PSYCHOLOGICAL FITNESS FOR DUTY (police)

 

Increasingly, law enforcement agencies are faced with litigation based on officer performance, including abuse of authority and failure to perform (often referred to as dereliction of duty). The demands of law enforcement require police departments to ensure that their officers are emotionally and mentally stable or psychologically capable of performing their duties in a safe and effective manner. When an officer demonstrates that he or she may not be capable of doing so, a number of actions may be initiated by the agency including medical, supervisory, training, or disciplinary intervention, as well as the provision of psychological services. Psychological services in policing have greatly increased in recent decades and now include pre-employment testing, counseling, research, and fitness for duty (Scrivner and Kurke 1995).

Psychological fitness for duty is both an examination and assessment of risk and disability made by a qualified mental health professional (usually a licensed psychologist) when an incumbent officer demonstrates inability to perform his or her duties safely and effectively or when the officer’s behavior presents a risk to himself or herself, to others, or to the agency, due to apparent psychological factors or impairment.

Such assessments, often called fitness for duty evaluations (FFDEs), are often made after critical incidents (for example, officer-involved shootings, hostage situations, witnessing crimes against children, brutal homicides, or death of fellow officers) or when an officer demonstrates that his or her emotional state may negatively affect the effective or safe performance of the job. Indicators of such a state may include signs of alcohol or drug dependence, excessive absence, numerous complaints from community members, emotional or physical outbursts, abuse of authority, or identification through an early warning system.

The decision to refer an officer for a psychological FFDE may be made by a supervisor, internal affairs investigator, training personnel, an employee assistance program counselor, personnel administrators, or other officials or agency representatives who may be privy to behavioral information on that officer. Thus the agency, not the officer, is the client of the evaluator.

Purpose

The purpose of the evaluation is not to provide a diagnosis but to determine whether the individual is currently capable of performing the essential functions of the job, and to ”professionally notify” the department of mental illness, behavior, or personality issues that may affect performance of the officer’s official role (Rostow and Davis 2002). As such, the evaluator examines the job description for the law enforcement position to determine how the person’s psychological limitations may affect various job components and specific tasks, while examining the various risks associated with the officer continuing in his or her capacity.

Risks to the Officer

Police officers have a dangerous job, one in which lives and property are at stake. Police officers face a number of stressors, including major events (natural disasters, savage victimizations, crimes against children, and so on) over which officers may have little control, as well as those in which an officer must take control (officer-involved shootings, riot control, and so on). The negative outcomes from such events can have serious psychological consequences for even the most seasoned and experienced officers.

Part of the culture of policing is the image of police as strong, controlled, non-emotional, and tough. However, exposure to routine stressors or critical incidents can wear away at the coping mechanisms of many officers, leading them to feel isolated and unable to discuss their emotions with family or friends and creating a sense of embarrassment, failure, and even self-loathing. All of these issues may make an officer vulnerable to engaging in inappropriate, atypical, and/or threatening behavior or, in the worst case scenario, suicide.

Risks to Others

In situations where an officer may have experienced extreme stress, he or she could lash out at fellow officers, supervisors, or community members with little or no warning. These behaviors could be overtly aggressive, punitive, or hostile and could come across as insulting, unfair, defamatory, or even threatening and dangerous. Other mental or emotional issues could limit the officer’s ability to render appropriate assistance or aid, restrain a violent offender, or protect the community from dangers.

Legal Considerations and Risks to the Agency

When an officer performs his or her duties inappropriately, the reputation of the agency can be tarnished. It is critical for police departments to maintain a professional and respectable reputation in the community in order to obtain the cooperation and support necessary to carry out its responsibilities effectively.

Because the outcomes of an FFDE could lead to a variety of negative employment consequences for the officer, legal quandaries for the agency may arise out of the evaluation or the failure to refer an employee for an FFDE. When an officer has behaved in a manner that is of sufficient concern to be referred for an FFDE, failure of departmental officials to make that referral can also present a risk of liability to the agency and perhaps even the individual who identified the initial problem, as well as supervisors and commanders responsible for overseeing the officer’s performance. For example, deliberate indifference, a circumstance in which a plaintiff demonstrates that the agency had ignored signs of poor performance, and negligent retention, a situation in which an agency retains an employee who has demonstrated that he or she is unfit for duty, can present legal difficulties for agencies.

Case law associated with psychological evaluations of law enforcement personnel has been established in a number of areas pertaining to FFDEs. Some of the issues raised in case law include an agency or agency official’s right to mandate psychological testing (see, for example, Conte v. Horcher, 365 N.E.2d 567, 1977), an agency’s responsibility to psychologically evaluate personnel (see, for example, Bonsignore v. City of New York, 683 F.2d 635, 1982), the presence of outside parties in psychological evaluations (see, for example, Vinson v. The Superior Court of Almeda County, 740 P.2d 404, 1987), and confidentiality (see, for example, David v. Christian, 520 N.Y.S.2d 827, 1987, and Redmond v. City of Overland Park, 672 F. Supp. 473, 1987). According to Super (1997), by June 1996 case law had established that (1) chiefs not only have the right to mandate FFDEs when an officer’s mental health or emotional stability is called into question, they are ”burdened with the responsibility to do so”; (2) officers referred for an FFDE do not have the privilege of having their attorneys present; and (3) psychological stability of law enforcement officers is a more compelling concern to the courts than the respective officer’s privacy rights. Later in 1996, another court decision placed restrictions on psychologists from providing detailed case information unless authority is granted by the employee (see Pettus v. Cole, 49 Cal. App. 4th 402; 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 46, 1996).

Professional Guidelines for the Conduct of FFDEs

In addition to legal requirements and issues, professional standards are also associated with FFDEs. The first initiative to establish guidelines for FFDEs was proposed by Inwald (1990). In 1998 the International Association of Chiefs of Police Psychological Services Section adopted a set of guidelines, which were later ratified in 2004. These guidelines were intended to standardize the process for FFDEs and to present commonly accepted practices.

Because the assessment of psychological capacity requires specialized training, knowledge, and experience, the IACP guidelines suggest that the evaluator ”be a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist with education, training, and experience in the diagnostic evaluation of mental and emotional disorders.” The guidelines further stipulate the need for experience in evaluating police personnel, familiarity with the research literature in police psychology, as well as knowledge of the functions of a law enforcement officer’s job. Because numerous laws and professional practices govern or relate to FFDEs including those related to disability (for example, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990), privacy, and third-party liability associated with the outcomes of such evaluations, the IACP guidelines also stress the importance of evaluators having both knowledge of legal requirements and case law surrounding FFDEs.

When to Refer Someone for a Psychological FFDE

In many agencies, a variety of interventions may be provided to assist officers who are having difficulty. These could include remedial training, supervisory counseling, mentoring, critical incident stress debriefing (after events such as hostage situations, officer-involved shootings, or other types of tragedies or disasters), reassignment, or referrals to an employee assistance program counselor. When supervision, discipline, or other remedies are exhausted, an FFDE is warranted.

Components and Outcomes of a Psychological FFDE

The content of an FFDE typically consists of the reason for the referral, relevant background information, behavioral observations, psychological testing related to the referral reason, a face-to-face interview with the officer and other individuals who may have relevant information, and summary/conclusions (Super 1997; Blau 1994). On completion of an FFDE, the examiner supplies a report and recommendation regarding the officer’s capacity to perform the job safely and effectively including his or her opinion as to the officer’s fitness for unrestricted duty and sometimes suggestions for potentially corrective remedies. While an agency may ask the examiner to provide opinions regarding necessary work restrictions, accommodations, interventions, or causation, the IACP guidelines stipulate that the reasonableness of such recommendations must be made by the agency.

Next post:

Previous post: