ON THE JOB JUST HANDED DOWN PUBLIC SAFETY IT SOLUTIONS
Mental Well-Being as a Risk Management Issue, Part 2
Can officers be directed to attend counseling and/or evaluation?
Randy Means is a career law-enforcement legal advisor, trainer and consultant. He worked as head of the legal department of a state law enforcement training center, as in-house counsel to a major city police department, now for 25 years as a partner in the national consulting firm of Thomas & Means. He is past head of the national association of police legal advisors (IACP-LOS) and can be reached at
rbmeans@aol.com.
Deborah Ontiveros is a psychologist in private practice now working mostly with police issues. As director of an independent Employee Assistance Program, she has been involved in thousands of hours of counseling of law enforcement officers in regard to mental well-being. She can be reached at
Dr.Deb@
wellconnectcounseling.com.
www.thomasandmeans.com
t is a mistake to treat every employee prob- lem as a disciplinary issue. It is also a mistake, when signs of a possible problem appear, to do nothing and hope for the best. Suppose, for example, an officer’s domestic partner shows up at the station and com- plains to a supervisor that the officer has an “anger problem” at home, but there are no identifiable is- sues with the officer’s performance or behavior on the clock.
I
When queried, the domestic partner explains that the officer throws temper tantrums and engages in scream- ing and name-calling, but there is no physical violence or threats thereof. Does this situation call for internal investigation or discipline? No. Do you have a red flag? Yes. Is this a workplace issue, or, as many supervi- sors would argue, “something personal and none of my business?”
It’s now a workplace issue whether you like it or not—because you (the employer) now know about it, because it could be or could get much worse, and be- cause it has taken up agency time and resources. This is an example of a situation in which the employer should recommend to the officer that he/she voluntarily seeks emotional well-being counseling. The matter, and the rec- ommendation, should be documented in case there are further issues.
10 LAW and ORDER I June 2015
Level One: Voluntary Participation
Voluntary counseling that the employee undertakes on his/her own time, away from the work- place, and in the early stages of some difficulty, is better for ev- eryone involved. The employee will have more privacy and a high level of legally protected confidentiality surrounding the counseling. The employer is able to document a constructive, pro- active response despite being
uncomfortably thrust into this private-life situation. The supervi- sor is protected from having to play
therapist while at the same time alerting the officer that his/her personal life is now impacting his/her work life. Continuing the scenario, a few days later, a unit has to respond to a domestic disturbance call at the couple’s residence. The most that can be determined is that there was a lot of yelling and maybe some pushing and shov- ing—but the officer denies any physical contact and there is no evidence of it other than the domestic partner’s ver- bal allegation. There is no arrest. The domestic partner contacts Internal Affairs and repeats the complaint that the officer has anger issues and that the employer should do something about it.
Level Two: Requirement of Participation This is now a situation in which the officer should be re- quired—ordered—to participate in counseling. Directing an officer into counseling is a powerful management and humanitarian tool with which you can respond quickly and affirmatively without turning the situation into a disciplinary issue when that may not be warranted. Con- cern can be shown for your officer without wading too deeply into his/her personal life. This officer may or may not be dealing with a medical issue. By having a “routine counseling” system in place, you are able to share some of the burden for sorting things out with a licensed clinician. A mental health profes- sional is better suited than a law enforcement administra- tor for the kind of assessment needed here. A high level of confidentiality can still be maintained for the officer’s benefit. Of course, the employer’s actions and the offi- cer’s response to it should be documented.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68