SCREENING PROCESSES FOR MILITARY, LAW ENFORCEMENT, RESCUE UNITS, FIRST RESPONDERS, OTHERS - PART III
- Moran Sciamama-Saghiv
- Sep 17
- 13 min read
Updated: Sep 27
I am Dr. Moran Sciamama-Saghiv, ex-Army officer and an expert of many years on screening processes (especially yet not limited to military with an emphasis on special forces; physical aspects). I offer consultation services and a variety of lectures related to the Israeli military. I would be happy to collaborate with you (if and when relevant).In the meanwhile, I invite you to read my five blog post series on the screening processes for military, law enforcement, rescue units, first responders, etc.
The Screening Process Itself:
The screening process itself relates to all the processes and sub-processes that candidates/cadets are actually going to experience, and that the staff of the screening processes will supervise, regulate, quantify, qualify, and draw conclusions based upon. The screening processes itself is meant to increase the team's/unit's chances of making a definitive decision about every candidate. Three common decisions are optional: 1) Advances to the next step (it's a yes); 2) Doe not advance to the next step (it's a no); 3) Requires further discussion/evaluation (it's a maybe for now).
While there are multiple ways and approaches to defining and structuring the screening process and its sub-processes (stages), I like to simplify things by dividing them into three:
Before.
During.
After.
This is a natural division, easy to understand, and easy to structure and execute. I will describe everything as if nothing exists, nothing has been established beyond identifying the needs of the unit/team and "translating" the needs identified into a trait combination required to serve in such a team/unit or a specific position on the team or in the unit. Obviously, if something does exist, we conduct a gap analysis to identify what we have (current state), what we want (desired state), and put forth an action plan to bridge any gaps.
Now that we know what we are looking for, we need to create a screening process that allows us to get answers to the questions we have about each candidate. Contrary to the common organization of candidates in teams/groups, the screening process is actually on a candidate by candidate basis.
Before:
Screening out - Before the actual physical part of the screening begins, we want to screen out (terminate one's candidacy) based on as many non-physical tools and criteria we have available, that are relevant, and that we have the personal and budget to handle. The more robust the physical aspect of the service on the team/unit is, the more and deeper the physical/medical screening we conduct up-front. The greater the cost of training and certifying a person from candidate to an operational member is, the more and deeper the physical/medical screening we conduct up-front.
Suggest physical/medical protocols should/can include:
Cardiopulmonary or cardiorespiratory function - maximal exercise testing for maximal aerobic capacity and endurance (VO2max), imaging to find heart/lung defects, spirometry (for lung volumes and capacities), lung and heart sounds, ECG, other if relevant. The idea is to proactively detect any born or existing functional limitations or life-threatening disease, clinical conditions, or syndromes.
Ground force distribution during walking, running, and jumping. The idea is to proactively detect any reasons why a candidate is at high risk to developed mechanically-based injuries, especially due to overuse or repeated mechanical loading.
Skeletal imaging. The idea is to proactively detect skeletal and/or articular deformities, and possible future problematic loci.
Muscular. Proactively screening for any functional problems with force production of skeletal muscles or irregular ratio between mass and force production extent.
Immune. The idea is to proactively identify any problems with the immune system or immune-deficiencies.
Neural, neurological, and cognitive tests. The idea is to proactively identify problems of the nerves system or problems with the ability to analyze, learn, and make decisions that are crucial for high-quality and under stress function.
Psychological. The idea is to proactively identify any psychological or mental health problems and/or needs that could influence high quality function.
Social. The idea is to proactively identify any social reasons why the candidate would not function well as part of a team, unit, and their ability to create substantial personal bonds.
Reasons for applying. The idea is to proactively identify any unacceptable or ill-advised reasons why a person might want to serve. For example, money being the only motivator, revenge on parents, wanting to kill, hero complexes, family traditions alone, and more.
Motivation. The idea is to proactively identify any unwanted types of motivation (internal vs external) and/or magnitudes.
Understanding. The idea is to proactively identify any problems with the candidates' understanding of what the unit/team actually does in essence and/or on a daily basis. This may include common missions, time schedules, physicality, risk, benefits, locations, and more.
Screening "scores" - I like advising that two scores be created in order to determine if a person is 1) Suitable; 2) Physically/medically cleared. I call the first score "the quality score" which is the culmination of all non-physical and non-medical aspects measured and/or evaluated at this stage. This score indicates the expected quality that can be expected from a candidate, regardless of if they are physically/medically cleared. This score can serve as a stand-alone in case there are positions/career paths on the team or in the unit that are non-physical, yet require high personal quality abilities (leadership, management, cognitive). These may also include support roles. The quality score serves the system/unit/team when making decisions related to career advancement (to leadership/command positions or positions that require critical thinking and quality decision making).
The second score is "the physical/medical score" which is the culmination of all physical and medical aspects measured and/or evaluated at this stage. This score indicates the expected level of physical performance and capacities that can be expected from a candidate, regardless of if their quality score. The physical/medical score serves the system/unit/team when making decisions related to the candidate's ability to endure the physical challenges with minimal injuries or insignificant injuries from a physical/medical function standpoint.
It is the combined picture created by the two scores that "opens" or "closes" a certain candidate's options of service. Both scores (ask any lawyer and psychologist...) should never have the option of "perfections". The legal reason for this is so no person can state that they came in with "perfect health" or "completely healthy" while the psychological reason is humility and humbleness.
At this point, we should be left with those that meet the minimum requirements (or more) as our cohort of candidates to be screened in the future (near or far). Before anything else, we want to determine how the screening process will actually be accomplished by answering a few initial core questions. Before I go in deeper into the smallest details (spanned over a few blog posts), there are three mega-questions that needs to be answered first, and they are crucial:
What is the minimum of eligible candidates we need (as opposed to want) passing the process? - this is a direct meaning drawn from the missions that must be achieved at the minimum and no less.
What is the maximum of eligible candidates we can handle (as opposed to want) as one cohort being trained together? - this is a direct meaning drawn from the training resources available per one cohort moving forward together.
What screening funnel is to be applied in light of the answers to questions 1 & 2 just above? - this has significant implications on the vast majority of decision to be made prior, during, and after the screening process.
The screening funnel - Let us focus on explaining the idea of a screening funnel and the common options at hand. The screening funnel relates to how you go about achieving the outcomes indicated in questions 1 & 2 above. For example, how many candidates do we want or can afford being screened out (terminating their screening process) per hour, day, first half, second half, etc? Other relevant questions related to the screening funnel are who, why, and when are candidates' screening processes terminated? - is it at the very end (only once in the entire process)? perhaps at the end of the first half and/or second half? is it every third or fourth of the process? who is allowed to terminate a candidate's screening process? - is it any staff? candidate evaluators? the candidates themselves? a combination?
The funnel as a strategic tool - Another very important question to figure out very early is if there is a strategy that we wish to use the funnel as a tool to achieve? For example - increasing the psychological and physical pressure at the beginning could cause a massive loss of candidates that decide to quit, yet on the other hand, perhaps we are looking to get rid of the "psychologically weak" or relatively weak. This approach may eliminate any chances of getting to know the candidates at a deeper level that could actually have causes us to evaluate them favorably. On the other hand, if you have a very large cohort and just need a few, an overwhelming start may make everything easier faster, where the principle of the matter is that "only the strongest survive".
These are meaningful questions that can have a significant influence on the success or failure of the entire process. Mistakes made at this level can render a whole cohort as "lost". For example, if you can "afford" to lose 30% of the overall number of candidates, and you overwhelm them to much, you might lose 40% and miss your recruitment goal. Further more, you may injure candidates that would not be overwhelmed psychologically and could make it through (since strong and overwhelming beginnings are often characterized by extensive and intensive physicality).
Evaluation extent - The next significant questions that need to be answered relate to what is the minimum extent of evaluation related data required to make a valid decision for each candidate? what is the optimal extent of data? and how should these goals be achieved? - For example, if you were to divide the overall process into halves, change the make up of the teams, and switch the evaluators so that every candidate has been seen by the end of the process by two teams of evaluators, the amount of data, its diversity, and its richness would increase. The possible "price" paid would be a lesser "depth" as it relates to how well does every evaluator get to know each of the candidates.
The "grand breakdown" - Once all aspects of the screening funnel are answered and clear, it is time to breakdown every day, hour or part of the day, into its basic components and content. We begin by indicating what must happen and when, in light of the law, orders, professional guidelines, limitations, etc. These can stem from safety aspects, security aspects, medical, physical, social, environmental, or anything else relevant. For example, it is safer to be physically active when temperatures are pleasant, thus choosing to include non-physical screening elements during the hottest hours (in a shaded area or roofed facility) and physical elements when it is less or least hot is a good idea.
Physical breaks - We input what are the mandatory physical breaks to be included. These may include minimal required sleep hours, meals, prayer, heat loss breaks (cooling down; 15 minutes for every 45 minutes of moderate-high intensity physical activity under moderate heat conditions), water breaks if different than heat loss breaks, social time if mandatory (calling family etc.), and more.
Travel - We factor in any travel time, be it on foot or motorized, be it back and forth, or just forth (if using multiple locations and transitioning between them; "journey style").
Instruction time -We input time required for proper explanations (if required or chosen), and proper demonstration time (if required or chosen). Please note that some assignments do not include an explanation nor demonstration on purpose (it's part of the evaluation set up and/or psychological stress).
Operational time - We must input any maintenance time, operational-organizational time that is mandatory. For example, giving candidates enough time to wash their hands before meals if required or desired. In some cases, being in the field, wilderness, or functioning under operational/combat circumstances means not washing your hands as part of real life simulation. The time allocated for eating must also be inputted.
Evaluation time - We are left with the extent and specific time "slots" dedicate to the actual exercises, drills, tests, activities, and challenges that lead to the evaluation of the candidates. This is where we divert the process to the creation/establishment/improvement of the activities that will be used, which is an art form of its own.
Resources for success - Each exercise/activity generates its own resources and tools needs that need to be assured prior to the beginning of the actual screening process. To name a few (not limited to): budget, personnel, facilities, environment, equipment, forms, technology, transportation, nutrition, and medical/emergency. I advise to create the list of required resources per exercise/activity only after each exercise/activity has been finalized without doubt.
Role holders and authority - We must clearly determine what are roles we need? who fulfils them? and what is their authority? - For example, what is the structure/hierarchy of command? how wide is it at the base (or not)? how narrow is it at the top (or not)? are roles fulfilled only by team/unit personnel or do we utilize the help/expertise of external people/factors (external consultants, reserve duty as oppose to active duty, experts that do not exist within the team/unit on a regular basis, etc.). What are the permissions and limitations applied to each role? who has the last say on every matter?
Policies and processes for success - What are the policies and the processes the assure success and excellence? are they flexible/dynamic or set in stone? do they originate from within the team/unit or mandated by external factors (outside of the team/unit). We wish to understand and implement a system of policies and supporting processes that allow for content experts to lead certain processes and screening aspects even if someone else outranks them. For example, it is common practice the medical decisions are the sole decision and authority of the medical staff (especially physicians) rather the screening process chief or high commander. On the other hand, the physician does not necessarily determine how a person is evacuated or transported to be treated.
Permission and limitations - As part of the evaluation funnel, we must understand clearly what are the permission given to the staff in regard to every single different aspect of the screening process while taking into consideration the implications it may have of the screening process as a whole and/or the outcome per specific candidate. For example, who determines and/or regulates the candidates that go to chores on a daily basis? - the lack of supervision and regulation may cause the same candidate to be assigned chores more than others, thus being under-evaluated, and not pass. If a team level evaluator tells a candidate that they are done, is that final? who terminates a candidates screening process due to psychological aspects/considerations?
Returning to the screening process - If a candidate has been disengaged from the teams schedule for any reason, can they return and simply join the team? under which circumstances are they allowed vs not? what is the extent or content of screening and evaluation missed that is considered significant (thus they would not join the back) and what is not (thus they would join back)? what is more significant, missing a certain activity that produces significant insights on the candidates, or the extent of time, effort, lost? perhaps a combination?...We must clearly determine the answers to these questions prior to beginning the screening process.
Handling contradictions - How do we handle contradictions? - for example, if we require team/unit members to be aggressive, how much is not enough? how much is just right? how much is too much? is aggressiveness a situational behavior that needs to be "turned on" and "turned off" based on the situation and its characteristics. For example, this would be the case in regard to Close Quarters Battle (CQB). Close-Quarters Battle or Close-Quarters Combat (CQC), refers to direct, high-intensity combat in confined spaces like buildings or vehicles, typically at very short ranges using firearms, but also including hand-to-hand combat.
It requires specialized tactics, swift decision-making, precise weapon handling, coordinated teamwork, and heightened situational awareness to neutralize threats quickly and effectively in environments with potential civilians present. CQB is primarily used by military units, law enforcement (like SWAT), and counter-terrorism squads, but is also relevant for self-defense. On the other hand, perhaps this is irrelevant and we require people to stay calm and never become aggressive. Extreme shifts between calmness and extreme acts of violence can be taught, trained, practiced, and acquired, yet do require the personal traits to support them being acquired such as discipline and/or self-discipline.
Another optional contradiction that needs to be figured out is the contradiction naturally created by the fact that the team "should be everything" while during the screening process, the candidates are actually and truly evaluated as individuals. If the entire team would either pass of fail, this would not create a contradiction. Another example of a possible contradiction (in the form of a dilemma) is the possible conflict between values and mission success. The question being which comes first?
Reporting vs "snitching" - We must determine what constitutes "reporting" and what constitutes "snitching"? are we determining the differences while assuming the evaluators' standpoint or that of a screening candidate? what are the suggested/expected responses in each case? what are the awards and penalties in each case.
Do ranks and "titles" matter? - We must determine if ranks and/or "titles" matter or if it is the authority that matters. At first, this may seem confusing to you, yet there is a meaningful point behind it that you may not have considered prior. Naturally, candidates may attribute greater importance to what a major at rank says, compared to a captain at rank, though their role and authority in regard to the screening process and the candidate, are exactly the same. This begs the question - do we allow visual insignia to influence the screening process or not?
Do we address each other by their title or not? - For example, if an evaluator addressed the unit commander as "unit commander" in front of the candidates, will that cause the candidates to value the other person's opinion more, or cause them to behave differently in the unit commander's presence?
What kind of "cops" are we? - We need to determine if we allow maximal individuality of he evaluators, minimal, or a combination? - For example, are we constantly behaving badly with a negative attitude? are we constantly behaving nicely with a positive attitude? is our attitude situational (situation dependent)? do encourage "role playing" amongst evaluators ("good cop"- "bad cop")?
Staff vs evaluators - We need to determine if evaluation and certain behaviors stop when candidates are engaging with support staff or executive screening command. For example, while being treated medically, do we address them by name or screening ID? is the physician/medic suppose to be harsh with them or kind? are all staff also commanders or not? does the answer change on a situational basis? do we allow for interactions with staff and command to influence the evaluation of a specific candidate? is the answer always "yes", always "no", or "depends"?
Services by Dr. Moran Sciamama-Saghiv:
Tags associated with this blog post include:
military training, law enforcement, rescue operations, first responders, tactical gear, combat readiness, special forces, counterterrorism, homeland security, border patrol, police units, fire department, paramedics, emergency medical services, disaster relief, crisis response, search and rescue, military tactics, SWAT team, defense forces, national guard, army rangers, navy seals, coast guard, air force, marines, peacekeeping missions, riot control, crowd management, protective services, K9 units, hostage rescue, urban warfare, cyber defense, intelligence operations, surveillance systems, command and control, mission planning, operational readiness, rapid deployment, humanitarian aid, emergency response teams, firefighter training, hazmat units, bomb disposal, EOD units, medical evacuation, field hospitals, casualty care, tactical medicine, active duty, reserve forces, veterans support, homeland defense, protective gear, ballistic protection, armored vehicles, military strategy, law enforcement training, disaster preparedness, mass casualty response, community policing, critical incident management, incident command system, firefighting equipment, emergency drills, tactical operations, anti-smuggling units, narcotics enforcement, crime prevention, forensic units, traffic control, security checkpoints, border security, peacekeeping forces, relief operations, combat engineers, evacuation protocols, emergency shelters, public safety, crisis communication, interoperability, mutual aid, civil defense, air rescue, water rescue, mountain rescue, survival training, situational awareness, chain of command, operational security, threat assessment, risk management, protective intelligence, officer safety, emergency dispatch, communications systems, emergency coordination, resilience training, field operations, emergency logistics, lifesaving interventions.
Comments