A candidate applies and never hears back. Another waits so long between stages that they take a job with an agency that moved faster. A third drops out during the background check. Meanwhile, an academy class starts with empty seats. Many agencies invest the money and staff in recruiting and still struggle to attract, move, and keep people.
A bad hiring decision is a very expensive mistake, and many agencies lack a structured way to see where their process breaks down. The National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives (NAWLEE) developed the Recruitment Readiness Framework to help, giving agencies a research-backed way to look honestly at their whole hiring process, find gaps, and decide what to fix first.
The Recruiting and Hiring Challenges Agencies Keep Running Into
A 2024 survey by the International Association of Chiefs of Police covered roughly 1,100 U.S. agencies. More than 70% said recruiting was harder than five years earlier. Even agencies that invest in recruiters, outreach, technology, and incentives are still struggling.
Your hiring process can break down at any step, and sometimes more than one. Before anyone applies, agencies are competing with other employers for the same candidates. They are also facing the challenge of reaching people who never thought of policing as a career. Recruiting, testing, and background teams each handle one part of the process, and candidates can get lost when those teams aren’t coordinating. Long steps, delays between stages, and poor communication can then cost an agency the people it worked hard to attract. Agencies working with limited staff and funding rarely can address every gap at once, so they need a way to decide where to start.
What the Recruitment Readiness Framework Is
The Recruitment Readiness Framework is a structured, evidence-informed self-assessment, not a prescription or a one-size-fits-all model. NAWLEE built it from published research, review by an advisory board, and focus groups with small, large, university and federal, state and local agencies. The goal was a tool thorough enough to cover the whole hiring process but simple enough that it does not end up on a shelf.
The framework gives agencies a checklist of the hiring practices that make up a strong process, such as having a written hiring strategy, using structured interviews, and keeping candidates informed. An agency goes through item by item and scores each practice based on whether it is documented and whether it is in use. The framework comes in two layouts, so an agency can choose the one that fits how it works.
The first layout, called the priority designation, sorts the checklist into three levels called Critical, Recommended, and Advanced. Critical practices help an agency hire the same way every time and make decisions it can explain and stand behind, such as a written hiring strategy and asking every candidate the same interview questions. Recommended practices improve efficiency and results, such as tracking how long each hiring stage takes and staying in touch with candidates. Advanced practices include flexible testing options and tracking hiring and retention outcomes. Because it works as one ranked list, it may suit smaller or more centralized agencies, where a single team often handles most of the hiring process.
The second layout, called the workstream designation, groups the same practices by step of the hiring process and leaves room to name who reviews each one. It may suit larger agencies, where different teams own different steps. A recruiting team could review outreach, HR and testing staff could review applications and testing, and background investigators could review background and selection, so each team reviews its own part of the process.
Finding the Bottlenecks and Reading Your Score
The checklist is meant to be used as a tool, not a test. Scores should reflect what is documented and in use, not what leaders assume is happening. An honest score is more useful than a flattering one, because the goal is to get better, not to prove the agency is already doing everything right.
Once the scores are in, look for patterns. Several low scores in one area say more than a single low item. A lower score is an opportunity, not a failure, and some gaps have good reasons, such as limited resources, collective bargaining agreements, or agency structure.
Next, look for the root cause. If candidates keep dropping out, the first instinct may be to advertise more. But if they are waiting too long between stages and losing interest to a faster agency, more advertising will not fix it. To decide what to tackle first, weigh how big the impact would be, how urgent it is, how realistic it is with current resources, and what else the change would make possible.
What if you do not have the time or staff to fix everything? You do not have to. Pick two or three actions for the next 60 to 90 days, give each an owner and a timeframe, then reassess. “Improve candidate experience” is a wish, not an action item. Small steps with names attached keep an assessment from becoming a spreadsheet nobody opens again.
Making Hiring Improvement a Shared, Ongoing Effort
Hiring is rarely owned by one person. HR staff, recruiters, background investigators, hiring managers, legal counsel, and training personnel all weigh in. When one person completes the Recruitment Readiness Framework checklist, problems stay hidden. When several do, differences in their scores show how differently the process is understood and carried out, and those differences are a good place to start the conversation.
Reassess once a year, or every six months if your agency is making changes quickly, and ask what has changed since the last review. If nothing did, that is a problem in itself. Then check whether time to hire and candidate withdrawals improved and what candidates say about the experience.
None of this works if people are afraid to name a gap. Leaders can treat a bottleneck as useful information, not a complaint or a failure, and talk about hiring improvements as part of the regular workforce and planning conversations. The framework is not meant to be scary or intensive. NAWLEE designed it to help agencies become the best version of themselves in recruiting and hiring, and a steady, shared look at the process can reduce the risk of a costly bad hire.
Understanding Your Agency’s Starting Point
Every agency starts from a different place. For one agency, the biggest problem is reaching enough candidates. For another, it is how long the process takes. The cause may be public perception, pay, the hiring process, or a mix of all three. Agencies do not need another list of things to do. They need a way to understand their own situation.
That is what the Recruitment Readiness Framework offers. It gives agencies a thorough look at their whole hiring process, a way to see where it works and where it breaks down, and a plan for what to fix first, with the right people at the table. A bad hiring decision is a very expensive mistake, and a clearer, more consistent process can reduce the risk of one.
To see whether the Recruitment Readiness Framework fits your agency’s needs, download the checklists [LINK] and contact NAWLEE if you would like help getting started [LINK].
- Webinars
