In addition to addressing police evaluations and confidentiality in psychological visits, two scenarios have been provided for interpretation. The first scenario addresses conflicts between the role of a psychologist who has been given a task to determine fitness for duty of an officer who has been seen for psychological help. The second scenario pertains to diversity within the police department, and a sergeant who has disclosed that she is homosexual. Both scenarios request that the writer decide the treatment options, or whether there is an ethical consideration to be though about.

 

Confidentiality is important to everyone, but especially to a police officer who is seeking some help with issues that may be causing him stress or concern. There are many things within the scope of a police officer’s life which could cause him distress. Family and work-related experiences can be overwhelming when there is no release for the frustrations. Psychologists who are equipped in handling these kinds of issues within a police department are vital for the mental health of the police officer in need. This being said, there should be a differentiation between the psychologist who is handling stress related issues for a police officer and one who is being utilized for fitness for duty evaluations. Policies regarding confidentiality and discretion are very important. A police officer who does not trust that a psychologist has his best interests and privacy in mind will not be able to fully take advantage of the assistance that he can find in a therapist’s office. Any confidentiality should be discussed before the relationship between the therapist and the officer begins. In 1992, the APA determined that varying roles of a police psychologist can be performed without concern for ethics (Kurke & Scrivner, 1995). This enables the same psychologist to wear many hats, that of a therapist, evaluator, educator and other needs of the department where it is necessary.

 

Psychologists who are dealing with fitness for duty evaluations are required to provide records to the supervisors in order to determine if the officer is able to handle a promotion that has been requested, or a change in responsibilities. Every facet of a police officer’s job entails different stressors, and it is important that a psychological evaluation take place to determine whether a particular officer is capable of handling the added stress of the position. These records will be nearly confidential, only being disclosed to those who need to have the information, and will not be shared outside of the pertinent personnel. In cases of FFDEs the officer needs to be made aware that the information that is being obtained will be disclosed to other parties, and consent will be needed. 

 

Psychologists who are dealing with everyday stressors of an officer need to specify that the information they are acquiring is only to aid the officer in handling the issues he is dealing with. He should be notified that anything he discusses in a therapeutic session is only between the therapist and the officer unless the officer specifically agrees to disclosure of the information. There is an exception to this in cases of child abuse or molestation (Kurke & Scrivner, 1995), where the psychologist is obligated to report this information to authorities.

 

Where a psychologist has an agency as a client, anything that is discovered through the course of the employment, like information pertaining to a crime that has been committed, the psychologist would be held to confidentiality requirements. He would not be allowed to disclose anything he had found out while under the employ of the agency with anyone outside (Kurke & Scrivner, 1995).

 

The role of a psychologist during critical incident debriefing would be confidential. In the even of a possible lawsuit ensuing from the incident that the police officer was involved in, he must feel confident that the information he has given to the psychologist will not be disclosed to any other party. The agency that the officer works for can not expect nor demand information from the psychologist under circumstances of incident debriefing. Without this confidentiality the police officer would not give himself the correct environment for self-healing.

 

Assessment for employment in a police department is necessary to ensure that someone who is “trigger happy” or potentially dangerous to himself, fellow police officers, citizens, or even criminals is not hired into the department. There is the potential that some may be able to get through the pre-employment screening, but it is a valuable tool to weed out the “bad seeds” before they can endanger anyone.

 

Elements that are necessary in assessment are integral requirements of the job itself. Job simulation reactions, behavior during the evaluation, criminal background and credit checks, educational requirements, personal beliefs and background, employment and appraisal history, personal and professional references, medical clearance for performance, and mental health screening.

 

Job simulation reactions are important in a prospective police officer because it can show how a person may perform and react to different scenarios which will most assuredly come up at some time in the career of a police officer. If the applicant is able to perform well in most of the scenarios without any training, there is a good chance that they will do well with minimal training if admitted into the program (Kurke & Scrivner, 1995). One who would do well in this part of the evaluation would display different characteristics like organizational or leadership skills, the ability to analyze the situation and perform with the most reasonable judgment among other desirable traits (Kurke & Scrivner, 1995).

 

Behavior which is displayed during the assessment will provide useful information as to whether the applicant is capable of working well with others. First impression information can be gathered, like whether the applicant appears cooperative, or overly-confident. In this kind of evaluation, the questions presented are more standardized in order to provide the same opportunity for employment to all applicants. 

 

Criminal background checks are vitally important because the police department will not want a criminal as one of its own. Typically criminal background checks are not a hundred percent accurate, so a second source of information is many times used as well to ensure complete and truthful information about an applicant (Kurke & Scrivner, 1995). With the insurgence of identity theft, the secondary source of information will help the assessor to ensure that the applicant is not criminal and can be considered for employment.

 

Credit checks are important for a candidate for the police department because if the person being interviewed has financial difficulties, then it is possible that they can be coerced into unethical behavior (Kurke & Scrivner, 1995). When someone is having troubles with their finances, they are more apt to steal from criminals, considering “they won’t miss it.”  The idea that a police officer is above reproach should be more guaranteed by someone who has good control of their own personal affairs.

 

Educational background needs to be confirmed. With this concept, the prospective police officer must be able to produce documentation and confirmation of the documentation. They also may be required to write a short autobiography of their education to prove their ability to effectively communicate, and to display an understanding of the English language. When an applicant is speaking English as a second language, this also shows the evaluator that the individual is capable of communicating in the standard language of the United States. 

 

The personal beliefs and lifestyle background are important as well. Within this is speculation that someone will continue to behave in a manner concurrent with the behaviors they have displayed in the past (Kurke & Scrivner, 1995). There are some conditions which are asked about and evaluated. These include demographics of the applicant, personal habits, relationships with family and friends, how they feel about themselves, their current family life, their opinions on varying subjects, and their skills, among many others. 

 

Employment history and how well they performed in their employment are important. Depending on the skill set that a person has coming into a police department, they may have many things to add to an investigation or to interaction with a citizen, a distraught victim, or a criminal. How they performed in their job is also important because it provides a level of knowledge which can now be proven by evaluation of the way they work. Things like loyalty to their job, doing what was required, and more, and efficiently performing all facets of their job are all respectable traits which can then be transferred to a new employment opportunity within a police department. In some cases, this information may not be provided by a previous employer because they are advised such by their legal departments (Kurke & Scrivner, 1995).

 

Most references that are informative come from those who were closest to the applicant. This could include family and friends as well as those he used to work with and for. In many cases co-workers can provide the best insight into the consistent character of a potential police officer. Keeping this in mind, information obtained from these sources will have to be weighed against the reputation of the individual at their previous employment. A lot of times the co-worker may not have enjoyed the employee and could give a negative reference even if it is not warranted.

 

Medical clearance is a given. To be an effective police officer, one must be in excellent health. Many times there are hidden clues to potential problems. Even if an applicant looks fit, he may be hiding high blood pressure, or a glandular problem. There is new legislation being modified which mandates that work environment must be modified to accommodate the limitations of the employee, however if the person is not yet employed, the requirements for good health, and physical attributes which would otherwise hinder them in the performance of the job they are applying for if they exist would have to be considered (Kurke & Scrivner, 1995).

 

Obviously, mental health screening is important, as a police officer will be encountering many circumstances which could lead to problems with someone who did not have a clean bill of mental health. If an applicant were diagnosed with depression, schizophrenia, or bi-polar disorder, among others, they may become volatile, or otherwise incapacitated by their mental illness, and not be capable of completely performing their employment requirements. The interviews should be conducted in a structured clinical environment, and can be recorded with the consent of the applicant (Kurke & Scrivner, 1995).

 

Scenario 1.

            Officer Smith has been a client of mine for the past two years. He has recently decided to apply for a promotion to the SWAT Team. I have been referred for the task of determining the fitness for duty of Officer Smith for the position. In this scenario I would have to evaluate the conditions which have prompted Officer Smith to visit me for the past two years and determine if I did an evaluation for the SWAT team whether my decision would be based solely on my interviews or on my clinical time with him. I would have to ensure that any of the confidential information I have compiled on Officer Smith during our therapy sessions were not utilized during the FFDE. Ethical issues raised in the referral are obviously those of my prior knowledge of issues that Officer Smith has been dealing with. Depending on the severity and conditions behind the therapy, I may request to be reconsidered, and recommend another psychologist to conduct the FFDE on Officer Smith. It would really depend on the type of therapy that I was providing. If Officer Smith were in my office for the past two years over a personal problem, then I do not believe that I would refuse to do the evaluation, however if the therapy were for an incident which took place during work, I would have to respectfully refuse the referral. If I am unable to refuse the recommendation, I would disclose the conflict to all vested parties. I would obtain consents from all parties involved for disclosure of the information produced for the FFDE (Fischler, 1984).

 

Scenario 2.    

            Homosexuality is a more pervasive issue in today’s society than any time in the past. Sgt. Lopez has recently come to my office asking for help with some issues she was having. She admitted to me that she is a homosexual, and is concerned that if those in the department were to find this out she would be treated differently, and with contempt. Diversity concerns with this particular issue would be imminent. Female officers under her would begin to feel uncomfortable around her and suppose that she was interested in them in more than a professional relationship, which is hardly ever the case with homosexuals. Diversity issues of homosexual officers are not obvious like cultural, ethnic, or gender related diversities. One does not look gay, they just are. In this, they can keep hidden if they so choose to be. However this is not an easy thing to continue to hide, and in such cases as Sgt. Lopez, she felt she had to “confess” to someone about her orientation. Many states still have laws against some homosexual acts, and in that the homosexual community tends to stay hidden away. Some departments even go so far as to exclude from confidentiality agreements those activities which are deemed illegal, such as drug abuse, and sodomy. In this, the psychologist would be obligated to disclose to the department administration that Sgt. Lopez has admitted that she is homosexual (Kurke & Scrivner, 1995). When this information has been disclosed, then she can face ridicule from her fellow sergeants, and can find resistance in obeying her commands from her subordinates. Because Sgt. Lopez is a woman, it is less likely that she will feel a great deal of dissention from her fellow officers, there will be some ignorance from the other officers as to her orientation. She has not changed her personality from the police sergeant that everyone has been showing respect for up to this point, so it would be possible that she could maintain this respect even with the information being disclosed. The other people in the department would have to also be given some diversity training involving homosexuality so that their approach and understanding of the differences would help them to otherwise behave less negatively toward Sgt. Lopez. In treatment, I would have to address the homosexuality as though it were an illness like any other anxiety. Sgt. Lopez has admitted that she is homosexual, because she has anxiety over not letting someone know. To treat the condition, I would have to begin with treatment of the anxiety. I could show Sgt. Lopez some relaxation exercises, and provide her with a self-help group to assist her getting through the initial strain, and with time, she will be able to better understand herself, and in that will be able to begin to feel better about admitting to her fellow officers, on her own schedule, what she is. This would be a good situation where peer groups may be able to help her. If I know of other homosexuals within a department I could get them all together (with their consent of course) to discuss their varying issues because of their sexual orientation.

 

References

Fischler, G. (1984). Psychological Guidelines for Issues in Law Enforcement, Gary L. Fischler and Associates, PA, Retrieved on June 11, 2007 from http://www.psycheval.com/issues_in_law_enforcement.shmtl.

Kurke, M. & Scrivner, E. (1995). Police Psychology Into the 21st Century, LEA, Library of Congress Publishing, Hillsdale, NJ.