Psychological Guidelines for Issues in Law Enforcement

CONTENTS
Section History
Peer Support Guidelines
Officer-Involved Shooting Guidelines
Pre-Employment Psychological Evaluation Guidelines
Fitness For Duty Evaluation Guidelines

SECTION HISTORY

Initial objectives of the committee were to

1. Provide an immediate and knowledgeable information source on police psychology and related mental health fields to law enforcement in general, and to the IACP in particular.

2. Advance police psychological services in general.

3. Identify police psychology resources, including the development of a directory of law enforcement mental health professionals.

4. Make training available to IACP membership concerning police psychology and related fields.

5. Provide information and training to mental health professionals so they might develop and upgrade skills in the law enforcement mental health area.

The new Police Psychological Services Committee first met on October 13, 1985, at the IACP Annual Conference in Houston, Texas, to further develop initial goals. It immediately began to plan how to advance these goals through presentations at IACP annual conferences and publications in Police Chief magazine. The committee consented that its primary role was to serve IACP member needs. Committee members met again on December 17, 1985, at the FBI Academy to finalize workshops for the 1986 Annual Conference. The committee was elevated to full section status in 1986 at the Annual Conference in Nashville.
Since that time, the Psychological Services Section has grown to over 80 police psychologists. The section continues to adhere to the original objectives of the Psychological Services Committee by contributing to Police Chief magazine, presenting training programs at the annual conferences, and scheduling in-service training for police psychologists at each annual conference. The section has also been instrumental in the development of standards relating to police psychology and has developed standards for pre-employment, duty-related shootings and other traumatic incidents, fitness for duty, and use of peer support.

Membership in the section is open to licensed psychologists who are members of IACP and who work as psychologists with public law enforcement agencies. For further information or to apply for membership, contact the Police Psychological Services Section staff liaison at IACP headquarters.

PEER SUPPORT GUIDELINES

PHILOSOPHY

1. The goal of peer support is to provide all public safety employees within an agency the opportunity to receive emotional and tangible peer support through times of personal or professional crises and to help anticipate and address potential difficulties. A peer support program must have a procedure for mental health consultation and training. A peer support program is developed and implemented under the organizational structure of the parent agency.

2. To ensure maximum utilization of the program and to support assurances of confidentiality, there should be participation on the steering committee of relevant employee organizations, mental health professionals, and police administrators, during planning and subsequent stages. Membership on the steering committee should have a wide representation of involved sworn and nonsworn parties.

3. Sworn peer support officers are officers first and peer supporters second. Any conflicts of roles should be resolved in that context.

4. A Peer Support Person (PSP), sworn or nonsworn, is a specifically trained colleague, not a counselor or therapist. A peer support program can augment outreach programs, e.g., employee assistance programs and in-house treatment programs, but not replace them. PSPs should refer cases that require professional intervention to a mental health professional. A procedure should be in place for mental health consultations and training.

SELECTION

1. PSPs should be chosen from volunteers who are currently in good standing with their departments and who have received recommendations from their superiors and/or peers.

2. Considerations for selection of PSP candidates include, but are not limited to, previous education and training; resolved traumatic experiences; and desirable interpersonal qualities, such as maturity, judgment, and personal and professional credibility.

TRAINING

Relevant introductory and continuing training for a PSP could include the following:

a. Confidentiality Issues
b. Communication Facilitation and Listening Skills
c. Ethical Issues
d. Problem Assessment
e. Problem-Solving Skills
f. Alcohol and Substance Abuse
g. Cross-Cultural Issues
h. Medical Conditions Often Confused with Psychiatric Disorders
i. Stress Management
j. AIDS Information
k. Suicide Assessment
l. Depression and Burn-Out
m. Grief Management
n. Domestic Violence
o. Crisis Management
p. Nonverbal Communication
q. When to See Mental Health Consultation and Referral Information
r. Traumatic Intervention
s. Limits and Liability

ADMINISTRATION

1. A formal policy statement should be included in the departmental policy manual that gives written assurances that, within limits of confidentiality, PSPs will not be asked to give information about members they support. The only information that management may require about peer support cases is the anonymous statistical information regarding the utilization of a PSP.

2. A peer support program shall be governed by a written procedures manual that is available to all personnel.

3. Individuals receiving peer support may voluntarily choose or reject a PSP by any criteria they believe are important.

4. Management could provide noncompensatory support for the PSP program.

5. Departments are encouraged to train as many employees as possible in peer support skills.

6. A peer support program coordinator should be identified who has a block of time devoted to program logistics and development. This individual would coordinate referrals to mental health professionals, collect utilization data, and coordinate training and meetings.

7. The peer support program is not an alternative to discipline. A PSP does not intervene in the disciplinary process, even at a member’s request.

8. The steering committee shall identify appropriate ongoing training for PSPs.

CONSULTATION SERVICES FROM MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS

1. PSPs must have a mental health professional with whom to consult.

2. PSPs should be aware of their personal limitations and should seek advise and counsel when determining when to disqualify themselves from working with individuals who have problems for which they have not been trained or for problems about which they may have strong personal beliefs.

3. PSPs should be required to advance their skills through continuing training as scheduled by the program coordinator.

CONFIDENTIALITY

1. PSPs must inform department members of the limits of their confidentiality and consider potential role conflicts (e.g., supervisor providing peer support). These should be consistent with law and departmental policy and may include the following:

a. threats to self
b. threats to specific people
c. felonies as specified by the department
d. serious misdemeanors as specified by the department
e. child, spouse, and elder abuse

2. PSPs should be trained to be sensitive to role conflicts that could affect future decisions and recommendations on assignment, e.g., to investigations, transfers, and promotions. PSPs cannot abdicate their job responsibility as officers by participating in the program.

3. PSPs do not volunteer information to supervisors and should advise supervisors of the confidentiality guidelines established by the department.

4. PSPs must advise members that information told to them is not protected by legal privilege and that confidentiality is administratively provided and may not be recognized in court proceedings.

5. PSPs should avoid conflicting peer support relationships. For example, PSPs should not develop peer support relationships with supervisors, subordinates, or relatives. PSPs should avoid religious, sexual, or financial entanglements with receivers of peer support and avoid espousing particular values, moral standards, and philosophies.

6. A PSP must not keep written formal or private records of supportive contacts.

Field experience of members of the Police Psychological Services Section of the IACP suggests that following these guidelines can reduce the probability of long-lasting psychological and emotional problems resulting from a shooting. However, these guidelines are not meant to be a rigid protocol. These guidelines work best when applied in a case-by-case manner appropriate to each unique situation.

1. At the scene, show concern. Give physical and emotional first aid.

2. Create a psychological break; it is advisable to get the officer away from the body and suspect(s) or remove the officer completely from the immediate scene. Shielding the officer from media attention is essential. The officer should stay with a supportive peer or supervisor and return to the scene only if necessary.

3. Explain to the officer what will happen administratively during the next few hours and why. It is recommended that an administrator brief the officer again sometime in the next two days regarding the entire process of investigation, media interaction, grand jury, review board, and any other potential concerns that might be encountered after a shooting.

4. If the firearm is taken as evidence, replace it immediately or when appropriate (telling the officer it will be replaced). Officers, especially when in uniform, may feel extremely vulnerable if they are left unarmed. Immediate replacement of a firearm also communicates support for the officer, rather than miscommunicating that an administrative action is being taken. If the firearm must be removed at the scene and cannot be replaced, it is desirable to assign an armed companion officer to stay with the involved officer.

5. If possible, the officer can benefit from some recovery time before detailed interviewing begins. This can range from a few hours to overnight, depending on the emotional state of the officer and the circumstances. Officers who have been afforded this opportunity to calm down are likely to provide a more coherent and accurate statement. Providing a secure setting, insulated from the press and curious officers, is desirable during the interview process.

6. Totally isolating the officer breeds feelings of resentment and alienation. The officer may benefit from being with a supportive friend or peer who has been through a similar experience. (To avoid legal complications, the shooting should not be discussed prior to the preliminary investigation.)

7. If the officer is not injured, either the officer or a department representative should contact the family with a telephone call first, perhaps followed up with a personal visit, and let them know what happened before other rumors and sources reach them. If the officer is injured, a department member known to the family should pick them up and drive them to the hospital. Offer to call friends, chaplains, etc., to make sure the family has support.

8. Personal concern and support for the officer involved in the shooting, communicated face-to-face from high-ranking administrators, goes a long way toward alleviating future emotional problems. The administrator does not have to comment on the situation, or make further statements regarding legal or departmental resolution, but can show concern and empathy for the officer during this stressful experience.

9. It is desirable to give the officer a few days of administrative leave to deal with the emotional impact. Make sure the officer understands this is an “administrative leave,” not a “suspension with pay.” It may well be in the best interests of the officer and the agency to keep the officer off the street until the criminal investigation, internal shooting review board, grand jury, coroner’s request, and district attorney’s statement have all been completed. This avoids placing the officer in potential legal and emotional double binds from being involved in another critical incident before the last one has been resolved, or being further involved with suspects or witnesses while working.

10. Departments may wish to screen all emergency service personnel at the scene (including dispatchers) for their reactions and give administrative leave or the rest of the shift off, if necessary.

11. It is advisable that a confidential debriefing with a licensed mental health professional be scheduled for all involved personnel within 72 hours. While this can be a group session, it may not be legally or emotionally appropriate to include the officer(s) who did the shooting in a debriefing with others, as actually doing the shooting creates different issues. A one-on-one debriefing with a licensed mental health professional is recommended for the officer(s) who did the shooting prior to or in place of a group debriefing. Follow-up sessions for any personnel involved in the shooting may be appropriate.

It was the majority consensus of members of the IACP Police Psychological Services Section that debriefings be mandatory for all involved in a shooting incident. The Section recognizes there are a few departments with well-established police psychology programs who have positive results with voluntary briefings. In the absence of this type of program, it is advisable that debriefings be mandatory.

It needs to be made very clear to all involved personnel and supervisors that debriefings are separate and distinct from any fitness-for-duty assessment, and administrative or investigative procedures. It is extremely inappropriate to use information from a debriefing in any manner other than to help the individuals involved in the incident deal with psychological or emotional issues.

12. Opportunities for family counseling and/or family group debriefings (spouse, children, significant others) should be made available.

13. If the officer has a published home telephone number, it may be advisable to have a friend or telephone answering machine screen telephone calls, since there are sometimes threats to the officer and his or her family.

14. When possible, an administrator should tell the rest of the department (or at least the supervisors and the rest of the officer’s team) what happened so the officer does not get bombarded with questions and rumors are held in check. Screen for vicarious thrill seekers to protect the officer and the situation.

15. Expedite the completion of administrative and criminal investigations and advise the officer of the outcomes. Lengthy investigations can stimulate a secondary injury.

16. Consider the officer’s interest in preparing media releases.

17. The option of talking to peers who have had a similar experience can be quite helpful to personnel at the scene. Peer counselors can also be an asset participating in group debriefings in conjunction with a mental health professional, and in providing follow-up support.

Family members may also greatly benefit from the peer support of family members or other officers who have been involved in critical incidents. The formation and administrative backing of peer support teams for officers and family members will prove a wise investment during the stress of a critical incident.

18. It is advisable not to force a return to full duty before the officer indicates readiness. Allow a paced return, perhaps allowing the officer to “team” with a fellow officer, or work a shorter or different “beat” or shift.

19. Prior to any event, attempt to train all officers, supervisors, and family members in critical incident reactions and what to expect personally, departmentally, and legally.

20. Shootings are complex events often involving officers; command staff; union representatives; internal affairs; peer support teams; district attorneys; investigators; city, town, or county counsel; personal attorneys; city, town, or county politicians; media; and others. It is recommended that potentially involved parties meet to establish locally acceptable procedures and protocols on handling these stressful, high-profile events to avoid conflict among the many different interests. It is recommended that they continue to communicate regularly to ensure smooth functioning and necessary adjustments.

OVERVIEW

The following statements are guidelines for professional practice in the area of pre-employment psychological evaluations of candidates for public safety positions. These positions include but are not limited to positions where incumbents have arrest authority or the legal authority to detail and/or confine individuals. These guidelines are presented as a recommended professional policy for public safety agencies and individuals who are charged with the responsibility of conducting defensible pre-employment psychological screening programs.

DEVELOPMENT

1. Pre-employment psychological assessments should be used as one component of the overall selection process.

2. Before conducting their own clinical assessments of candidates, practitioners should be familiar with the research literature available on psychological testing for public safety positions, as well as the state and federal laws relevant to this area of practice, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

3. Only licensed or certified psychologists trained and experienced in psychological test interpretation and law enforcement psychological assessment techniques should conduct psychological screening for public safety agencies.

4. Data on attributes considered most important for effective performance in a particular position should be obtained from job analysis, interview, surveys, or other appropriate sources.

5. Efforts should be made to provide agency administrators with information regarding the benefits and limitations of psychological assessment procedures so that realistic goals may be set.

6. Provisions should be made for the security of all testing materials (e.g., test booklets). Provisions should also be made for the security of, access to, and retention of the psychological report and raw data.

7. Prior to the administration of any psychological instruments and psychologist interview, the candidate should sign an informed consent to the conditions of the evaluation.

TESTING

8. A test battery including objective, job-related, validated psychological instruments should be administered to the applicant. It is preferable that test results be available to the evaluator before screening interviews are conducted.

9. Written tests selected should be validated for use with public safety candidates.

10. If mail-order or computerized tests are employed, the licensed or certified psychologist conducting the follow-up interview should verify and interpret individual results.

11. The pre-employment psychological evaluation must be conducted in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines after a conditional offer of employment has been tendered. Although some personality tests and other methods of inquiry may be conducted at the pre-offer stage, they do not in and of themselves constitute the pre-employment psychological evaluation.

INTERVIEW

12. Individual, face-to-face interviews with candidates should be conducted before a final psychological report is submitted.

13. A semi-structured, job-related interview format should be employed with all candidates.

14. Interviews should be scheduled to allow for sufficient time to cover appropriate background and test results verification.

EVALUATION

15. Public safety agency administrators directly involved in making employment decisions should be provided with written reports. These reports should evaluate the suitability of the candidate for the position based upon an analysis of all psychological material including test data and interview results. Reports to the agency should contact a rating and/or recommendation for employment based upon the results of the screening, justification for the recommendation and/or rating, and any reservations that the psychologist might have regarding the validity or reliability of the results.

16. While a clinical assessment of overall psychological suitability may be made, clinical diagnoses or psychiatric “labeling” of candidates should be avoided when the goal of the assessment is to identify candidates whose psychological traits may adversely affect specific job performance. In all cases, the screening should be focused on an individual candidate’s ability to perform the essential functions of the position under consideration.

17. Specific cut-off scores should be avoided, unless there is clear statistical evidence that such scores are valid and have been cross-validated in research studies by the test developer and/or in the agency where they will be used. If cut-off scores are utilized, the report should acknowledge their use and the basis for using the specific cut-off level. Conclusions concerning a candidate’s qualifications should be based on consistencies across data sources rather than on a single source.

18. Clear disclaimers should be made so that reports evaluating current emotional and behavioral traits or suitability for a public safety position will not be deemed valid after a specific period of time.

FOLLOW-UP

19. Pre-employment test results should not be used for purposes other than making pre-employment decisions and for monitoring the candidate during the probationary period. Follow-up research may be conducted with agency approval and where individual identities are protected. Pre-employment reports should not be used for positions or agencies not expressly considered by the psychologist at the time of the evaluation, nor should they be used for subsequent disciplinary or forensic matters.

20. Continuing collaborative efforts by the hiring agency and evaluating psychologist should be made to validate final “suitability” ratings using behavioral criteria measures.

21. Each agency should maintain adverse impact analyses in order to detect any discriminatory patterns of the psychological screening program.

22. Psychologists should be prepared to defend their procedures, conclusions, and recommendations if a decision based, even in part, on psychological results is challenged.

FITNESS-FOR-DUTY EVALUATION GUIDELINES

Adopted by the IACP Police Psychological Services Section in 1998

INTRODUCTION

Law enforcement officers must be mentally and emotionally stable from the time of hire throughout employment. When this stability comes into doubt, agencies may turn to a psychological fitness-for-duty evaluation (FFDE). These guidelines are designed to provide specific guidance to law enforcement agencies in monitoring the psychological fitness-for-duty evaluation process with the primary goal of improving the quality of this police psychological activity. Ideally, all agencies and their evaluators would approach these evaluations similarly so that administrators can count on consistency, both internally and externally. Toward that end, the Police Psychological Services Section has developed guidelines for law enforcement agencies that reflect a range of commonly accepted practices of the section membership. No collection of guidelines can anticipate future changes or all possible eventualities, and there is no intent to limit other reasonable practices by qualified evaluators. The guidelines do not represent an official statement of the American Psychological Association.

QUALIFICATIONS

1. A psychological fitness-for-duty evaluation is a highly specialized activity within the discipline of police psychology. As such, these evaluations should only be conducted by a qualified mental health professional. At minimum, the evaluator should do the following:

a. Be a licensed or certified psychologist or psychiatrist with experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental and emotional disorders;

b. Possess training and background in psychological test interpretation and law enforcement psychological assessment techniques;

c. Have familiarity with the literature in police psychology and the essential job functions of a peace officer; and knowledge of case law and other legal requirements related to employment and personnel practices (e.g., the Americans with Disabilities Act);

d. Have devoted part of his or her practice to police psychology or worked under the supervision of a police psychologist; and

e. Be prepared by training and experience to qualify as an expert for any proceeding that might arise from the evaluation.

WHO IS THE CLIENT

2. The client in an FFDE is the referring agency and not the officer being evaluated. At the same time, a duty of care to the officer may be expected as the recipient of a professional service, to be defined by professional ethical standards, pertinent state and federal laws, and/or judicial decisions. Advisements and admonishments identifying the client should be clear to all parties, and their representatives, before the FFDE commences.

3. Evaluators should make every effort to avoid conflicts of interest such as an incompatible dual relationship (e.g., conducting an FFDE on an officer who had previously been a confidential counseling/therapy client, evaluating an officer with whom there has been a social or business relationship, etc.) Where a conflict may be unavoidable or deemed to be of minimal impact, the conflict should be disclosed and documented before the evaluation goes forth, and all vested parties should concur, with appropriate consents and releases of information obtained. In addition, if confidential counseling/psychotherapy is a recommendation of the FFDE, the evaluator, or someone closely aligned, should not be the provider of the recommended service.

THE REFERRAL PROCESS

4. An FFDE is not a substitute for supervision or a mode of discipline. When possible, agencies should be encouraged to develop comprehensive FFDE policies that define such matters as conditions leading to referral. Such a process encourages including adequate documentation of problematic behaviors, attempts to remediate (or reasons why remediation is inappropriate), and a clear, job-related question regarding the officer’s psychological suitability. Usually a written referral from the agency to the evaluator is desirable. This document could identify the reason for the referral, and might detail the agency’s attempts, if any, to remediate the problem (e.g., training, tailored supervision, discipline, mentoring, reassignment and/or referral to EAP services), or why such interventions were deemed inappropriate (e.g., the precipitating behavior was so egregious or the need so immediate).

5. In conducting an FFDE, it is usually desirable to collect background and collateral information regarding the officer. To capture the officer’s pattern of conduct, this information might include performance evaluations, commendations, testimonials, internal affair’s investigations, pre-employment psychological screening, formal citizen/public complaints, use-of-force incidents, officer-involved shootings, civil claims, disciplinary actions, incident reports of any triggering events, medical/psychological treatment records, or other supporting or relevant documentation related to the officer’s psychological fitness-for-duty (e.g., some evaluators may ask the subject of the evaluation to submit documents and other data for the evaluator to consider). The evaluator should consider neither less nor more than that which is necessary to answer the referral question.

THE EVALUATION PROCESS

6. No FFDE should be conducted without either the officer’s informed written consent or a reasonable alternative. The officer should be informed of the purpose and scope of the FFDE, that no privilege exists to prevent disclosure of any or all information observed or reported during the evaluation to the client agency, and to whom the report(s) is being provided. If the request for a written consent from the officer is declined, the evaluator should adopt a suitable option (e.g., the evaluator can provide a formal written notification to the officer that includes all informed consent advisements and admonishments, witnessed and signed by a third party and/or captured on tape; or, the failure to gain a written consent from the officer can be referred to the agency for resolution before the evaluator commences the FFDE; or, the evaluator may choose to decline to proceed without a written, informed consent from the officer).

7. Depending on the referral question and the evaluator’s clinical judgment, an FFDE is customarily a multi-method evaluation of the examinee. To that end, the examination should usually bring different assessment strategies and techniques to bear on developing a clear understanding of the psychological issues in the case. Ordinarily, the following methods make up this battery of techniques (although not all cases will require all methods):

a. Review of the requested background information

b. Psychological testing using objective, validated tests appropriate to the referral question(s) (personality, psychopathology, cognitive, specialized). The selection and number of assessment instruments should be sufficient to address the referral issue(s)

c. A face-to-face, comprehensive clinical interview that includes a mental status examination

d. A biopsychosocial history (e.g., family, education, employment, marital, medical, legal, financial, substance use, attitudes reflecting bias and prejudice, history of psychological problems and treatment, etc.)

e. Third-party collateral interviews with relevant individuals, if deemed necessary and appropriate by the examiner

f. Referral to, and/or consultation with, a specialist if the presenting problem goes beyond the expertise of the evaluator.

THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8. An agency is not entitled to any more psychological information regarding an employee than is necessary to document the presence or absence of job-related personality traits, characteristics, disorders, propensities, or conditions that would interfere with the performance of essential job functions. Thus, the written report provided to the agency should be restricted to only the presence or absence of these functional, job-related limitations with any pertinent psychological problems then linked with the essential job functions expected to be affected (e.g., an officer has a documented pattern of citizen complaints for rude and discourteous behavior. Training, counseling, mentoring, and discipline have failed to prevent yet another serious citizen complaint of officious behavior. The FFDE findings include test and interview signs of characterological hostility and lack of interpersonal sensitivity expected to lead to continued abrasive contact with the public). The report should contain a clear opinion if the officer is presently fit for unrestricted law enforcement duty, fit for duty with optional time-limited accommodations, temporarily unfit for duty pending a proposed intervention, or unfit for duty with little likelihood of remediation. Each of these opinions should include adequate reasoning to support the judgment. If the officer is found fit for duty, examiners should assume that duty will be unrestricted. If fit for unrestricted law enforcement duty, the written report requires little psychological information provided to the agency.

9. If information deemed necessary for review by the evaluator cannot be obtained, any recommendations might include the comment that the evaluation is based on available data and could be affected by specific additional information requested, but not obtained by the evaluator. Furthermore, the evaluator may want a disclaimer that indicates the need to reconsider the evaluation opinions if it is determined that the provided information proved misleading, deceptive, incomplete, distorted, or untrue.

10. If temporarily unfit for duty, recommendations should be offered regarding counseling, modified job assignment, mentoring, training, or other remedies by which the officer can be helped to regain his or her psychological suitability, to include a schedule for re-review of return to duty. Any intervention recommendations should be consistent with available resources within the client agency so as not to create an untenable position for the officer or the agency (e.g., if an agency has no light-duty assignments, the examiner should not recommend a light-duty assignment). If the officer is found unfit, with a poor prognosis for recovery, or after remediation efforts have failed, the opinion should include the evaluator’s view that further efforts to correct the condition are likely to be ineffective. Reasoning should be clearly articulated for all conclusions.

11. Evaluators are under no obligation to explain the FFDE results to the officer. If the agency wants feedback from the evaluator to the officer, the department and evaluator could decide this issue before the evaluation begins, and the evaluator could be asked to provide the requested response. If this alternative is inadvisable or undesirable to the agency or evaluator, the evaluator could suggest another qualified mental health professional be made available to the officer to assure the accurate interpretation of the contents of the agency’s report. If a special report is to be provided to the officer or the officer’s legal representative, the evaluator should be mindful to take reasonable steps to ensure explanations are given in a manner understandable to the officer.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

12. The evaluator should document and be prepared to make available all data, subject to legal requirements, that form the basis for his or her findings and opinions. The standard to be applied to such documentation anticipates that the detail and quality of such documentation may be subject to reasonable scrutiny within an adjudicative venue.

13. Evaluators are expected to safeguard the confidentiality of the written report, and law enforcement agencies should share this responsibility.

14. The evaluators should be aware of the legal requirements for a psychological FFDE in his or her jurisdiction, and evaluators should stay abreast of changing case law. Many pertinent psycholegal issues may already be regulated by law, but absent legal requirements, evaluation procedures can be decided by the professional judgment of the qualified evaluator.