toward the risk. As the authors put it: “Shockingly, candidates with severe prehire incidents, such as unjustified use of force or domestic violence, faced only marginally lower odds of being hired or, in some cases, were even slightly more likely to be hired.”

Part of the problem is structural. There are no national standards for police hiring in the United States. Each state maintains its own oversight body, and their authority varies enormously. Some set rigorous requirements; others issue only nonbinding recommendations. Without consistent mandates, agencies handle background data at their own discretion, which often means gut instinct wins out over evidence.

Researchers also point to what has become known in some jurisdictions as the “muni shuffle:” an officer facing misconduct charges resigns before an investigation concludes, keeps state certification intact, and quietly moves to the next department, which may know nothing about what came before.

Why Police Misconduct Screening Needs to Start at the Application

Based on their findings, researchers sorted prehire warning signs into two tiers. Common red flags, those appearing in enough applicants to generate reliable predictions, include prior written reprimands or suspensions in law enforcement roles, being fired under unfavorable conditions, bad credit, and employer warnings for negligence. These, the authors argue, should be weighted heavily in every hiring decision.

A second category of warning signs is rarer but, when present, far more alarming: domestic violence citations, being behind on child support or alimony, a prior finding of unjustified use of force, and complaints of racially offensive behavior. Because these come up infrequently, the statistical estimates are less precise. But what they predict is serious enough that researchers argue they should function as automatic disqualifiers, full stop.

Agencies willing to screen more rigorously would also save money. Researchers estimated that a department the size of the New York City Police Department could avoid more than half a million dollars per hiring cohort in civil settlements alone by screening out candidates with prior written reprimands. That is a conservative figure based on a single predictor, with a single cohort. A more comprehensive screening system, the authors note, would likely produce savings of an entirely different order.

Training reforms, body cameras, oversight boards and de-escalation programs all have a legitimate role in improving policing. But every one of those interventions kicks in after a problem officer is already on the force. Departments already collect the information needed to make smarter decisions at the front door. Using it is not a radical proposal.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a peer-reviewed study. The findings reflect patterns observed in a specific dataset and are not intended to characterize all law enforcement officers or agencies. Statistical estimates for rare behaviors are based on small sample sizes and should be interpreted with appropriate caution.

---