Police Training Week focuses on how agencies can develop training programs that reduce risk, improve performance and save lives. Complacency in police training can be deadly. Too often, agencies settle for “check-the-box” sessions that meet minimum certification standards but fail to prepare officers for real-world complexity. In this Q&A, we speak with veteran firearms instructor Todd Fletcher about why departments must move beyond the bare minimum — and how scenario-based, stress-inoculated training can produce officers who are truly ready for today’s challenges. Police Training Week is sponsored by T4E – Training for Engagement.
Complacency in police training can be deadly. Too often, agencies settle for “check-the-box” sessions that meet minimum certification standards but fail to prepare officers for real-world complexity. For Police Training Week, we spoke with veteran firearms instructor Todd Fletcher about why departments must move beyond the bare minimum — and how scenario-based, stress-inoculated training can produce officers who are truly ready for today’s challenges.
Police1: From your perspective, what does training complacency look like in policing today?
Todd Fletcher: Too many departments are simply engaged in “check-the-box” training. We certainly need our officers to receive the training required to maintain certifications, but we need to train beyond basic certification maintenance. When a law enforcement agency looks at training as something they are required to do instead of regarding training as an investment, the result is minimum standard “check-the-box” training that is one step above inadequate.
Law enforcement agencies should invest in training programs as if they are capital projects, because officers are their single largest capital investment and asset. Even when it comes to instructors, it’s rare for a department to actively seek or mandate advanced annual training to maintain subject matter expertise. It’s as if the magic instructor class taught them everything there is to know about a topic.
Taking it a step further, when departments don’t invest in training and don’t invest in their instructor cadre, the instructors themselves often lack investment in the topics required during in-service training. There’s little to no application of adult-learning instructional methodology, the class material lacks creativity and innovation, and instructors aren’t held accountable for delivering measurable learning outcomes. How can they if they don’t know how to teach effectively?
This training complacency at the department and instructor level leads to ineffective or even harmful policing practices on the street. Agencies go through the motions of training without genuinely preparing officers for the complex, evolving demands of modern policing.
Police1: Why is “check-the-box” training dangerous for officers and communities?
Todd Fletcher: “Check-the-box” training prioritizes topics over long-term retention of skill and knowledge. Training is done to complete mandatory training modules simply to meet legal or departmental requirements, with no emphasis on retention, understanding, or performance. In other words, it’s more important that everyone’s names are on the roster saying they attended than making sure they learned something and improved their skills. It’s a colossal waste of money, time, and energy.
A lot of this training is based on outdated curriculum and teaching methodology. It focuses on information that may be decades old and fails to integrate current tactics and practices. The result is officers who attended training but are ill-equipped to handle today’s social, cultural, and technological challenges or lack the ability to apply critical lessons in real-world scenarios. This could be evident in poor community relationships, questionable use-of-force decisions, officers not being prepared to handle mental health calls or complex social issues, or an inordinate number of lawsuits and civil settlements compared to similar departments.
Police1: How does realistic, scenario-based training change officer performance compared to static range drills or classroom sessions?
Todd Fletcher: Static range drills or classroom sessions give students and instructors time to cover specific topics in depth and provide opportunities for repetition that can help develop skill. There’s a time and place for this type of skill development because it strengthens learning by making initial recall and performance easier. It also helps reduce student anxiety, which is natural when learning something new or developing a skill that lacks the dexterity of learned skills.
The problem isn’t that static range drills or classroom sessions are bad. The problem is when training ends at this point without putting those skills into context through realistic scenario-based training. Scenario training is scalable in intensity, focus, topics and complexity. This allows instructors to develop training that fits student needs as opposed to the one-size-fits-all approach of the classroom.
For example, training on the range can help develop the skills to make accurate shots on paper targets and conduct efficient reloads, but it’s not training to prevail in a gunfight. It’s developing certain skills, but a gunfight is much more complex. Using force-on-force gear during scenarios designed to address the complexity of a gunfight can better train officers for that event. Movement to cover, self-care, first aid, ammunition management, communication (dispatch, officers, bystanders), custody plans, and scene preservation and management can all be incorporated in the gunfight training scenario.
A well-designed, realistic training scenario can be simple and relatively stress-free, or it can be highly immersive with high-risk encounters that mirror real-world incidents. Quality scenario-based training prepares officers physically, mentally and emotionally for making split-second decisions when needed, but it also prepares them for the times when slow and deliberate decision-making is the most prudent solution.
Police1: What barriers keep agencies from providing more frequent, realistic training — and how can they be overcome?
Todd Fletcher: Institutional inertia and stagnation are the single biggest problem because they perpetuate harmful mindsets and outdated tactics. There’s significant resistance to change, because command staff have experience dealing with schedule changes for in-service training. If we completely change how we schedule training, this creates new problems that need to be solved.
There are a few misconceptions some command staff have about scenario-based training. Many of them didn’t take part in this type of training early in their careers, so they don’t understand the value. For example, on the range, they see a lot of repetitions of certain skills along with the ammunition being shot. In their minds, those equal training. It’s not a measurable outcome, but they can measure how long it takes (hours), how much it costs (targets, ammo and time), and see that time was spent covering certain skills.
Scenario-based training is different because the number of repetitions doesn’t match what you see on the range or in the classroom. Since scenarios can cover multiple topics, command staff may not understand how it develops skill and knowledge without a singular focus on specific subjects. It’s the difference between outcome-based training, where the end result is all that matters, and performance-based training, where we focus on improving each step in the process knowing the outcome will improve in the end.
Police1: What role does stress inoculation play in preparing officers for real-world encounters?
Todd Fletcher: Stress Inoculation Training (SIT) plays a critical role in preparing officers for the psychological and physiological challenges they face during intense, real-world encounters. There are many benefits to SIT, including the ability to practice decision-making, communication, tactical responses, and skill application under simulated high-stress conditions. The result is overall improved decision-making, enhanced emotional regulation, reductions in use-of-force errors, and more resilient officers who are better equipped to manage chronic stress and anxiety.
When SIT is done correctly, it helps officers manage stress by gradually exposing them to stressful situations in a safe, controlled environment. Officers learn about the nature of stress, how it affects their body and mind, and how stress can impair performance. It provides a way for officers to practice different coping mechanisms like box breathing, positive self-talk, imagery, and tactical mindfulness. Many officers express feeling better prepared to handle difficult incidents and more confident in the skills they developed and polished through their training experience.
Police1: If you could give one piece of advice to chiefs or trainers about avoiding complacency, what would it be?
Todd Fletcher: Training is not a one-time event that only occurs during annual in-service training, the basic academy, or when you send someone to instructor school. Training needs to be a continuous and daily part of operations. It should evolve as society, laws, technology and expectations change. Complacency in training endangers officers and the public. It leads to the kind of outcomes you don’t want to see on the nightly news and can completely erode public trust.
This article is part of Police Training Week, sponsored by T4E – Training for Engagement. Explore the full lineup of content here.
Tactical takeaway
Agencies that treat training as an investment — not a requirement — develop officers who can think, adapt and prevail in complex, high-stress encounters.
How is your department working to move past “check-the-box” training?
Police1 readers respond
- Realistic training helps to build muscle memory. We hope it never has to be used; but having the training is much better than checking the box.
