Washington police lag on required deescalation, mental health training 77%

By Jake Goldstein-Street0% Washington State Standard0%

4/20/2026, 10:35:32 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Self-Serving Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 14.5% saturation with 107 hits. Analysis detected 839 faulty-reasoning hits from 740 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 68.2% and a BS Rank of 77% (5,055 of 21,175 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 76.10% of the article peer group.

Washington law enforcement officers are way behind completing deescalation and mental health training required under the state’s marquee police accountability law. 
That’s according to a report released this week by the state auditor’s office. 
The audit found just 16% of veteran officers and 14% of new officers had finished the 40 hours of training. 
Roughly 42% of vets were at least halfway done. 
At this rate, under half of the state’s officers will have finished the training by a 2028 deadline. 
The mandated training aims to reduce use-of-force cases, making civilians and officers safer, and thus improving trust in law enforcement. 
It includes 16 hours of mostly online community and cultural awareness courses, and 24 hours of in-person patrol tactics training every three years. 
Topics include managing distance between officers and the people they interact with, managing the pace of an interaction, communication strategies for engaging with those with mental health issues and physical force alternatives. 
It stems from Initiative 940, the sweeping police reform effort voters approved in 2018, which became law the next year as the Law Enforcement Training and Community Safety Act. 
Police departments have a newly added incentive to complete the instruction. 
To access the state’s new $100 million grant program aimed to boost police hiring, agencies have to reach 50% compliance with the 40-hour training requirement. 
“The goal of this law is to improve interactions between police officers and community members,” state Auditor Pat McCarthy said in a statement. 
“By addressing the issues raised by our findings, Washington can continue to build better relationships between law enforcement agencies and the diverse communities they serve.” 
Roadblocks 
McCarthy’s office lays out a few reasons for the low uptake among the state’s roughly 11,000 officers. 
For one, the Criminal Justice Training Commission developed the training, but uses a “train-the-trainer” approach to meet the patrol tactics section. 
This involves officers taking an 80-hour course and then returning to teach their colleagues at their own and other police agencies. 
This presents multiple obstacles, according to the audit. 
It’s expensive to send these instructors to get trained; hard to get leave to get the training to become instructors; and partnerships are lacking between departments to get the training done. 
A leading law enforcement group blames the issue on “chronic underinvestment” from the state. 
The Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs, or WACOPS, notes the state ranks last in the nation in police staffing per capita, and so taking officers off the streets to get this training isn’t feasible. 
“The training completion figures in the State Auditor’s report are a direct reflection of our profession being trapped in a system that lacks the basic resources to satisfy these requirements while maintaining public safety,” WACOPS said in a statement. 
The group said it “looks forward to collaborating with the Auditor and the legislature to identify a holistic solution to advance a culture of ongoing training, so long as officer feedback on existing barriers is central to that process.” 
In the audit, officers also reported some resistance to the cultural awareness training due to “personal and political reasons.” 
And in-person trainings are difficult to schedule. 
The report also found the Criminal Justice Training Commission doesn’t review compliance with the training requirement, making it harder for agencies to track their officers’ progress. 
And the commission doesn’t have tools to ensure participation. 
Recommendations 
The auditor’s office has some ideas to improve compliance. 
For one, the audit calls for a legislative workgroup to look at how state law can be revised to ensure all officers receive the training. 
For example, the group could look at financial support for police departments so their officers can undergo the 80-hour “train the trainer” courses to become instructors. 
It could also implement consequences for not complying with the training requirements, auditors suggest. 
The audit also pushes the Criminal Justice Training Commission to improve its tracking of officer compliance and generally increase transparency. 
In a written response to the audit, the commission said it “generally agrees with the findings and recommendations in the report.” 
“Some findings reflect work that was already in progress prior to the audit by the WSCJTC, but it is encouraging to see the SAO’s recommendations align with these ongoing efforts,” the commission wrote. 
“The WSCJTC believes some of the recommendations will require additional funding and staff resources to implement.” 
This story was originally published by the Washington State Standard. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.4%Jake Goldstein-Street: 1.9%KUOW: 2.6%Confirmation Bias10.4%This article: 3.9%Jake Goldstein-Street: 1.5%KUOW: 1.3%Anchoring Bias3.9%This article: 4.7%Jake Goldstein-Street: 1.9%KUOW: 3.4%Availability Heuristic4.7%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 1.1%KUOW: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.3%KUOW: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.5%KUOW: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Jake Goldstein-Street: 6.7%KUOW: 7.4%Framing Effect5.8%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.4%KUOW: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.6%KUOW: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.2%KUOW: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.6%Jake Goldstein-Street: 2.4%KUOW: 3.8%Optimism Bias12.6%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 1.9%KUOW: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.5%Jake Goldstein-Street: 7.0%KUOW: 8.0%Negativity Bias14.5%This article: 9.7%Jake Goldstein-Street: 2.7%KUOW: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias9.7%This article: 4.5%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.4%KUOW: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error4.5%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 1.1%KUOW: 2.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.5%KUOW: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 1.3%KUOW: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.1%KUOW: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 1.0%KUOW: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.2%KUOW: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.5%KUOW: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.5%KUOW: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.9%Jake Goldstein-Street: 2.6%KUOW: 4.3%Appeal to Authority5.9%This article: 6.6%Jake Goldstein-Street: 1.3%KUOW: 1.4%False Dilemma6.6%This article: 2.4%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.8%KUOW: 0.9%Slippery Slope2.4%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.2%KUOW: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 2.1%KUOW: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.2%KUOW: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.3%KUOW: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 5.0%KUOW: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 3.4%Jake Goldstein-Street: 1.3%KUOW: 0.8%Begging the Question3.4%This article: 8.8%Jake Goldstein-Street: 1.4%KUOW: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.8%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.4%KUOW: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.2%KUOW: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.5%KUOW: 3.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 1.6%KUOW: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.3%KUOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.2%KUOW: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.1%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.8%KUOW: 1.0%Unattributed Quote3.1%This article: 5.3%Jake Goldstein-Street: 1.3%KUOW: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection5.3%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 2.1%KUOW: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.9%KUOW: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.8%KUOW: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.2%KUOW: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Goldstein-Street: 0.5%KUOW: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

740 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers31%attributed speech509writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coveragePat McCarthy • 23 words • 100.0% coveragePat McCarthy • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWACOPS • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWACOPS • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWACOPS • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageCriminal Justice Training Commission • 21 words • 0.0% coverageCriminal Justice Training Commission • 33 words • 0.0% coverageCriminal Justice Training Commission • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

WACOPS

100%flagged-word coverage
113 attributed words49% of attributed speech57% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Quote-first Misdirection+34.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%WACOPS: 34.5%34.5%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.