Police Evaluations: One of the Biggest Wastes of Time in Our Profession

We’ve all filled them out. We’ve all ignored them. It’s time to admit police evaluations don’t work.

By Chief Scott Hughes

Let’s be honest: most police officer evaluations are a complete waste of time.
Every year, supervisors across the country sit down with a stack of forms, a few vague notes, and a box of “meets expectations” checkmarks. We call it accountability, but in reality, it’s bureaucracy.

I’m not referring to the type of evaluation that fosters growth in recruits (FTO phase) or addresses serious issues. I’m talking about the annual ritual, the one that gets done because it’s on the calendar, not because it makes anyone better.

In law enforcement, we love structure and documentation. But when it comes to evaluating our people, the process has become so routine and so meaningless that it rarely drives performance, motivation, or culture. If anything, it often does the opposite.

Why Evaluations Miss the Mark

In most agencies, evaluations are something we do to employees, not do with them. They’re a one-way critique disguised as feedback. Supervisors often spend more time chasing deadlines than engaging in meaningful conversations. And when the process becomes about compliance instead of connection, everyone loses.

The reality is this: a checkbox and a signature don’t build better cops. Relationships do.

That’s why at our agency, we’ve shifted the focus away from the once-a-year paperwork and toward continuous engagement. As part of our monthly body-camera reviews, supervisors actually sit down with their officers and review calls for service together.

They talk about what went well, what could have gone better, and, most importantly, why. They discuss goals, expectations, and officer safety. Those conversations create real teaching moments. They remind officers that their sergeants aren’t just there to catch mistakes, they’re there to make sure everyone goes home safe at the end of the shift.

Too many agencies turn body-camera reviews into “gotcha” moments - digging for policy violations or playing armchair quarterback. That’s not leadership. That’s lazy supervision. It kills morale, destroys culture, and accomplishes nothing.

When reviews are used to develop rather than discipline, officers start to trust the process and their leaders.

Let’s Be Honest… We’ve All Seen It

How many times have you received the same evaluation year after year, and the only thing your supervisor changed was the date?

Ever been handed an evaluation with someone else’s name on it?
Or compared yours with another officer’s, only to realize they were identical, just a quick copy, paste, and name swap?

We laugh about it because it’s true. But that right there is part of the problem.

In many organizations, especially those operating under union or collective bargaining agreements, raises, step increases, and benefits are already spelled out. So what’s the point of the evaluation? It’s not tied to pay. It’s not tied to promotion. It’s not even tied to performance most of the time. It’s just another administrative task that gives the illusion of accountability.

And let’s be honest, when do we usually hear about evaluations?
Usually, right after something bad happens.

How many times have we seen a headline that says,

“The officer’s recent performance evaluations were phenomenal, consistently rated as ‘exceeds expectations.’ It’s unclear why he committed this crime…”

That’s the point. It happens all the time.
When an officer makes national news for misconduct, you can almost bet their last evaluation was glowing. Because if it wasn’t, they probably wouldn’t still be employed.

So what does that tell us? It tells us that evaluations don’t measure integrity, accountability, or true performance. They measure how well we can check boxes, follow a template, and meet HR’s deadlines.

That’s why one of the first things I did after my first year leading our department was to eliminate formal evaluations. We replaced them with something far more effective: regular, intentional communication between supervisors and their people. Real conversations. Real feedback. Real accountability.

And the result? Stronger relationships. Better culture. More trust.
Because leadership doesn’t live on paper, it lives in people.

The Disconnect

Part of the problem is that the evaluation systems used in policing weren’t designed with policing in mind. They were borrowed from the private sector, from environments where performance can be measured in spreadsheets, quarterly goals, and customer satisfaction surveys.

But policing isn’t that kind of work. There’s no spreadsheet for courage, compassion, or judgment under pressure. You can’t quantify the moment an officer talks someone off the ledge, diffuses a volatile scene with empathy, or de-escalates a fight with words instead of force.

Yet, our profession continues to try to fit square-peg realities into round-hole HR templates.

Most HR departments have good intentions; they adhere to policies, standards, and consistency guidelines. However, a process tailored for office workers often fails to reflect the complexity of police duties. It simplifies an inherently human aspect that requires nuanced understanding.

If we want real performance improvement, the system has to reflect the actual work we do, the emotional, unpredictable, people-driven work that policing is. Until then, these evaluation forms will continue to miss the point.

“But We Have to Do Evaluations…”

Now, I can already hear the critics:

“But Chief, we have to do evaluations! HR requires them!”
“The union contract says we have to complete one every year.”
“It’s part of our accreditation process.”

And that’s fine. Do them.
But let’s not pretend they’re doing what we say they’re doing.

If the purpose is documentation, call it documentation. If it’s compliance, call it compliance. But don’t convince yourself that checking a few boxes once a year is developing anyone or shaping culture.

The truth is, most officers already know how they’re performing. They know when they’re doing good work, and they know when they’ve fallen short. What they crave isn’t a score, it’s leadership. They want supervisors who talk to them, coach them, challenge them, and care enough to have real conversations all year long, not just during evaluation week.

We can meet our administrative requirements and still lead differently.
The paperwork might be mandatory. The approach isn’t.

What Real Leadership Looks Like

Real leadership is built on consistent communication, accountability, and care, not forms and deadlines.

If you want to improve performance, make feedback part of the culture, not a calendar event. Praise effort in real time. Correct mistakes when they happen. Teach through conversation, not condemnation.

When supervisors make feedback a continuous conversation, evaluations take care of themselves. By the time that annual review rolls around, there should be zero surprises, because the dialogue has already been happening every month.

That’s how you build trust. That’s how you build performance. That’s how you build a culture that actually gets better.

The Bottom Line

If the only time your people hear how they’re doing is during an annual evaluation, you’re not leading - you're grading.
And grading doesn’t change behavior. Leadership does.

Stay Safe!