School of Communication, Information and Library Studies • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

4 Huntington Street  •  New Brunswick   •   New Jersey  08901-1071

Mark G. Frank, Ph.D.

Department of Communication

•  p: 732-932-7500, ext. 8113  •  f: 732-932-3756  • mgfrank@scils.rutgers.edu  •  www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mgfrank

Post-Workshop Report

Interview Training for Law Enforcement

Held at SCILS, January 5-13, 2005

Prepared by

Mark G. Frank, Associate Professor, SCILS

Background:

This 7 day workshop is considered an advanced course in interviewing suspects, witnesses, and informants.  January 5-7 consisted of information specific to ATF policy (although there was a 2 hour block on various personality disorders and how they are manifested in behavior, their relative dangerousness, and strategies for dealing with them). The final 4 days, starting on Monday January 10, was the specific interviewing training course which is the focus of this report.  On that day 12 more attendees from other law enforcement agencies joined the group of 30 ATF inspectors.  The guests included 2 RUPD, 1 New Brunswick PD, 4 US Secret Service agents (one retired), 1 US Army in R&D, 1 MA State Police (Director of Aviation Security), 1 from the Department of Homeland Security, 1 Detective from Morris County, and one NJ State police officer detailed to the Office of Counter-terrorism. 

The interviewing course combines the knowledge gleaned from real-world police experience with leading edge scientific research on human behavior to produce a program of training that facilitates effective interviewing.  Specific topics discussed include setting up the interview, building rapport, assessing credibility, reading nonverbal behaviors including deception, and avoiding the 18 sins of interviewing. The course is taught by highly experienced retired and active law enforcement officers along with the scientific experts in the fields described above. This course and variants of it have been taught at places such as the Los Medanos Police Academy, LA Sheriff’s Department, the US Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and the US National Counter-Intelligence Executive.  The main sponsor was the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms, and the main block of attendees are from their Industrial/Organizational Operations Inspector program.  Rutgers University, and in particular various sub groups who are working toward improving Homeland Security, also contributed resources to help make these 7 days productive.  In particular, the support of SCILS, the Department of Communication, the Rutgers University Homeland Security Research Initiative headed by Professor Fred Roberts, the Rutgers Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Information Policy and Security Directed by Professor Paul Kantor, and the Rutgers University Police Department are gratefully acknowledged.  Welcoming remarks were offered by SCILS Dean Gus Friedrich, Director Paul Kantor, Executive Director of Public Safety Jay Kohl, as well as Associate Professor Mark Frank, representing RUHSRI as well as the Department of Communication.   

Classroom instruction consists of demonstrations, practical exercises, video analysis, and lecture.  All attendees received a training manual as well, the majority of which contained the various power point slides used, along with exercises, response forms for various exercises and other activities.  

Agenda:

Day 1 activities: Students introduced themselves and described real life situations they have encountered in interviews.  These examples were used to illustrate various points throughout the day. Other issues taught through lecture and demonstration and practical exercise included understanding the purpose of an interview; understanding the dynamics between individuals within an interview, building rapport, formulating questions to allow for maximal information gathering, and avoiding the 18 sins of interviewing.  The general focus thus was sharpening one’s questioning skills, and creating an environment that allows the interviewee to be as comfortable about speaking as possible.  This was led by John Yarbrough, retired LA Sheriff homicide investigator.  Along the way there was input from Professor Paul Ekman (UCSF, emeritus), Mark Frank (Rutgers), Janine Driver (ATF), and James J. Newberry (ATF, retired).

Day 2 activities:  On this day the science of human emotion – what emotions do, what they mean, what do they look like in the face, voice, and body expression was explained through lecture, demonstrations, and practical exercises.  Then how human verbal and nonverbal communication appears when people are lying was explained and demonstrated, through exercises and close video analysis.  Included was myth busting about various pseudo-science approaches to understanding deception, including the fact that at least half of what is typically taught law enforcement is not supported by research.  Attendees also received specific training on identifying microexpressions of emotion – ie, expressions that can occur very briefly or in fragment that betray a person’s true emotional state, often despite their efforts to conceal it.  The attendees were also trained to identify hot spots in behavior – changes in demeanor, discrepancies amongst verbal and nonverbal communication channels - that can often betray deception. This was led by Mark Frank, with some input from Paul Ekman and John Yarbrough. 

Day 3 activities:  The morning of this day dealt with applying much of the previous day’s information through close analysis of videotapes of controlled laboratory situations paired with real life incidents of deceit.   The afternoon consisted of lectures and demonstrations on human memory, and how that translates into spoken and written accounts of memory, and how those accounts differ from fabricated memories.  The morning was led by Mark Frank, and the afternoon by John Yarbrough.

Day 4 activities:  The first block in the morning was continued training at identifying hot-spots through video analysis.  The second block in the morning and the rest of the day involved pulling it all together, applying all the new concepts, to interviews of role players, of analysis of real-life interviews.   Mark Frank led the initial block, and John Yarbrough and James Newberry led the remainder of the day.

Course evaluations:

            Attendees were given course evaluation forms.  Thirty-five attendees rated the course on a number of dimensions, including asked to give an overall score on the interviewing course using 1-5 rating scale, with 1 being “very poor, not useful at all”, 3 being “average”, and 5 being “outstanding, very useful.”  32 of 35 respondents gave a “5”, and the remaining 3 respondents indicated a “4”.  Thus the course seemed successful, and spontaneous comments were all positive and all suggested this was a “must-take” course for anyone involved in Homeland Security whose job requires they interview others and gather intelligence. 

Big picture:

I think we accomplished all of our goals in this course, including giving attendees a larger sense of 3 issues: First, that we at Rutgers have the same goals as those in the Federal and State law enforcement world – making our country safer.  There is often a sense in law enforcement that academia works against them, and our workshop strongly dispelled that notion in the minds of all attendees that I or my colleagues spoke with.  

Second, I think they got a sense that we at Rutgers not only have the same goals, but we fully welcome and seek partnerships with of them to meet these public safety goals.  Most attendees were also surprised at how much work on counter-terrorism is going on at Rutgers already, and particularly in the technological realms (but also the behavioral).  Moreover, all were glowing in their praise of how Rutgers made them feel so warmly welcomed, in general how everyone treated them such that they felt we really wanted them here.  Many described how this is not always the case, and that at other remote training locations they are often treated like they are “jack-booted government thugs”.   These same folks repeatedly expressed their gratitude at something as simple as no-hassle parking, along with having a modest continental breakfast each day, and mid morning and mid afternoon coffee breaks. Again, the support of SCILS, RUHSRI, ISIPS, and RUPD was instrumental here. 

And third, consistent with the first two points, is that I think their eyes were opened to what I think represents the best of academia in the public interest.  For example, they saw in my own work how we have not done it exclusively in the lab, that we have relied upon a strong symbiotic relationships with these end users to make sure what we do will have relevance to them at the end.  They see how they and their experiences and problems are instrumental to the research process, as we involve them in both the design as well as the interpretation of results.  This approach is somewhat underused in behavioral science, and certainly new to many in law enforcement.  However, it has proven productive for both us in the academic science, as well as them in the public safety.  And I think any opportunity we have to showcase this model to those in law enforcement will disseminate throughout law enforcement to help establish more firmly a common framework across disciplines to allow us to achieve our common goals.  

In gratitude:

Again, none of this would have been possible without the strong and enthusiastic moral, intellectual, and financial support of SCILS, RUHSRI, ISIPS, RUPD, Executive Director Kohl and Executive VP Furmanski. Thank you all in helping us in this effort!