Level Three: Fitness for Duty Evaluation
The saga continues… suppose now that, within months, the offi cer’s identifi ed personal issues become intertwined with declining performance, personnel complaints of overt rudeness and hostil- ity, a sustained complaint of excessive force, and several grossly inappropriate mobile computer messages refl ecting anger issues. The offi cer can of course be directed to continue counseling, but there is also a need now for a Fitness for Duty Evaluation by a qualifi ed men- tal health professional—a psychologist or psychiatrist.
In a FFDE, the client of the mental
health professional is the agency and a conclusory report will be provided to the employer. In this regard, the referred officer’s privacy is not pro- tected. The mental health professional is working for the agency and every- one needs to be clear on that. The re- sulting report needs to state at least the following.
First, that the mental health profes- sional is familiar with the job descrip- tion and the full range of duties of a law enforcement officer; second, that the mental health professional has in- terviewed the officer and evaluated him/her to determine if there is evi- dence that he/she meets the criteria for a psychological diagnosis; third, that, in the opinion of the mental health professional, the officer cur- rently can/cannot (circle one) safely and effectively perform the full range of duties of a law enforcement officer. Fourth, if the officer currently can- not safely and effectively perform the full range of duties of a law enforce- ment officer, the report should indi- cate whether or not it is reasonable to expect that the officer will in the near future become able to return to safe and effective duty performance; and fifth, if so, when and under what conditions might that reasonably be expected?
Avoidance by the mental health pro- fessional of ultimate opinions should be unacceptable to the client agency and so should be a report that includes unrealistic statements like, “This offi- cer should be fine as long as he/she’s not in stressful situations.”
Need for Written Policy While there is some truth to the notion that individual situations have unique features that could justify a case-by- case response, it is very risky to tailor a new response each time there is this kind of problem. Inconsistency will often be viewed as unfair and possi- bly discriminatory. A well-reasoned and consistently applied policy-based response is more obviously fair, more efficient, and more protective of both agency and officer interests. This approach requires an invest- ment in expert consultants, devel- oping and implementing functional practices, and training staff and super- visors in the skills necessary to make it all work properly. Each pillar (engag- ing qualified experts, implementing correct policies, and staff training) is an employer responsibility. Regulatory entities and the courts tend to hold the employer respon- sible for getting these kinds of things squared away, and keeping them so. Judgments and fines tend to be levied against employers in high-risk occupa- tional settings, not necessarily the ser- vice providers within the system. The trend is toward holding the employer responsible for vetting qualified service providers. Mandated counseling does not al- ways need to be “medical” or “Fit for Duty.” Rather, it can fill the critical gap between the care employees can access on their own (through your health plan) and the complex Fitness
for Duty Evaluation that may be nec- essary when an officer poses an immi- nent danger of some kind. The key is implementing a system that functions as a management tool rather than a medical evaluation or medical ser- vice. EAPs were traditionally the ideal partners for assisting employers with much of this.
However, over the past two decades, many health plans have bundled an EAP “product” into their services and groups of clinicians unfamiliar with your needs as an employer have jumped into the fray. An EAP that is bundled into your health plan may be too closely tied to the “medical” arm of your benefits. This puts the system at risk for “medicalizing” the situation and can open up a Pandora’s Box of unnecessary complications. Unschooled clinicians may be unfa- miliar with the complex “dual roles” involved in providing management consultation and individual men- tal health services. It pays to locate a skillful consultant familiar with safety-sensitive workplaces and law enforcement in particular. You can find guidance and locate a qualified consultant to assist in designing, im- plementing, or reviewing your system at
www.eapassn.org.
LaO Post your comments on this story by visiting
www.lawandordermag.com
s PCOGDCFIGU UGTXKEG CVVCEJOGPVU
UJKTVU LCEMGVU YKPVGT YGCT s
Adjusto-Lok UGEWTGU QP
Visit YYY TGGXGUPCOGDCFIGU EQO
Most shipping is next or following day!
View HKPG KNNWUVTCVKQPU CPF FGUETKRVKQPU QH GCEJ QH QWT PKPG PCOGDCFIG OQFGNU CPF WPKSWG UNKFG QP CVVCEJOGPVU HQT TCPM UGTXKEG VKVNG OQTG Call
HQT VJG HTKGPFN[ UWRRQTV QH QWT .CWTKG 5CO QT 5CPFTC
YKVJ [QWT SWGUVKQPU QT YKVJ [QWT QTFGT GPVT[ DG KV QP RJQPG QT QPNKPG
http://info.hotims.com/59019-9
www.lawandordermag.com 11
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