If the “bullet-time” effect with Keanu Reeves in a long black coat avoiding projectiles immediately came to mind when you read the title, you are my action movie twin. Also, unless you are a younger movie buff, most likely you are a veteran officer because that movie was released 25 years ago (The Matrix, 1999). But, without minimizing the importance of iconic action movies, this article is not about training for an acting gig. It is about using a chart called the Risk Matrix (later termed the Risk Frequency Matrix) to pinpoint where law enforcement training should be focused.

Additionally, we will not be gleaning information from a famous actor. Rather, we will obtain it from a well-known risk management trainer, Gordon Graham. I am sure most of you are familiar with Graham. If not, he has been considered a leader in public safety risk management since 1977. He is a retired commander with the California Highway Patrol, a practicing attorney, the co-founder of Lexipol and, as previously mentioned, a risk management expert. 

The first time I sat in a training seminar with Graham, I was a young officer listening to him hammer home the importance of risk management. However, even though I was impressed with his humor and polished presentation skills, not much of the training content was absorbed. I was a trainer for my department at the time, but I did not really care about the benefits and consequences of analyzing risk and how prioritizing training in the law enforcement profession was key to saving lives and minimizing liability. I was not able to connect the dots when it came to the importance of managing risk at every level in law enforcement, especially within training.

Since that time, things have changed, and prioritizing training based on risk has been at the forefront of Armitage Tactical’s mission. But not just any training, stress performance training. I believe stress performance training is one of the most important line items a department should consider when solidifying a budget for each fiscal year. As we analyze the Risk Frequency Matrix, I am going to paraphrase Graham’s explanation. I also plan to weave my thoughts into the subject matter since training coalesces with risk management.

Graham says there are two reasons for increased liability. The first is intentional misconduct, and the second is mistakes. However, intentional misconduct in the law enforcement arena is relatively rare compared to the number of liable incidents that are associated with the profession. So, the real issue of liability derives from the mistakes we make. Now, let us look at the Risk Frequency Matrix and discuss the different aspects of liability within each category and how it affects training.

The first thing that Graham mentions is that most of our risk management problems tend to arise due to mistakes that occur in the “low frequency” areas. However, we will still go over each box to cover our bases and all potential liabilities.

Let us start with the box on the bottom left labeled Low Risk/Low Frequency. When it comes to low-risk events, potential liability is minimal because the impact of the event itself is low. And even though this type of event also includes low-frequency occurrences (which increases the potential for mistakes), the consequences will not be catastrophic because the risk is still low. So, prioritizing training for events that fall into this category does not make much sense.

OK, let us move on to the next box containing Low Risk/High Frequency. Since we already know low-risk events are of low impact, we can set that aside. But now, it is coupled with high frequency. So, there is an increase in potential liability because the event happens more often. For example, citizens voluntarily checking in at the reception desk at the station or office for a low-risk contact (such as a citizen asking a question, obtaining a copy of a report, a low-risk interview, a live scan appointment or something similar) could be labeled as Low Risk/High Frequency. 

In contrast, the officers or support staff at the reception desk deal with this type of public interaction daily. Therefore, even though it is high frequency, the employees handling this type of event do it so often that they are experts, and the exposure to liability in those situations is lower. Again, there is not much need for an abundance of training in this area.

We can now proceed to the High Risk/High Frequency box. This box automatically runs a risk of increased liability due to the event being both high risk and high frequency. I would consider this type of event equal to handcuffing someone and taking them into custody. Although an arrest is considered a high-risk event, it is also done by officers on a regular basis. So, looking back at the logic presented earlier, officers are regularly faced with this type of event and are highly experienced in this area. Therefore, the training
priority for this box does not need to be as high as one would assume. 

To expand on this, let us consider the amount of handcuff refresher training officers receive in their “arrest and control” classes. From my experience, mandated refresher training on this topic is typically four to eight hours every other training year. This is a generalization as I know some states and departments may mandate more or less than what was just specified. Nevertheless, yearly training requirements are grossly mismatched compared to the number of times handcuffing is utilized by officers while on duty. Again, even though this is a high-risk and high-frequency event, mistakes are going to be comparatively lower because of the frequent use of the skill set, not necessarily because of the amount of training they receive.

The final box is High Risk/Low Frequency. In this box, we have a cocktail of potential calamity. These situations can be volatile and explosive, making it difficult to determine the onset. Since they are high risk, it raises the liability. And to add insult to injury, we do not have a minimizing factor
attached to it. It is coupled with low frequency, meaning everyday line officers do not have a lot of experience successfully handling these types of situations (think terrorist attack/multiple active shooters). Consequently, we have a mixture that contains the ingredients for a major disaster. I understand that your department or region may have a tactical team available to assemble and respond to these situations. However, I am weighing the ratio of time to assets (saved lives) into the effective response equation. This includes full engagement from the first officers on scene. And if that is the case, are they competently trained?

Additionally, Graham mentions two more considerations within this box: the time tasks. He labels them discretionary time (DT) and non-discretionary time (NDT) tasks. With DT, you have time to plan, prepare and train for events. On the other hand, NDTs are “very risky, done very rarely, with no time to think” (bit.ly/4cfMAsM). Therefore, this entire High Risk/Low Frequency box is where I believe a large focus on training should be.

My suggestion is that departments begin creating regular intervals of stress performance training for all frontline officers (two to four hours on a quarterly basis would be a great start). It should consist of highly dynamic one or two officer elements engaged in stress-based live-fire scenarios. You can read more on how to create dynamic live-fire scenarios from one of my previous articles “Using speed factors to influence performance” — bit.ly/3VWteTA). These scenarios should be based on realistic events that encapsulate “High Risk/Low Frequency.”

I recognize that this would be a monumental undertaking for your training unit. I also realize how hard it is to justify budget-line items that cannot be easily measured, such as non-mandated training and its effect on incident outcomes. However, I have noticed that departments with decision-makers who have a good understanding of the direct impact training has on safety and liability will do what it takes to find the funding and support the effort. Either way, we must remember that if experience levels are low, training is the only way to influence performance and minimize mistakes that could prove devastating during these high-stakes circumstances.

As we close, I have listed a few questions below to be considered for yourself and your department’s current High-Risk, Low-Frequency training program.

• How many hours per year do you think is appropriate for High-Risk, Low-Frequency training (again, think terrorist attack/multiple active shooters)? 
• How many hours and what intervals do you or your organization currently train for those types of events? 
• Is it enough?

Thank you for continuing to allow me to relay my thoughts in print and online. If you have any questions, please get in touch. Until then, #staysafe and #stayready.