Developing a Law Enforcement Stress Program for Officers and Their Families. MENU TITLE: Developing a Law Enforcement Stress Program for Officers and Their Families Series: NIJ Issues and Practices Published: March 1997 321 pages 674,091 bytes ------------------------------------ Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain text file. To order a print copy, contact: National Criminal Justice Reference Service P.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849-6000 800-851-3420 e-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org You can also download the graphic form of this document from the NCJRS Justice Information Center World Wide Web site; go to http://www.ncjrs.org If you have any questions, call or e-mail NCJRS U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice Developing a Law Enforcement Stress Program for Officers and Their Families by Peter Finn and Julie Esselman Tomz March 1996 Issues and Practices in Criminal Justice is a publication series of the National Institute of Justice. Each report presents the program options and management issues in a topic area, based on a review of research and evaluation findings, operational experience, and expert opinion on the subject. The intent is to provide information to make informed choices in planning, implementing, and improving programs and practice in criminal justice. National Institute of Justice Jeremy Travis Director Samuel C. McQuade Program Monitor Advisory Panel James J. Carr Executive Director Family Service Society Pawtucket, Rhode Island John Firman Coordinator for Research and Analysis International Association of Chiefs of Police Alexandria, Virginia William E. Garrison Sergeant/Supervisor Health Services Section Metro-Dade Police Department Miami, Florida Robert S. Hurst Administrator Fraternal Order of Police Dental, Optical and Prescription Fund Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Ellen Freeman Kirschman Health Resource Coordinator Palo Alto Police Department Palo Alto, California David M. Kunkle Chief of Police Arlington Police Department Arlington, Texas Elizabeth Langston Executive Director Center for Criminal Justice Studies Fraternal Order of Police Washington, D.C. John Pitta National Executive Vice President Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association Mellville, New York Ellen Scrivner Deputy Director for Training and Technical Assistance Office of Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. Robert T. Scully Executive Director National Association of Police Organizations Washington, D.C. Prepared for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice by Abt Associates Inc., under contract #OJP-94-C-007. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. NCJ 163175 _____________________ Foreword ___________________________________________ Law enforcement has always been a stressful occupation. However, there appear to be new and more severe sources of stress for law enforcement officers than ever before. Some of these stresses are related to increased scrutiny and criticism from the media and the public and to anxiety and loss of morale as a result of layoffs and reduced salary raises. Even positive changes in law enforcement have increased stress for some officers: while community policing can increase officer job satisfaction and overall departmental efficiency and morale, the transition to this approach can cause apprehension. Furthermore, in recent years there has been increased recognition of longstanding sources of stress, including those that some police organizations themselves may inadvertently create for officers because of their rigid hierarchical structures, a culture of machoism, minimal opportunities for advancement, and paperwork requirements. It is also becoming increasingly clear that law enforcement frequently exacts a severe toll on the family members of the officer. We should be concerned about the stress that law enforcement work creates for family members for its own sake, and we also need to recognize that a stressful home environment can impair an officer's ability to perform his or her job in a safe and effective manner. In response to these issues, we have seen heightened interest in identifying and implementing strategies that will prevent and treat law enforcement stress, including its impact on stress on officers' families. This Issues and Practices report provides a comprehensive and up-to-date look at a number of law enforcement stress programs that have made serious efforts to help departments, individual officers, civilian employees, and officers' families cope with the stresses of a law enforcement career. The publication is based on nearly 100 interviews with mental health practitioners, police administrators, union and association officials, and line officers and their family members. It provides pragmatic suggestions that can help every police or sheriff's department reduce the debilitating stress that so many officers experience and thereby help these officers do the job they entered law enforcement to perform--protect the public. Jeremy Travis Director National Institute of Justice ___________________________________________ Acknowledgements ___________________________________________ We wish to thank the many individuals who patiently answered our questions and sent us materials about their programs. In particular, we thank the following study site staff members whose programs we visited: o Gary Kaufmann, Jeffrey L. Atkins, and Richard G. Smith of the Michigan State Police Department's Behavioral Science Section; o Nancy Bohl of the San Bernardino (California) Counseling Team; o Cindy Goss of the Erie County (New York) Law Enforcement Employee Assistance Program; and o Yvonne Connor of the Drug Enforcement Administration in Washington, D.C.; Peter Mastin and Rhonda Bokorney of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in Washington, D.C.; and Christine Prietsch of the U.S. Department of Justice's Employee Assistance Program. We also thank John J. Carr of the Rhode Island Centurion Program; William E. Garrison of the Metro-Dade (Florida) Police Department's Health Services Section; Douglas Gentz of Psychological Services in Tulsa, Oklahoma; Michael McMains of the San Antonio Police Department's Psychological Services; and Len Wildman and Joseph Davis of the Rochester (New York) Police Department's Stress Management Unit. We are also especially appreciative of the valuable information shared by the many law enforcement officers and family members at these sites. In addition, several other individuals provided useful information for this report, including Alan Benner of the San Francisco Police Department; Theodore Blau of the Manatee County (Florida) Sheriff's Office; Stephen Curran of the Police Psychological Services Section of the International Association of Chiefs of Police; Edward Donovan of the International Law Enforcement Stress Association; Ben Elliott of the U.S. Department of Justice's Employee Assistance Program; Audrey Honig of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office; Nels Klyver and Kris Mohandie of the Los Angeles Police Department's Behavioral Science Services Section; John Nicolleti of the Denver Police Department; Phillip Trompetter, who serves several departments in Modesto, California; and Jane Sachs, an NIJ dissertation fellow. The following advisory board members (whose titles are listed on the inside front cover) provided comments by participating in a one-day meeting in Washington, D.C., by reviewing the draft report, or both: John J. Carr, John Firman, Ellen Freeman Kirschman, William E. Garrison, Robert S. Hurst, David M. Kunkle, Elizabeth Langston, John Pitta, Ellen Scrivner, and Robert T. Scully. Samuel C. McQuade, Program Manager for this project at the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), was a model monitor, providing guidance that was always wise and timely, and support that was always welcome and needed. Cheryl Crawford, the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative at NIJ, suggested a number of useful revisions to the report. Several colleagues at Abt Associates also provided valuable assistance. Joan Mullen reviewed two drafts of the report. Linda Truitt conducted the site visits to the ATF and DEA. Mila Ghosh, Ellen McCarthy, and Tanutda Pittayathikhun conducted telephone interviews. Sarah Minden rewrote the chapter on confidentiality. Mary-Ellen Perry and Myraida Rivera produced the numerous report drafts. Karen Minich desktopped the final copy. ______________________________________________ Executive Summary _______________________________________________ Contents and Background of This Report This publication provides practical guidance regarding the development and maintenance of a law enforcement stress program. The information is based largely on interviews with nearly 100 people, including mental health practitioners, law enforcement administrators, union and association officials, and almost 50 line officers and family members from both large and small agencies. The publication does not discuss specific counseling approaches but does include references to counseling literature and related resources. Law enforcement officers face a number of sources of stress particular to their field, ranging from organizational demands (e.g., shift work) to the nature of police work itself (e.g., exposure to violence and suffering). In addition, some officers report new or increasing sources of stress, including those which result from the implementation of community policing, negative publicity, and reduced resources. It is important that stress programs address the needs of the family members of department personnel, who can be a source of considerable stress or support for officers and who themselves frequently experience difficulties associated with their spouse's or parent's law enforcement work. Planning the Program A program planner or independent practitioner who expects to provide mental health services to law enforcement agencies--or wishes to improve or expand existing services--needs to include key law enforcement administrators, labor representatives, officers, and family members in the planning or expansion process, and to conduct a needs assessment, form an advisory board, formulate program objectives, and develop written policies and procedures that identify the extent and limitations of program activities. Law enforcement stress experts recommend a systematic and holistic approach to program development, focusing on both the prevention and treatment of stress at the individual and organizational levels. Structuring the Program To provide such services, a planner can establish an in-house program, an independent external organization, or a combination of the two. Each option has advantages and drawbacks. Regardless of program structure, stress program services must be delivered in a location that is accessible and completely private--typically, not in a law enforcement department building. Choosing Among Staffing Options Stress program staffing configurations may differ and may include nonsworn mental health professionals, sworn mental health professionals, interns, chaplains, volunteers, and peer supporters. Careful screening, thorough training, and strong management support are especially essential for peer supporters to be of benefit. Establishing a Referral Network Program staff and independent practitioners need to select and monitor qualified external service providers to whom they can refer selected officers and family members in the event of lack of time to treat them in-house or if special counseling skills are required. Dealing With Confidentiality Strict confidentiality (within the limits of the law) is essential to program success. However, there are exceptions to the privileged nature of communication between clients and licensed mental health practitioners, some of which vary from State to State. To help ensure confidentiality, program staff can distribute clear confidentiality guidelines, maintain appropriate client records, and either send mandatory referrals to external counselors or clearly distinguish between the treatment of voluntary and mandatory referrals within the program. In addition, staff need to consult with legal counsel in order to clarify their legal responsibility for maintaining confidentiality and reduce their exposure to lawsuits. Marketing the Program To be successful, a stress program must generate awareness, support, and referrals from administrators, mid-level managers, union or association officials, line officers, nonsworn personnel, and family members of all personnel. In order to generate support, program staff involve these target groups in program planning, provide training, and make themselves available around the clock. In the end, however, word of mouth is the best source of support. Preventing Stress and Stress-Related Problems Training officers and their families to recognize sources and signs of stress and to develop strategies for coping with it is a primary goal of any stress program. Most practitioners believe that the academy is the best time to begin, but in- service training is useful for reinforcing and extending basic concepts and strategies. Reducing Organizational Stress Because certain structures and practices within law enforcement agencies themselves can be a significant source of stress for officers and family members, program staff and independent clinicians sometimes work with departments to modify agency policies and procedures. Program staff have worked to alter rigid hierarchical structures, to make shift work more flexible, to improve supervisors' training methods, to provide conflict management among officers, supervisors, and managers, and to help create better matches between officer skills and the needs of a given job. In addition to reducing stress for individual officers such organizational changes can improve the overall efficiency of the agency itself. Responding to Stress-Related Problems After They Occur Among the treatment services that law enforcement stress programs can provide are short- and long- term counseling, critical incident stress debriefing, crisis intervention, and assessment and referral to other providers. Services for Family Members: Treatment and Training Since many practitioners report that most problems for which officers seek assistance involve relationship difficulties, programs are increasingly providing services, including peer support, for family members. Monitoring and Evaluating the Program Program staff and independent practitioners who regularly monitor and can evaluate their own services are more likely to be able to maintain or increase their funding and to find ways of improving program operations and effectiveness. Several guidelines suggest how to conduct useful process and impact evaluations. Managing Program Costs and Funding Program staff and consulting mental health professionals can benefit by estimating both their total operating expenses and their unit costs, such as cost per client or counseling hour. While practitioners consulted in this study have found a variety of ways to save money and to secure funding, it should be noted that some managed care plans limit the ability of programs and individual counselors to provide services. Tapping Other Resources A limited search identified organizations and written materials and that can provide assistance in establishing or improving a stress program. Experienced staff from several stress programs are available to provide consultation by telephone. _________________________________________ Chapter 1 __________________________________________ Contents and Background of This Report Key Points o This publication provides practical guidance regarding the development and maintenance of a law enforcement stress program, with detailed descriptions of existing programs that serve small, medium-sized, and large agencies across the country. o Information in the report is based largely on interviews with nearly 100 individuals, including mental health practitioners, law enforcement administrators, union and association officials, and almost 50 line officers and family members. o The publication examines a wide range of stress program services, including treatment services, training and other prevention efforts, and consultation regarding the elimination or mitigation of organizational sources of stress. An entire chapter is devoted to treatment services and training for family members of law enforcement personnel. o Despite limited resources, many law enforcement agencies have implemented stress programs not only to benefit officers and their families but also to improve efficiency, morale, and image, to protect the significant financial investment they have made in officers, and to help ensure that officers are in the best condition to protect and serve the public. o Law enforcement officers face a number of unusual, often highly disturbing, sources of stress, including organizational stresses (e.g., the hierarchical, autocratic structure of the agency), stresses inherent in law enforcement work (e.g., frequent exposure to violence and human suffering), frustration with other parts of the criminal justice system (e.g., perceived leniency of court sentences), and personal difficulties (e.g., not having enough time with their families). o Some officers report increasing levels and new sources of stress, including the implementation of community policing, the high level of violent crime, the perceived increase in public scrutiny and negative publicity, the reduction in resources and job security due to fiscal uncertainty, a decrease in camaraderie among officers, the fear of air- and blood-borne diseases, and an increased emphasis on cultural diversity and political correctness. o Commonly reported effects of these stresses on officers include intense cynicism, suspiciousness, physical ailments, and family and other relationship difficulties. o It is important that stress programs address the needs of family members who not only frequently experience stress-related difficulties associated with the officer's work but who also can be tremendous sources of added stress- -or support--for officers. o Stress programs also need to include nonsworn department members, who are not only vitally important to department operations but may also experience severe work-related stress that deserves attention. Who Can Use This Publication? This publication is a guide to the development and improvement of services to prevent, reduce, and treat stress-related problems among law enforcement officers and their families. It is primarily intended for: o administrators and mid-level managers in small, medium-sized, and large law enforcement agencies at the Federal, State, and local levels; and o police psychologists and other mental health professionals, directors of employee assistance programs (EAPs) or personnel departments, and other law enforcement stress program planners and staff. Law enforcement union or association officials, researchers, officers, and family members may also find the publication's overview of law enforcement stress and its description of stress programs useful. Finally, many of the report's guidelines are applicable to nonsworn personnel and corrections officers. What Is in the Publication? A considerable amount of existing research literature describes the sources and effects of stress among law enforcement officers and specific services available to assist personnel with stress- related problems. Within this body of work, however, there is little to guide mental health professionals, law enforcement administrators, or other planners in developing or improving a comprehensive stress program. As interest in law enforcement stress services has continued to grow, and as these programs have developed and expanded across the country, the need for such guidance has become clear. This publication is distinctive because it combines in one volume five features. (1) Many previous publications on law enforcement stress are dated.[1] This report provides an up-to- date look at the nature of law enforcement stress and the principal elements of stress programs. (2) The publication also examines the sources and effects of stress within the families of law enforcement officers and describes program services for family members. (3) The publication considers the stresses sometimes associated with certain characteristics of law enforcement agencies themselves (as opposed to those inherent in the nature of police work, close media scrutiny, and the criminal justice system), and describes efforts to reduce these organizational sources of stress. (4) The publication provides guidelines for action, rather than discussions of theory, and includes detailed descriptions of what agencies are actually doing to prevent and treat stress. Because most police departments across the country have 10 or fewer officers[2]--and, consequently, limited resources--descriptions of low-cost stress services for small departments are presented. In addition, many of the suggestions in the publication can be put into practice by employee assistance programs that already serve small agencies. (Some study site programs are highlighted more often than others in various chapters because their staff members were able to provide more information on the topics in question.) (5) Finally, the publication reflects not only a survey of research literature and consultation with selected law enforcement researchers but also interviews with nearly 100 individuals, from stress program administrators and staff to family members and civilian employees (see the box "Sources of Information for This Publication"). Why Should a Stress Program Be Started or Expanded? At a time when resources are scarce at most law enforcement agencies, why should time, space, and money be spent on a law enforcement stress program, particularly when many agencies have access to city- or countywide employee assistance programs (EAPs)? Law enforcement administrators, union and association officials, and stress program directors cite several reasons: o to provide a confidential, specialized approach to treating and reducing stress for officers and their families, and to improve their ability to cope with stress on their own (most officers do not trust--or use--city or county programs); o to increase officer morale and productivity; o to increase the agency's overall efficiency and effectiveness; o to reduce the number of early retirements and workers' compensation claims due to stress-related disabilities; o to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents; o to reduce the potential for civil liability due to officers' stress-related inappropriate behavior;[3] o to reduce negative media attention, and o to improve the general well-being of police families. Several police chiefs and other law enforcement administrators attest to the value of their agency's stress programs. As Robert Peppler, Assistant Sheriff of the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department, says, "We have a tremendous investment in cops, and if they leave after one traumatic incident, we have lost a tremendous amount. A dollar in psychological services now can save us hundreds of thousands down the road." Aristedes W. Zavaras, former chief of the Denver Police Department, told a congressional hearing in 1991, From my perspective of chief, I am obviously concerned about the well-being of the officers, but it goes beyond that. I also look at the financial end of it, and I look at the tremendous cost. We look at an officer at the end of one year and realize that we have probably over $1 million invested in that person. From the administrative perspective you don't want to lose that person. That is a little mercenary to look at it that way, but it is a reality. . . . I don't, quite frankly, think that departments can afford not to have psychological services for their officers.[4] If program staff can help an officer overcome stress-related problems, the department may benefit not only by retaining a valuable employee but also by inspiring the officer to be more motivated, compassionate, and loyal to the department.[5] Furthermore, as Samuel C. McQuade, a former police officer and current Social Science Program Manager at the National Institute of Justice, notes; "to the extent that individual officers have less stress, agencies will have less stress, and this in turn will afford greater ability for police and their agencies to act in efficient ways, producing more effective results." Administrators may be concerned that a stress program will be abused by some officers who will see the program as a way to escape discipline for substandard job performance.[6] With clear program policies and procedures, however, this should not be a problem (see chapter 2, "Planning the Program"). Furthermore, none of the individuals interviewed for this report suggested that programs were being abused in this manner. A stress program in and of itself cannot ensure that all officers will cope more effectively with stress. To a great extent, coping depends on individual characteristics such as personality, physical condition, and spiritual and family support. A stress program can, however, educate officers about how to reduce and cope with stress, and it can provide needed services at critical moments. No single example of stress programming will be suitable for all types of law enforcement agencies; departments need to tailor their services to the size of the organization, its geographic jurisdiction, available resources, officers' career levels and particular needs, and other agency characteristics. Why Extend Program Services to Family Members? As discussed below, law enforcement work can take a tremendous toll on an officer's family. By training, counseling, and otherwise supporting family members, programs can do much to ensure that these individuals not only receive the help they need but also remain or become sources of support rather than additional stress for officers. As one researcher said, "Police families do not wear the badge or carry the weapon but are very much affected by those who do. Their support role clearly contributes to maintaining law enforcement services in the community."[7] Furthermore, because family members are often the first to recognize when an officer needs help, they can play a crucial role by encouraging that officer to seek assistance before the problem becomes severe. This recognition and referral is more likely to occur if families have been properly trained regarding the signs of stress-related problems and the availability of services to treat these difficulties. Although an increasing number of law enforcement agencies provide stress services (see box "Law Enforcement Stress Services Are Not New"), comprehensive stress programs are still the exception; most departments that do offer stress services do not extend them adequately--or at all-- to officers' family members. Providing these services requires an accurate and up-to-date understanding of the nature of law enforcement stress. Overview of Law Enforcement Stress Because stress can be defined in a number of different ways, it has become a catchall "buzz word" for all kinds and levels of emotional and mental problems. Although some researchers have pointed out that stress can have a positive influence, the term generally carries a negative connotation. This publication uses the common dictionary definition of stress: a mentally or emotionally disruptive and upsetting condition occurring in response to adverse external influences, and a stimulus or circumstance causing such a condition. Of course, people in all walks of life experience-- and must find ways to cope with--some degree of stress. However, since the 1970s, criminal justice officials and researchers have highlighted causes and effects of stress that are unique to, or more pronounced among, law enforcement officers. Many researchers, as well as officers and family members themselves, consider law enforcement to be one of the most stressful of all occupations, with correspondingly reported high rates of divorce, alcoholism, suicide, and other emotional and health problems.[11,12] Furthermore, despite the growing number of departments that offer training and treatment for stress-related problems, and despite the reported increased recognition among some officers that experiencing stress is normal but sometimes avoidable, much of the literature and many respondents indicate that officers feel they are under considerably more stress now than were law enforcement personnel 10 or 20 years ago. As a result, no one disagrees that it is essential to continue to address--and to address ever more effectively--the stress that law enforcement officers and their families face, for the sake of their own personal well-being, their productivity on the job, and improved performance of police services. The discussion below briefly reviews commonly reported sources and effects of stress among law enforcement officers and family members. Endnotes identify studies that provide more in-depth information (see the box "Additional Sources of Information"). Sources of Stress for Law Enforcement Officers Different officers are likely to perceive different events as stressful, depending on their individual background, personalities, expectations, law enforcement experience, years on the job, type of law enforcement work they perform, and access to coping resources.[13] Nevertheless, sources of stress that seem to be common among--and in some cases unique or particularly burdensome to--law enforcement officers fall into four categories: (1) those related to the law enforcement organization, (2) those that relate to law enforcement work, (3) those that stem from the actions of the criminal justice system and the general public, and (4) those related to the individual officer's personal life and approach to stressful events. A summary prepared by the International Association of Chiefs of Police of many of the stresses that fall into the first three categories is provided in the box "Sources of Psychological Stress." From the Law Enforcement Organization Although many people perceive the danger and tension of law enforcement work (glamorized in books, movies, and television shows) to be the most serious stress for officers, the literature[14] reviewed and the interviews conducted for this publication make it clear that in fact the most common sources of stress result from the policies and procedures of law enforcement agencies. These sources of stress may include o shift work (with some shifts perhaps more stressful than others); o paramilitary structure; o unproductive management styles; o inconsistent discipline and enforcement of rules (e.g., commanders arriving late for work); o equipment deficiencies and shortages; o perceived excessive or unnecessary paperwork; o perceived favoritism by administrators regarding assignments and promotions; o antagonistic "subcultures" within the department (e.g., between different squads, units, or shifts) o lack of input into policy and decision making; o second-guessing of officers' actions and lack of administration support; o inconsistent or arbitrary internal disciplinary procedures and review; o lack of career development opportunities (and perceived unfairness of affirmative action), with resulting competition among officers, especially in small departments, for the few available openings; o lack of adequate training or supervision; o frequent transfers (for Federal and State law enforcement agents); o police culture (e.g., machoism, code of silence regarding corruption); o the police grapevine (e.g., gossip, lack of privacy, feeling that a few fellow officers are not trustworthy); and o lack of reward or recognition for good work. Individuals interviewed for this publication told many stories of how one or another of the factors listed above caused them frustration and anxiety. One officer was upset that his chief's secretary had a private parking spot in a busy urban area while officers did not. The wife of an officer who ended up resigning due to the stress of dealing with his administrators reported, "My husband came home more screwed up with department problems than with anything he ever encountered on the streets." One officer chose to work the midnight shift so he could avoid "the brass" whom he hated to deal with during the day, while another gave up a promotion because he could not work with his new supervisor. From the Job Although organizational factors and department policies may be the most prevalent and frustrating sources of stress for many law enforcement personnel, certainly the job itself entails a number of others, including o role conflict (e.g., between being at once an enforcer of the law, a social worker, a counselor, and a public servant); o a "roller-coaster" routine of frequent boredom interrupted by the sudden need for alertness and quick action; o fear and danger on even supposedly routine calls; o critical incidents such as shootings, hostage situations, environmental disasters, and crime scenes involving death or severe injury; o the pressure of the responsibility for protecting other people; o particularly stressful assignments, such as undercover duty or drug raids; o frequent exposure to human depravity and human suffering; and o shift work (also a type of organizational stress).20 Most law enforcement personnel have compelling stories to tell of particularly difficult work conditions. One seasoned police officer said he began drinking heavily after a fellow officer was killed in a shooting. Another had trouble sleeping for many days after seeing a man stabbed several times and then trying to stop the bleeding. As one officer who had worked 29 straight hours investigating a deadly arson scene said, "You'd think everybody would run right home, but we all just sat in the back room--just trying to compose [ourselves]. . . . There's no switch you can just turn on, turn off: I'm going home--okay turn the emotion switch back on. It doesn't work like that. If anybody says so, they're mistaken."[21] From the Criminal Justice System and the Public Significant sources of stress also result from the perceived inefficiency of the criminal justice system and from what are seen as negative attitudes toward law enforcement among the media and society at large. In particular, officers complain of o court rulings perceived as too lenient on offenders; o court rulings perceived as too restrictive on methods of criminal suppression and investigation; o perceived premature release of offenders on bail, probation, or parole; o inconveniently scheduled court appearances and long waits before testifying; o lack of follow-up with police to tell them how cases turned out; o perceived lack of respect from judges, lawyers, and others in the criminal justice system; o perceived lack of respect from the public (including surveillance by watchdog groups such as Police Watch); o negative media coverage; o perceived inaccessibility and ineffectiveness of social service and other agencies to which officers must refer people; and o lack of understanding among family and friends about the difficulties of law enforcement work. One officer spoke for many when he expressed intense frustration with making arrests only to see cases dismissed or reduced through plea bargaining, adding that he felt powerless to reduce crime in his city. Even an officer whose partner had been killed in a shooting cited the court system as his primary source of frustration. Several others said that they do not receive the respect they deserve; one was incredulous that a citizen had called his department supervisor to complain that he was driving too slowly while on patrol. Many officers are disturbed by the ramifications of negative press coverage of departments other than their own (e.g., the widespread condemnation of the Los Angeles Police Department due to the Rodney King beating and the O.J. Simpson trial). Still others observed that even if citizens are not necessarily critical of law enforcement, they do not understand what it is really like. One officer reported that her friends "want to hear the gruesome stories; they do not want to hear about the day-to-day pressures"; another said, "People don't realize cops have feelings, too."[22] Personal Stresses In addition to the common personal stresses faced by most people during their lifetimes (e.g., one's own poor health, the illness of a loved one, relationship problems, buying a new house), officers may also have to cope with the following: o anxiety over the responsibility to protect the public (as one officer put it, "After 20 weeks of training, all of a sudden you're the protector of the innocent"); o disappointment when high expectations are not met (e.g., officers may expect the job to be exciting and glamorous, only to be disappointed by boredom and by disrespect from the public); o worry about their competency to do the job well (in one study, two thirds of the responding officers reported never or almost never feeling confident about their ability to handle work- related problems[23]); and o fear of doing something against regulations or being second-guessed.[24] Responses to these internal stresses are influenced by individual officers' personalities and backgrounds. Stress tolerance levels vary a great deal from one individual to the next; conditions that some officers find stressful may not have the same effect on other officers. Emerging Sources of Stress In addition to those listed above, the research literature and interview respondents identified several new or emerging sources of stress for law enforcement officers and their families. Some of these may be due to changes in crime or policing, while others may not be new but simply newly recognized. Community policing. In the last 10 years, community policing has emerged as the philosophy guiding many police departments across the country. While exact definitions differ, community policing is generally considered to have three ingredients: an orientation to problem solving rather than responding one-by-one to each citizen call for assistance; the development of partnerships with neighbors, community groups, code enforcement agencies, and others to address problems facing the community; and the delegation of considerable decision making power within the law enforcement agency to officers who are given the responsibility for solving problems and for lining up the outside resources to do so. Some police departments have implemented community policing departmentwide, while others have incorporated it into only some aspects of department activities. Some officers report they like being involved in community policing because they have a chance to interact more with residents and because they can see increased benefits from their work. Others, however, say they experience added pressure and burnout quickly because of high expectations that they will be able to solve community crime problems with only limited resources. One chief said he frequently has to remind his community policing officers that they cannot "take on the world." Involving police officers closely with the lives of neighborhood residents makes them vulnerable to being hurt emotionally if people get injured or turn out to be unreliable. Although many officers may like having increased influence in department decisions, this can also be stressful since they are not accustomed to this role.[25] Community policing requires interpersonal, verbal, and problem-solving skills that some officers may not possess. Two officers from two different agencies said it was a lack of adequate training, not their new responsibilities, that created added stress. Furthermore, some community policing officers report that they face the disdain of fellow officers who do not view their activities as "real police work," and even officers who are not directly engaged in their department's community policing efforts may feel the strain of the changes involved (e.g., due to reassignments).[26] However, many organizations are working to smooth the transition to community policing, and, as the growing pains involved in its implementation are dealt with, many law enforcement experts expect the community policing approach will provide significant long-term satisfaction for officers. Increase in violent crime. The widespread rise in violent crime in the late 1980s and early 1990s has been an added source of stress.[27] Although the threat of danger and violence has always been a part of law enforcement work, several respondents said that they no longer feel they have the upper hand over heavily armed criminals who will not think twice about shooting an officer. As one officer said, "The criminal of today is much nastier and meaner." Dealing with a larger number of incidents involving irrational or excessive violence can also take its toll. In most jurisdictions the number of officers on staff has either remained the same, decreased, or not kept pace with increases in population or crime rates, further exacerbating the stress of dealing with violent crime. One captain said he had 21 people under his command, down from 32 just three years ago; yet the amount of work his unit handles has increased during that time. Perceived increase in negative publicity, public scrutiny, and lawsuits. In light of the Rodney King beating in Los Angeles, the burning of the Branch Davidians' Waco compound in Texas, the exposure of corruption in several of the country's largest police departments, and other events which generated unfavorable publicity in the 1990s, many officers report feeling stress from heightened public scrutiny and negative press and public opinion. Although negative publicity is warranted for unacceptable police behavior, the attention generated by high-profile cases may create the erroneous image that all or most law enforcement officers are worthy of blame. In addition, negative publicity may obscure the high level of confidence that many people do have in law enforcement, leading officers wrongly to assume that most or even all of the public does not trust or appreciate them. Many officers said they resented their work being criticized or distorted and their actions being watched so closely.[28] Some also believe that the media focus too much attention on offenders' rights and not enough on the harm done to victims and officers or on the difficulty of law enforcement work. Associated with negative publicity and public hostility are officers' increased fears of lawsuits by citizens. While it is primarily law enforcement managers and administrators who have to deal with litigation, some line officers complain that administrators do not publicly support officers who are defendants in lawsuits and that they have more laws, rules, and regulations to follow--and to worry about forgetting to follow--because of the threat of being sued. In addition to the threat of civil litigation, many law enforcement officers also feel anxious about the increasing threat of criminal prosecution and even imprisonment for using a level of force that they may feel is legitimate given the dangerous situations in which they find themselves. As a result, they may feel they constantly have to choose between second-guessing themselves--and, as a result, endangering their lives--or using the amount of force they feel is required and then worrying about whether they will be investigated for doing so.[29] Fiscal uncertainty, flattening of law enforcement agencies, and lack of job security. Whereas people in the field of law enforcement used to have a high degree of job security, many departments have recently undergone downsizing or hiring and promotional freezes because of budget cuts. The implementation of community policing also brings about "flattening" of law enforcement agencies. More officers are losing their jobs, not being promoted, or living under the strain of uncertainty about their future.[30] Less socializing among officers and their spouses. Several officers and spouses noted that there is less "bonding" among officers and their families than there used to be. Explanations for this apparent trend included o increased use of fixed shifts, which allows officers to plan social activities with their families and friends outside the agency (as opposed to always "going out with the boys," often for several hours, whenever one's shift is over); o more wives working outside the home,[31] leaving less time for socializing with the wives of other officers (as one said, "It's everyone out for herself now"); and o increased recognition among younger officers that there is "life outside of the badge," leaving them less inclined, as one said, to spend their free time with other officers, and resulting in less clannishness--and less camaraderie. While a reduced level of bonding can represent an additional source of stress (or the loss of a former source of support in the face of stress) for some, it may also be a positive trend if it enhances home life. There may also be a split among older and younger generations of officers in their need for different types of socializing. One young spouse attended a "wives' group" meeting and was offended by the traditional roles the other women present played in their husbands' lives and by their naivete about law enforcement work. She would like, she said, to meet with officers' spouses of her own generation to talk seriously about problems they face, not just to gossip, as she felt the women in the group she attended were doing. Her husband, rather than drinking with fellow officers after work, has become absorbed in leading his department's baseball league. Fear of air- or blood-borne diseases. Several respondents reported experiencing increased fear of the risk of contracting diseases such as AIDS, hepatitis B, and tuberculosis. Corrections officials in particular may feel anxious about the dramatic rise in the number of inmates with these diseases. Because some of this stress may be based on misinformation, apprehension could be reduced with up-to-date information and education about these diseases and their transmission routes as well as improved training in universal precautions relating to contact with body fluids and proper search techniques.[32] Cultural diversity and political correctness. Several of the white officers interviewed objected not only to what they perceived to be reverse discrimination in hiring and training but also to the emphasis on "political correctness" in officers' language and actions. One officer said that he had been passed over several times during recruitment and then for promotions despite scoring higher than some minority and female candidates. Whether it stems from formal departmental policy or perceived pressure from administrators and colleagues, increased scrutiny of behavior and language is also reportedly a source of stress in some departments. Another officer, for example, complained that "everything is becoming too sensitive" and that he always has to watch what he says because "people have forgotten how to laugh" and are offended too easily. Of course, the latter trend may well alleviate stress for the increasing number of minority officers who are entering law enforcement and who experience difficulties because of their ethnic or racial status, gender, or sexual orientation--difficulties which range from verbal abuse from colleagues, supervisors, and the public to discrimination in promotions and mistrust on the part of nonminority citizens about their capabilities. (See the box "Additional Stress for Female, Gay, and Ethnic Minority Officers.") Effects of Stress on Law Enforcement Officers The stresses just mentioned can have a number of damaging physical and emotional effects on law enforcement officers which in turn can affect their job performance. These will vary from officer to officer, depending on such factors as the intensity of the stress and the officer's personality, coping mechanisms, and sources of support. Commonly reported effects of stress for law enforcement officers include the following: o cynicism and suspiciousness, o emotional detachment, o post-traumatic stress disorder, o heart attacks, ulcers, weight gain, and other health problems, o suicide, o reduced efficiency in performing duties, o reduced morale, o excessive aggressiveness and an increase in citizen complaints, o alcoholism and other substance abuse, o marital or other relationship and family problems (e.g., extramarital affairs, divorce, or domestic violence),[33] o absenteeism, and o early retirement. Stress typically affects the behavior of officers along a continuum that can include (a) underlying stress not yet manifested in outward effects, (b) mid-level stress, manifested in such ways as excessive drinking or an unacceptably high number of discourtesy complaints, and (c) debilitating stress, resulting in inadequate job performance, severe health problems, or suicide. Stress and the Law Enforcement Officer's Family The effects of work-related stress on law enforcement officers' family members have been recognized for many years. In 1975, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office established an eight-week program for spouses of recruits; in 1978, Arthur and Elaine Neiderhoffer published The Police Family: From Station House to Ranch House, which examined many of the difficulties faced by spouses (primarily wives) and children of police officers. In recent years, the law enforcement family has received increasing attention. Congress held hearings in 1991 on stress-related problems among officers' families, and the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act included legislation requiring additional support for officers' families. According to Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder, who chaired the 1991 congressional hearings, "We must ensure that police departments make the availability of education, stress-reduction training, and family support services an integral part of their work."[34] As described below, many of the sources of stress for law enforcement officers end up affecting the people closest to them, and even conditions or events that do not bother the officers themselves--or which they may even enjoy--such as shift work or undercover work can cause serious problems for their families. Alternatively, family members can be a source of stress for officers; many program counselors say that marital difficulties are the most common problem for which they treat officers. At the same time, families can be a major source of support for officers. As a result, it is possible that the stress officers experience may sometimes be prevented or reduced if members of their families have access to stress program services, learn to understand the demands of police work, and develop ways to cope with stress as a family. In one study of 479 spouses of police officers, 77 percent reported experiencing unusually high amounts of stress from the officers' job.[35] Commonly cited sources include the following: o shift work and overtime (which disrupt family activities and reduce the amount of time family can spend together); o an officer's cynicism, need to feel in control in the home, or inability or unwillingness to express feelings; o the fear that the officer will be hurt or killed; o officers' and other people's excessively high expectations of their children; o avoidance, teasing, or harassment of children because of their parent's job; o the presence of a gun in the home; o friends' discomfort because of the officer's weapon and 24-hour role as a law enforcer; o an impression that the officer would prefer to spend time with fellow officers rather than with his or her family; o either excessive or too little discussion about the job; o the officer's perceived paranoia or excessive vigilance and subsequent overprotection; o helping the officer cope with work-related problems; and o critical incidents or the officer's injury or death.36 Family members interviewed for this report offered glimpses into the stressful nature of being related to a law enforcement officer: o One officer's wife described the difficulty of coping with her husband's rotating shifts while she also worked a full-time job and they tried to raise three children. Friends stopped inviting her to social functions because (she felt) they were uncomfortable about the absence of her husband. She and her husband finally settled on the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift as the best option because it gave him the most time with the family. o Another wife spoke of being constantly worried about her husband's safety: "I would hear reports of officers being shot and just have to wait to see if it was him. I even listened to the police scanner at night until he came home." o A female officer said that her marriage had suffered because her difficult shift hours required her husband to do much of the child rearing, which he resented. o Another officer said that his eight-year-old daughter had witnessed one of his flashbacks to a shooting incident and had been frightened by her father "talking in tongues." "I never want to see my kids exposed to that again." Officers married to other law enforcement personnel may be less affected by some of the stresses listed above because they may have a mutual understanding of the difficulties of each other's jobs and may share the same friends socially. However, dual- officer couples may also suffer the added burdens of blurred personal and professional roles, gossip among colleagues about their relationship, and, with both working different rotating shifts and working overtime, even less time for each other at home. Effects of Stress on Law Enforcement Agencies The cumulative negative effects of stress on officers and their families typically hurt law enforcement agencies as well, leading to the following: o impaired officer performance and reduced departmental productivity; o reduced morale; o public relations problems (e.g., after a suicide or case of police brutality); o labor-management friction; o civil suits because of stress-related failures in personnel performance; o tardiness and absenteeism; o increased turnover due to leaves of absence, early retirement as a consequence of stress-related problems and disabilities, and the resulting expense of training and hiring new recruits; and o the added expense of paying overtime when the agency is left short of staff. Even what may appear to be small-scale problems can cause significant negative effects. For instance, the exposure in the media of a single incident of a few officers abusing alcohol or other drugs can create disrespect and diminished public trust for an entire agency,[37] and small agencies in particular can suffer enormous costs when employee turnover increases as a result of stress-related early retirement or long-term disability. Stress among law enforcement personnel and their families has serious consequences. With a growing awareness of the nature of these problems and increased departmental and stress program efforts-- such as those described on the following pages--to address them, officers and their families may be able to steer clear of some types of stress and to obtain the help they need in dealing with those stresses they cannot avoid. Endnotes 1. Goolkasian, G.A., R.W. Geddes, and W. DeJong, Coping With Police Stress, Issues and Practices, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, June 1985; Ayres, R.M., Preventing Law Enforcement Stress: The Organization's Role, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1990. See also Employee Assistance Programs: A Manual for the Development and Implementation of EAPs in Law Enforcement Agencies, a brief review of police EAP services and models, developed by the Central New York Coalition for EAPs, Syracuse, New York (a limited supply is available from the New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services, [518] 485-2132); Employee Assistance Program Desk Reference for Law Enforcement Administration, developed in 1990 and being revised in 1996, with a focus on alcohol abuse and alcoholism, by the New York Division of Criminal Justice Services, Bureau for Municipal Police, in conjunction with the Division of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, (518) 457-2667; and Williams, F.E., and J.E. Bratton, "A Step-By-Step Guide to Developing Employee Assistance Programs in Small Police Agencies," The Police Chief (February 1990): 43-46, a brief review of considerations for administrators of small police departments. 2. Kirschman, E., E. Scrivner, K. Ellison, and C. Marcy, "Work and Well-Being: Lessons from Law Enforcement," in Stress and Well-Being at Work: Assessments and Interventions for Occupational Mental Health, ed. J.C. Quick, L.R. Murphy, and J.J. Hurrell, Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1992: 178-192. 3. For an assessment of legal issues related to workplace stress and law enforcement, see Dunning, C., "Mitigating the Impact of Work Trauma: Administrative Issues Concerning Intervention," in Critical Incidents in Policing, revised, ed. J.T. Reese, J.M. Horn, and C. Dunning, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1991: 73-82. 4. "On the Front Lines: Police Stress and Family Well-Being," Testimony by A.W. Zavaras, Hearing Before the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, House of Representatives, 102nd Congress, 1st Session, May 20, 1991, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991: 71. 5. Klein, R., "Police Peer Counseling: Officers Helping Officers," FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 48 (1989): 2. 6. Sewell, J.D., "Administrative Concerns in Law Enforcement Stress Management," in Psychological Services for Law Enforcement, ed. J.T. Reese and H.A. Goldstein, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1986: 191. 7. "On the Front Lines," Testimony by E. Scrivner, 12. 8. Delprino, R.P., and C. Bahn, "National Survey of the Extent and Nature of Psychological Services in Police Departments," Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19 (1988): 421-425. 9. Ibid, 423. 10. Reese, J.T., A History of Police Psychological Services, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1987: 35. 11. See text and references in Ayres, Preventing Law Enforcement Stress, 1; and Gruber, C.A., "The Relationship of Stress to the Practice of Police Work," The Police Chief, 67 (February 1980): 16, 17. 12. French, J.R.P., "A Comparative Look at Stress and Strain in Policemen," in Job Stress and the Police Officer, ed. W.H. Kroes and J.J. Hurrell, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1975: 60. French found that police scored higher on some stresses but lower on others compared with 22 other occupations (blue- and white-collar). See also Spielberger, C.D., The Police Stress Survey: Sources of Stress in Law Enforcement, Monograph Series 3: no. 6, Tampa, Florida: Human Resources Institute, 1981: 43. 13. Ayres, Preventing Law Enforcement Stress, 9; Kirschman et al., "Work and Well-Being," 181. 14. For a thorough review of organizational sources of stress, see Ayres, Preventing Law Enforcement Stress, 11-21. Numerous other articles examine organizational sources of stress, including Kirschman et al., "Work and Well-Being," as well as Phelps, L., "Police Tasks and Related Stress Factors from an Organizational Perspective," and other articles in Kroes and Hurrell, Job Stress and the Police Officer. Also see, Hurrell, J.J. Jr., "Some Organizational Stressors in Police Work and Means for Their Amelioration," in Reese and Goldstein, Psychological Services for Law Enforcement. 15. Literature provided by the National Center on Women and Policing, 8105 West Third St., Suite 1, Los Angeles, California 90048, (213) 651-0495. Also see Fletcher, C., Breaking and Entering: Women Cops Talk About Life in the Ultimate Men's Club, New York: Harper Collins, 1995. 16. Morash, M., and R.N. Haarr, "Gender, Workplace Problems, and Stress in Policing," Justice Quarterly, 12 (1995): 113-140. 17. McDowell, J., "Are Women Better Cops?" Time, February 17, 1992, 70-72. 18. Morash and Haarr, "Gender, Workplace Problems, and Stress in Policing," 113-140. 19. Morrison, P., "Female Officers Unwelcome--But Doing Well," Los Angeles Times, July 12, 1991. 20. Again, there are abundant articles describing sources of stress related to law enforcement work. See, in particular, Kroes and Hurrell, Job Stress and the Police Officer. 21. Count, E.W., Cop Talk: True Detective Stories From the NYPD, New York: Pocket Books, 1994. 22. Martin, D., "Officers on Diet Patrol to Shed an Old Image," New York Times, August 18, 1995. 23. Graf, F.A., "The Relationship Between Social Support and Occupational Stress Among Police Officers," Journal of Police Science and Administration, 14 (1986): 178-186. 24. Jacobi, J.H., "Reducing Police Stress: A Psychiatrist's Point of View," Job Stress and the Police Officer, 85-116. 25. Scrivner, E., and J.T. Reese, "Family Issues With No Easy Answers," in Law Enforcement Families: Issues and Answers, ed. J.T. Reese and E. Scrivner, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1994: 5-6. 26. Mohandie, K., "Law Enforcement Turmoil and Transitions and the Evolving Role of the Police Psychologist," Draft paper presented at the FBI Academy symposium, "Organizational Issues in Law Enforcement," Quantico, Virginia, January 25-27, 1995. 27. "Firearms and Crimes of Violence: Selected Findings from National Statistical Series," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, February 1994. 28. Scotland, E., "Self-Esteem and Stress in Police Work," in Kroes and Hurrell, Job Stress and the Police Officer, 3-16. Scotland argues that officers' self-esteem is lowered by public hostility and negative publicity, reducing their immune system's capabilities and making them more vulnerable to stress-related health problems. 29. Robert Scully, executive director, National Association of Police Associations, Personal communication. December 21, 1995. 30. Havassy, V.J., "Police Stress in the 90s, and Its Impact on the Family," in Reese and Scrivner, Law Enforcement Families, 27-34; and Grossman, I., "Peter's Other Principle: When Organizations Flatten, So Do Families and Careers," ibid., 281-285. 31. See Schmuckler, E., "The Dual Career Family in Law Enforcement: A Concern for Management," ibid., 41-50. 32. Hammett, T., AIDS and the Law Enforcement Officer: Concerns and Policy Responses, Issues and Practices, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, June 1987. 33. Delprino, R.P., C.L. Kennedy, J. Cardarelli, and C. Goss, "Law Enforcement and the Police Family," Cassette Recording No. APA 95-081, Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1995. 34. "On the Front Lines," Testimony by P. Schroeder, 2. 35. "On the Front Lines," Testimony by L.B. Johnson, 32. 36. Borum, R., and C. Philpot, "Therapy With Law Enforcement Couples: Clinical Management of the `High-Risk Lifestyle,'" American Journal of Family Therapy, 21 (1993): 122-135. 37. Springer, K., "When the Helper Needs Help: Stress and the Law Enforcement Employee," EAP Association Exchange, 25 (1995): 6-11. What Is a Stress Program? A law enforcement stress program can take many forms, including an employee assistance or psychological services program set up within the agency, a group of officers trained to provide support and referrals to other officers, a private mental health practice or independent practitioner who serves one or more law enforcement agencies, or a combination of these arrangements. The common characteristics among these arrangements are that they have some kind of formal structure and are set up with the express purpose of preventing and reducing stress among law enforcement officers. (Chapter 3 reviews various organizational structures of stress programs.) Sources of Information for This Publication The information presented in this report comes from four principal sources: o literature on law enforcement stress and stress programming; o in-person interviews with stress program directors, other mental health providers, law enforcement administrators, union and association officials, officers, family members, and civilians at four sites: San Bernardino, California; the State of Michigan; Erie County, New York; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in Washington, D.C.; o telephone interviews with similar individuals in San Antonio, Texas; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Metro-Dade County, Florida; Rochester, New York; and Coventry, Rhode Island; and o less comprehensive telephone interviews with several other stress program directors across the country. The jurisdictions studied in depth were selected based on the suggestions of the project's advisory board (see page ii) and police mental health professionals gathered at a January 1995 FBI law enforcement symposium on organizational issues in law enforcement. The programs contacted from these jurisdictions represent different organizational approaches, serve both large and small law enforcement agencies, and have different jurisdictional responsibilities (municipal, county, State, and Federal). Stress Services: A Generational Split? The mere fact that more and more law enforcement agencies are making stress services available to their personnel indicates that these services have attained a critical threshold of acceptance. Based on anecdotal evidence from interviews conducted for this publication, skepticism and outright hostility regarding stress services seem to be decreasing. The extent of this change in attitude, however, is unclear, and considerable opposition to stress services remains. Most of the program directors interviewed for this publication said that, although it took a long time, the importance of stress services has been acknowledged among many officers, due in part to efforts to market the programs but also to the increased educational level--and resulting awareness of physical and emotional reactions to stress--of younger officers. One command officer said, "This generation of police is different. Officers used to be mainly military veterans who either hid their stress better or didn't know the terms or could handle things better. More college-oriented cops understand the value of social service programs to improve their careers." Another reported that he and many of his fellow administrators are more understanding of the need for psychological services and more willing to devote resources to a stress program because they have had more opportunities for higher education. Older officers, however, still frequently question the usefulness of stress services. "The biggest obstacle," one chief said, "is the old-timers who think officers should still tough it out. The older generation is derisive toward what the new generation wants." To be sure, even among younger officers the stigma--or fear of stigma--attached to psychological counseling remains strong in many agencies. As one officer said, "When you mention psychologists, everyone runs." (Chapter 7, "Marketing the Program," provides suggestions for gaining acceptance of the stress program among skeptical officers.) Law Enforcement Stress Services Are Not New The provision of stress services for law enforcement officers is not a passing fad. Some departments, in fact, have operated programs staffed with full-time counselors since 1976. In the past two decades, the number of law enforcement agencies that have full-time psychologists, EAPs, or other types of mental health services has grown significantly. In a 1979 survey of police departments across the country, only 20 percent offered some kind of psychological services.[8] In a 1988 national survey of State and municipal police departments, however, more than half provided some kind of psychological service to officers. Fifty-three percent offered counseling to police officers for job-related stress, 52 percent provided counseling to officers for personal and family problems, and 42 percent counseled officers' family members.[9] Whereas psychological services staff once focused mainly on basic counseling services, testing of officers, and assistance with criminal investigations,10] often on a part-time consulting basis, many programs now offer around-the-clock services that include critical incident debriefing, training on stress management, peer support, and consultation regarding organizational change in the department. Additional Sources of Information on Sources and Effects of Law Enforcement Stress The Behavioral Science Services Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation has compiled several comprehensive collections of articles on law enforcement stress. These include: James T. Reese and Roger Solomon, eds. Organizational Issues in Law Enforcement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, forthcoming, 1996. James T. Reese, James M. Horn, and Christine Dunning, eds. Critical Incidents in Policing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1991. James T. Reese and Ellen Scrivner, eds. Law Enforcement Families: Issues and Answers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1994. James T. Reese and Harvey A. Goldstein, eds. Psychological Services for Law Enforcement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1986. To order these publications, contact the FBI Employee Assistance Unit in Washington, D.C., at (202) 324-5244. An older but still useful book on sources of stress for both officers and their families is: Arthur Niederhoffer and Elaine Niederhoffer, The Police Family: From Station House to Ranch House, Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1978. Sources of Psychological Stress I. Intra-Organizational Practices and Characteristics 1.Poor supervision. The actions and attitudes of police supervisors can either increase or help alleviate the stress of the job. 2. Lack of career opportunities. The promotional process is frequently viewed as being limited and unfair, causing frustration among officers. 3.Inadequate rewards. Recognition for a job well done is rare; however, criticism for mistakes is frequent. 4. Offensive policies. Many departmental requirements are viewed as threatening or unreasonable. 5. Excessive paperwork. The need for duplicate forms of every police transaction is often questioned. 6. Poor equipment. An officer's well-being may depend on the quality of his or her equipment; therefore, faulty equipment is a significant source of anxiety. II. Inter-Organizational Practices and Characteristics 7. Lack of career development. In most police departments, there is little room for advancement regardless of the performance of the officer. 8. Jurisdictional isolationism. There is often an unfortunate lack of cooperation between neighboring jurisdictions; sometimes an unhealthy competitive relationship exists. III. Criminal Justice System Practices and Characteristics 9. Ineffectiveness of corrections system. Officers are alarmed by the recidivism rate of criminals who seem to be perpetually "on the street" rather than incarcerated. 10. Unfavorable court decisions. Many court decisions are viewed by officers as unfairly increasing the difficulty of police work. 11. Misunderstanding of judicial procedure. Officers find the adversary system difficult to adjust to, particularly when their testimony is challenged. 12. Inefficient courtroom management. Delays, continuances, and inconvenient scheduling make courtroom appearances a frustrating experience. 13. Preoccupation with street crime. The police officer must focus on street crime, often committed by disadvantaged people, yet the officer knows that "white collar" crime in business and politics flourishes. IV. Public Practices and Characteristics 14. Distorted press accounts. Reports of incidents are often inaccurate and perceived as derogatory by officers, whether or not the inaccuracy is intentional. Sources of Psychological Stress (continued) 15. Unfavorable minority attitudes. Allegations of brutality and racism are often viewed as unfair and damaging by police officers. 16. Unfavorable majority attitudes. The police are frequently accused of being incompetent by majority members of a community. 17. Criticism from neighbors. The criticisms of neighbors, relatives, or acquaintances about the police profession are felt deeply by police officers. 18. Adverse local government decisions. Issues of local importance such as budgetary restrictions or police-citizen hearing boards may have an impact on police officers. 19. Ineffectiveness of referral agencies. The lack or ineffectiveness of social service agencies often frustrates the officer who views these agencies as the only viable source of assistance. V. Police Work Itself 20. Role conflict. Officers often experience conflict, for example, attempting to apprehend a criminal yet ensuring that none of his or her rights are abridged. 21. Irregular work schedule. Shift work is disruptive to the personal lives of most police officers. 22. Fear and danger. The police profession contains many elements of danger that affect officers in both obvious and subtle ways. 23. Sense of uselessness. The inability to resolve completely people's problems confronts the police officer daily. 24. Absence of closure. Much of police work is fragmented, opportunities for follow-up on a case are limited, and feedback on the results is minimal. 25. Human suffering. Officers are constantly exposed to the inequities and brutalities of life. Such experience must take its emotional toll on even the most well-adjusted individuals. 26. "The startle." At most any time a quick response to a particular condition is required, and such a response is jolting to the officer's physical and mental state. 27. Consequences of actions. The seriousness of the issues and consequences of police work is both physically and mentally demanding. 28. Twenty plus years. Stress is cumulative in nature, and stressful events are connected to one another with long-term continuity. This box is adapted from "Job Stress and the Police Officer: Identifying Stress Reduction Techniques," by Dr. Terry Eisenberg. It appears in a "training key" developed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Additional Stress for Female, Gay, and Ethnic Minority Officers The number and acceptance of women, homosexuals, and ethnic minorities in law enforcement have increased over the years, but not enough, many members of these groups report, to alleviate additional stress these officers often face. For example, women make up less than 10 percent of sworn police officers nationwide and occupy few top administrative posts, and this is due in part, some researchers say, to hostile working environments, discrimination, and sexual harassment.[15] Some female, gay, and minority officers may have the added stress of o lack of acceptance by the predominantly white, male force and subsequent denial of needed information, alliances, protection, and sponsorship from supervisors and colleagues; o lack of role models and mentors; o pressure to prove oneself to colleagues and the public; o exclusion from informal channels of support; and o lack of influence on decision-making.16 One female officer went to investigate a neighborhood dispute in the countryside only to be told by the caller that he would not speak with her--that she should "go home and send a real cop." When the officer refused, the man called the department and was told to deal with the female officer; instead, the man went back inside his house and ignored her. Another female officer experienced constant harassment from a male officer who kept telling her she wasn't up to the job. On the advice of another male officer, she finally dropped her belt at the stationhouse and told him, "OK! Let's go at it." They engaged in a tussle before the sergeant separated them. Later, the hostile officer changed his entire attitude toward the woman, becoming her friend. Many female officers take less aggressive--yet what they feel are no less effective--approaches to stressful work situations than men typically adopt.[17] In fact, one researcher has suggested that despite the extra sources of stress they face, many women do not report actually feeling a substantially higher level of stress than men because "they are willing to talk about their feelings and the related stress, reject competitiveness, and make a conscious effort to reduce stress through actions such as taking time off from work."[18] Also, depending on individual personality and experience, some women may be more offended and intimidated by degrading language than others. Some female officers may even find exchanges of insults to be a way to use humor to relieve stress.[19] Sources of Stress for Nonsworn Employees Civilian employees of law enforcement agencies also face the four general types of stress described in the text; however, they typically have the added problems of being perceived as second-class employees within the agency and being denied some of the benefits enjoyed by sworn staff, such as training and opportunities for career development. Law enforcement stress programs need to include nonsworn employees in outreach, stress training, and treatment services. Dispatchers who handle calls regarding traumatic incidents, for example, may need critical incident debriefing as much as (or in some cases even more than) the officers who respond to the calls, because they typically feel tremendous responsibility for protecting officers and therefore may experience enormous guilt when things go wrong. How Do Programs Define "Family"? In the 1970s, attempts to help officers' families were fairly narrow in scope. A police department in Pennsylvania held an orientation titled, "The Officer's Lady," to welcome male officers' wives, fiancees, and mothers, for example, and the Indianapolis Police Department held a "Seminar for Wives and Fiancees of Recruits." Now, however, most stress programs define "family" broadly, incorporating not only spouses and children but also parents, in-laws, siblings, "significant others," and anyone else with whom an officer has a close relationship. The Erie County program in New York State, for example, will provide counseling to anyone who is "important to the officer"; the director of the Rhode Island Centurion Program defines a family member as "someone you're emotionally connected to and care about," and the Counseling Team, an organization that works with law enforcement agencies in San Bernardino, California, includes gay partners as eligible family members. Some programs, however, place stricter limits on whom they serve. The Metro-Dade program in Miami is designed to provide services to department employees, their immediate family members, and significant others (for couples issues) but considers extended family members and adult family members living outside the household to be beyond the scope of services except in cases of major trauma to the employee. Program staff must be attentive to the difficulties that arise if administrators, officers, association officials, insurance companies, and counselors do not agree with the program's broad--or narrow--definition of family. For instance, insurance companies may reimburse treatment provided only to immediate family members, such as parents, spouses, and children, and refuse to cover marriage counseling. When this happens, some other mental health professionals end up charging these clients a sliding fee or providing counseling pro bono. ______________________________________________ "Police stress is found wherever there are functioning police officers. In our [FBI Nationwide Law Enforcement Training Needs Assessment] surveys, the activity statement, `handle personal stress,' has consistently been rated a top priority activity for all types and sizes of State and local law enforcement agencies."--James T. Reese, former supervisory special agent and assistant unit chief, Behavioral Science Services Unit, FBI, in Testimony presented to the 102nd Congress, Washington, D.C., May 1991 "My husband came home more screwed up with department problems than with anything he ever encountered on the streets."--Wife of an officer who ended up resigning due to stress "You're telling an officer he's going to be penalized if he doesn't get there quickly, and, if he risks some safety factors to get there quickly, he's going to be penalized as well. That creates an enormous amount of stress. That famous quote about `damned if you do, damned if you don't' appears to be the department policy."--Richard B. Costello, President, Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police, quoted in Law Enforcement News, March 15, 1995 It probably won't be the bullet that will strike down an officer, but the effects of chronic stress." --Sergeant Robin Klein, Long Beach (California) Police Department, quoted in FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Vol. 58, no. 10 (1989) "We have a tremendous investment in cops, and if they leave after one traumatic incident, we have lost a tremendous amount." --Robert Peppler, Assistant Sheriff, San Bernardino Sheriff's Department _______________________________________ Chapter 2 Planning the Program _______________________________________ Key Points o Patience and thoughtful, careful preparation both at the beginning of a stress program and during later adjustments in program operations are likely to pay off with an efficient, supported, and well-used program. o Law enforcement stress experts recommend a systematic approach to program development, focusing on the prevention as well as the treatment of stress at both the individual and organizational levels. o Involving key law enforcement administrators, labor representatives, managers, line officers, family members, and others in planning will help to ensure their support and use of the program. o When determining a program's target population (that is, whether it will include individuals other than officers, and if so, whom and to what degree), planners need to consider the limits of their resources (e.g., staff qualifications and time), the preferences of the program sponsor, a needs assessment, and how the choice of target populations will affect program credibility. o Initial and periodic needs assessments are crucial to ensure that the program addresses officers' and family members' primary problems and may also be helpful in promoting the program among clients, administrators, labor representatives, and potential funding sources. o An advisory board, including representatives of both labor and management, is one of the most useful sources of guidance for program planners. o Formulating an overall program mission and specific objectives provides a clear picture of what others can expect from the program, focuses program efforts on priority clients and services, facilitates program evaluation, and can impress agency administrators and potential funding sources. o In determining which services to provide, program planners need to consider clients' needs, other available services and their current or potential effectiveness, staff credentials, and which mix of services (e.g., broad-based or focused) will help ensure program credibility, quality, and support. o Written policies and procedures, especially with regard to confidentiality, are essential for generating awareness and support and for guiding staff activities. It is best if policies and procedures are developed in collaboration with agency administrators, labor representatives, officers, and other targeted clients. Careful planning is particularly important in the development of a law enforcement stress program because of the several organizational options available, the sometimes competing interests of labor and management, limitations on financial resources, and officers' common skepticism of mental health services. Even one misstep--such as neglecting to ensure union involvement or locating the program in a place that officers consider too public--can result in long- term, even permanent, mistrust. Although they may delay program implementation, patience and thoughtful preparation in the early stages are likely to pay off with an efficient, supported, and well-used program. Furthermore, program planning should be considered an ongoing activity as staff seek ways to improve services and respond to changing fiscal, political, and other circumstances. For instance, the Michigan State Police Department's Behavioral Science Section added a trooper who is a recovering alcoholic to its staff after it became clear that many troopers with drinking problems were not comfortable talking to the program's psychologists. After examining typical factors that spark the development of a stress program, the remainder of this chapter reviews seven important steps in program planning: (1) selecting the program's target population; (2) conducting an initial and ongoing needs assessment; (3) establishing a planning and steering committee; (4) formulating a mission and objectives; (5) selecting services to offer and identifying referral sources within and outside the agency; (6) estimating funding needs and identifying potential funding sources; and (7) establishing and disseminating written policies and procedures, particularly with regard to confidentiality. Determining the organizational structure of the program and recruiting staff, two additional major elements of program planning, are discussed separately in chapters 3 and 4, respectively. Obtaining early support from administrators, union officials, and other individuals is addressed in chapter 7. Planning and conducting a program evaluation are covered in chapter 12. Program practitioners recommend that planners maintain a "holistic" focus in moving through these planning steps, making sure that the program addresses personal and organizational sources of stress, officers and family members, and prevention and treatment. The sequence and exact manner in which program planners follow these steps, and the time that each step takes, will depend on local opportunities and constraints. Getting Started: Responsibility and Resources In most of the programs contacted for this publication, administrators initiated program planning by identifying the need for services and selecting a program director, who was generally charged with developing program policies and services. For example, department administrators gave the director of the Metro-Dade Health Services Section considerable latitude in planning and implementing the program after they chose him for the job. Although one person typically has primary responsibility for planning the program, planning should be considered a collaborative endeavor, involving key law enforcement department administrators and managers, line officers, labor representatives, family members, and other individuals with an interest in the program. Involving these individuals will help to ensure that (a) the program is responsive to their needs and receives their support, (b) duplication of effort is avoided, and (c) "turf" battles are prevented between the program and other groups that may also serve targeted clients (e.g., a citywide EAP or private mental health professionals). Cindy Goss, Director of the Erie County Law Enforcement Employee Assistance Program, met frequently with the sheriff and police chiefs throughout the county, as well as with a representative of the union representing the county's largest police department, to develop program policies and procedures to which everyone could subscribe. In fact, Goss leaves membership on her advisory board open to whoever wishes to participate because she does not want to exclude any interested parties from the planning process. (See chapter 7, "Marketing the Program," for further information on involving various groups.) The one person in charge of the planning process must be clear about who will have the final say in making decisions but must strive to create a collaborative, not competitive, spirit among those involved in the process. With many individuals offering suggestions, however, conflicts may occur when one individual's or group's ideas are chosen over another's. When the views of professional clinicians prevailed over those of line officers at one point in the development of the Rochester Police Department's Stress Management Unit, the officers felt resentful. One commented, "We thought that this was going to be our program, and we felt overruled and second-guessed by an outsider."[1] The one person in charge of the planning process must be clear about who will have the final say in making decisions but must strive to create a collaborative, not competitive, spirit among those involved in the process. Directors of programs that began in the 1970s and early 1980s had few programs or practitioners they could contact for guidance. Today, however, numerous agencies of all sizes have stress programs whose administrators, staff, and consulting mental health practitioners are likely to be willing to offer suggestions on program implementation and operation. Program planners have also been able to obtain advice from the Psychological Services Section of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, meetings of the American Psychological Association's Police Psychology Division, and symposiums sponsored by the Federal Bureau of Investigations's Behavioral Science Services Unit at the Quantico Training Academy in Virginia. Individuals outside the law enforcement field--such as directors of EAPs in other public agencies and in the private sector, university researchers, and local mental health providers--may also be helpful. (See chapter 14, "Tapping Other Resources," for the names and phone numbers of program directors contacted for this report, as well as a list of pertinent organizations and publications.) An advisory board can also be a particularly valuable source of guidance for program planning, as discussed below. Selecting Target Groups Although it may seem clear that the primary beneficiaries of a law enforcement stress program will be police officers, choosing the program's client population can be a complex consideration. Planners and staff must decide whether and how the program will serve the following groups: o line officers, command staff, and administrators; o dispatchers; o nonsworn personnel; o retired officers; o employees of more than one department; o other nearby law enforcement personnel, such as Federal agents or corrections officers; o other public safety and emergency personnel, such as firefighters or paramedics; and o family members. If family members will be served, program planners must decide which of them will be eligible-- spouses, significant others, parents, children, or close friends. Program planners may want to distinguish between eligible and specifically targeted clients--that is, whether to serve all individuals within certain categories but promote the program actively to only certain priority groups. This section discusses the selection of client populations; chapter 7, "Marketing the Program," suggests methods of generating referrals from the targeted groups. All of the programs surveyed for this publication and described in the literature target primarily line officers because they make up the largest group in any police department, are perceived as experiencing the most stress, deal with the public day in and day out, and may have limited financial resources to pay for extended counseling on their own. Most programs also provide at least minimal services (that is, referral to other treatment providers) to nonsworn personnel and former employees, as well as to officers' and other employees' relatives and close friends who may need assistance. (See the box "How Do Programs Define `Family'?" in chapter 1.) Most commonly, then, a wide range of clients is eligible, but only officers, and sometimes family members, are specifically targeted for services. For example, Erie County's program services are available to county corrections officers and nonsworn employees, but most of the program's marketing is directed at police officers and sheriff's deputies. However, there are cogent reasons for targeting at least three other groups, if not initially, then after the program is solidly established: o dispatchers, because they often experience significant stress in handling critical incident calls and feel responsible for the safety of officers in the department; o other nonsworn personnel, because they often report being left out of many of their agency's programs and also frequently experience stress associated with their work, the organization of the agency, or other factors; and o management, because they may also experience considerable stress, because they can actively facilitate the development and acceptance of the program, and because they are in a position to change features of the organization that may be creating stress for personnel. Staff of some programs may prefer and be well positioned (if, for example, the program has a large clinical staff) to serve a wide range of clients during the early stages of the program when it needs to gain initial support, credibility, and referrals. In other cases, however, it may be more practical to focus at first only on the primary target group; in this way, staff can build credibility by providing high-quality services and avoiding being stretched too thin. As one program director warned, staff need to be wary of trying to be "all things to all people." Reflecting this concern, the brochure for Psychological Services in Tulsa lists as eligible clients employees of the Tulsa police and fire departments and their immediate families, retired police officers and firefighters, but other city employees only "as time allows." The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms EAP provides up to five free counseling sessions to employees each year, but only three to family members, defined as "your relatives who live with you; any dependent children up to age 22 residing with you, with your former spouse, or at a school or college; and a significant other (someone with whom you have a close, intimate relationship and who lives with you)." For guidance in selecting, limiting, and modifying their clientele, program planners and staff may want to examine the following considerations: o Limited resources. Limitations in the number and qualifications of staff are the most influential factors in determining the range of potential program clients. One psychologist in Modesto, California, for instance, reported that his time is stretched so thinly among the several police departments he serves that he is able to counsel family members only in association with an officer's problem. o Program sponsorship. Programs established by law enforcement management may be more likely to target all department employees, including managers, than a union-sponsored program, which usually targets only member officers and their families. Programs that serve more than one department may need to give priority to officers of those departments that have the largest contracts with the program. After being funded by the county for several years to serve all county employees, Cindy Goss, Director of the Erie County program, responded to the large demand for assistance among law enforcement agencies by focusing her efforts exclusively on law enforcement and establishing individual contracts with each department that wanted program services. (The county hired another counselor to work with other county employees.) As a result, Goss now gives priority to officers employed by the Buffalo Police Department, the largest department in the county and the program's largest source of funds. o Needs assessment. Usually it is best to identify the program's primary target populations before conducting a needs assessment in order to decide which groups to survey (see the following section). For example, if a program is only going to be able to serve law enforcement officers, it may be a waste of time and resources to survey civilian employees. A needs assessment, however, can help confirm, justify, and refine the choice of target populations. The needs assessment conducted by the Drug Enforcement Administration prior to implementing its employee assistance program helped demonstrate the need to extend services to employees' family members. o Program credibility. Although some programs may from the beginning accept a wide range of clients, staff may not find it worthwhile to promote the program among some groups until its counselors have achieved a certain level of acceptance in the department. The director of the Erie County program began soliciting referrals from family members only after she felt she had established an adequate level of support among officers, who would then be willing to encourage their family members to participate. Conducting Initial and Periodic Needs Assessments Why Conduct a Needs Assessment? Some program planners consider a needs assessment unnecessary because they feel that the needs of officers and their family members are obvious or because enough information about law enforcement stress is available from other jurisdictions and written materials. This view is misguided. Indeed, there are at least five compelling reasons for conducting a needs assessment, both in the initial stages of a program and periodically thereafter: (1) To identify the perceived sources of stress experienced by officers and other target clients. Although some sources of stress are commonplace among most officers and family members (e.g., shift work), a needs assessment can reveal how widespread and severe stress-related problems are among the target groups and what specific problems are unique to the department or jurisdiction (e.g., a detested supervisor, a hostile local press, deficient equipment). (2) To identify the services already available to clients, how extensively they are being used, and gaps in efforts to reduce and treat stress-related problems. Even when program administrators or consulting mental health practitioners believe that existing services are sufficient, a needs assessment may reveal that officers seldom use these services or are dissatisfied with them. Information from such an assessment may also help program planners identify those services they can expand and avoid duplication of effort. (3) To identify types of services that target clients want. In addition to giving clients a sense of ownership, asking questions regarding desired services, staff characteristics, location, and other program features--and paying attention to the answers--will help ensure that the program will be both accepted and effective. Nearly all the respondents to the Erie County survey indicated, for example, that they would want to attend stress debriefings if they were involved in a critical incident. (4) To generate information for use in selling the program to administrators, labor representatives, officers, and other potential clients, and to funding sources. Assessments conducted in Erie County revealed that nearly two thirds of officers reported feeling serious stress because of their work duties in the previous year, a statistic that surprised most law enforcement administrators in the county. (5) To familiarize officers, family members, and others with the program. When distributing a needs survey, program staff can take the opportunity to promote the program if it is currently or soon to be operational. If the needs assessment is conducted using face-to-face conversations (see below), staff can also begin to gain the trust of targeted clients. A task force in Georgia conducted a study of stress-related problems among State public safety personnel and the efforts departments were making to address these problems. Using the study results, the task force asked for and received funding from the State legislature for a statewide stress management program.[2] Types of Needs Assessments A formal needs assessment involves developing a questionnaire and either distributing it in writing or using it for phone or in-person interviews; an informal assessment consists of unstructured telephone or face-to-face conversations. Structured surveys are time- consuming to design and conduct and can be somewhat impersonal, but they usually yield comprehensive and credible results. Informal conversations can provide an inexpensive in-depth look into the needs and desires of officers and their family members, but, unless many respondents are contacted, the results may not be as representative of the entire target population and therefore not as credible. Of course, in small departments informal group or individual conversations may be the most practical way to determine officers' needs. Even in such settings, however, officers' concerns about keeping their comments confidential may make it advisable to use a written questionnaire. Whom To Survey To obtain a comprehensive picture of stress-related factors in a department, information should be solicited from officers, nonsworn employees, administrators, managers, family members, other service providers, and anyone else whose opinions may be useful. Of course, program staff might also conduct a formal needs assessment among one group (e.g., line officers) and have informal conversations with others (e.g., administrators). To improve the chances of obtaining a large number of responses, a needs assessment should reach as many members of the target population as possible. The director of Psychological Services in Tulsa, Oklahoma, distributed critical incident survey questionnaires to all 720 officers in the city police department, but only half were returned. Program staff can also contact a random sample of officers, representing a range in ranks and, if possible, in gender and ethnicity. The Drug Enforcement Administration EAP surveyed a 10 percent stratified random sample of DEA employees. When the Erie County program sampled personnel in each county law enforcement agency, a large percentage of the officers responded (254 out of a total of 400), but, in retrospect, the director wished she had distributed surveys to every officer in the county to obtain more representative--and therefore more convincing--results. Program administrators and practitioners report a need to approach surveying family members with caution: some officers may feel that program staff are going behind their backs in asking their spouses about stress-related issues. Information To Collect Issues that might be addressed in a needs assessment survey include the following: o sources of stress, including severity and frequency (probe for sources related to law enforcement work, the agency, the criminal justice system, the media, and family life); o effects of stress, including physical, mental, and emotional problems, as well as reduced work productivity and family difficulties (probe for frequency and severity); o sources and effects of stress on the family; o types of stress-related services and training options the respondent knows about, and the respondent's opinion of and experience with these services; o other ways that respondents prefer to cope with stress (e.g., exercise) and how effective these methods are; o stress-related services the respondent feels he or she would use (e.g., what kind of counseling, provided by whom and where); and o other suggestions for the development of the stress program. It may be useful to ask administrators about their perceptions of the nature, severity, and effects of stress-related problems in their departments, as well as how they detect and handle these problems (e.g., referral to services, training, discipline). Program planners may want to request demographic information from survey respondents (e.g., age, gender, years of experience, marital status, rank), but they must be careful to preserve anonymity--and the perception of anonymity. Closed-ended questions (that require a yes/no response or a numerical ranking on a scale) facilitate analysis of the data, but respondents should be given the opportunity to comment in writing on anything they feel was not adequately addressed in the survey. The survey of Erie County officers, for instance, included the following questions: o What are the three most important things that could be initiated or changed which would make your job more satisfying and less stressful? o What are the three most important things that could be initiated or changed which would make your family life more satisfying and less stressful? o How can the Erie County Law Enforcement Employee Assistance Program help to reduce the stress you may be experiencing? Data Collection Options Phone calls may sometimes fail to generate many or useful responses because they lack both the anonymity of a written survey and the intimacy of in-person conversations. It may also be difficult or inappropriate, especially with shift workers who may be sleeping during the day or working during the evening, to reach officers and other respondents by phone. Nevertheless, some program staff have found phone surveys to be a quick, inexpensive way to survey potential clients. Psychological Services in Tulsa attempted to telephone the 284 officers in the department who had at least 15 years of police experience to ask about their marital status and attitudes regarding divorce; twenty-five officers who could not be contacted were sent a written questionnaire, and 86 percent of the officers agreed to be interviewed by telephone or responded to the written survey.[3] In-person contacts may consist of structured interviews or informal conversations with officers and other employees during ride-alongs or visits to the station house or union lodge. It may also be possible to conduct an informal forum at a union meeting or gathering of officers' family members; however, it is usually best if the in-person conversations are conducted on a one-on-one basis to encourage open, honest responses. When possible, officers to be interviewed should be selected randomly. The director of the San Antonio Police Department's Psychological Services spent his first year on the job doing ride-alongs, asking officers about the job, whether it lived up to their expectations, and what impact it was having on their families. He learned that organizational and supervisory issues were the primary sources of stress, and subsequently made efforts to address these problems. (See chapter 9, "Reducing Organizational Stress.") Department records and statistics can be valuable components of a needs assessment. The chaplain who set up the New York City Police Department's first program for alcoholic officers searched through the department records of officers with numerous absences or accidents and through disciplinary records to tally the number of officers who might have a drinking problem and then to encourage such officers to seek assistance.[5] Administrators or a department's office of internal affairs may be able to provide similar information on an anonymous basis, as well as aggregate statistics regarding citizen complaints, use of excessive force, disability, and turnover rates. However, program staff need to consult first with their department's legal counsel to find out whether a planned records search is legal, and they must be careful to avoid the impression that they are prying into officers' private affairs. A university researcher or a graduate student may be willing to design and conduct a needs assessment survey at little or no cost. A law enforcement task force in Georgia enlisted the help of the Department of Human Resources, the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, the Department of Community Affairs, law enforcement executives, academicians, and others in conducting a statewide assessment.[6] While using an independent person or organization would appear to make the results of a survey even more objective and credible, some officers may view an outside researcher's findings with skepticism or disdain. As a result, when a university professor designed and distributed a questionnaire to law enforcement officers in Erie County, the enclosed envelopes for responses were addressed to the county's stress program. After conducting a needs assessment, staff would do well to thank respondents for their assistance and inform them of the survey's results, something the Erie County program did through an article in a law enforcement newsletter. Staff can also accomplish this by sending a letter to the officers. According to the Erie County program director, "Following up with survey participants shows them that the program is responding to their concerns and that the time they took to answer questions will benefit themselves and the rest of the agency." Furthermore, these thank-you's serve to publicize further the program's availability. Establishing Planning and Ongoing Steering Committees Some program directors and independent practitioners use only individual conversations with key people to obtain information for the planning process. This approach may be perfectly adequate in working with very small law enforcement agencies and in small towns and rural jurisdictions where considerable collaboration occurs on an informal basis because people already know each other. However, many planners have found the establishment of a formal advisory board or steering committee representing diverse perspectives to be especially helpful for several reasons: o Forming a steering committee helps to demonstrate to administrators, labor representatives, and potential funding sources the commitment of program planners to making the program work. o Regular committee meetings may enable planners to obtain a wealth of information and to reach consensus more efficiently than through individual conversations. o Having a steering committee demonstrates planners' receptivity to considering the views of all involved parties (for example, including an officer and a family member on the board, along with high-level administrators and union or association representatives, shows that program planners consider the view points of people at all levels to be equally important and enhances the legitimacy of the program). o A committee can periodically assess the effectiveness of the program and how it might be improved. o Including legal counsel on the steering committee can help guard the program against legal liability. It is critical to represent both labor and management on any planning or advisory committee. The director of the Erie County Law Enforcement EAP already had an advisory board for the general county EAP, which initially administered the law enforcement program, but she put together a separate advisory board, consisting of administrators and union representatives from throughout the county, for the law enforcement program when it split off from the county EAP. The advisory board of Psychological Services, a private corporation contracted by the Tulsa police and fire departments, consists of the police and fire chiefs, and an independent psychologist from Tulsa, as well as a retired budget director; a broader advisory board, consisting of these individuals plus a city auditor and representatives of the police and firefighters unions, advised the organization's director on the development of the program in 1982. Formulating the Program's Mission and Objectives Although program staff may think that the purposes of stress services are obvious, goals can vary significantly in content and emphasis from program to program. Formulating and articulating an overall program mission, as well as specific objectives, is important for the following reasons: o to give potential clients, administrators, union representatives, and others a quick, clear picture of what to expect from the program (this is particularly critical because officers may inadvertently view the program as a management tool, while at the same time managers may not realize how it can help them deal with difficult personnel issues); o to focus staff efforts on the clients and services that have the highest priority and avoid inconsistent, conflicting, and superfluous activities; o to facilitate evaluation of program services; and o to explain and legitimize the program to clients, administrators, and potential funding sources, as well as to program staff members themselves. Although most of the programs surveyed for this publication have not done so, it may be beneficial to distinguish between a program mission statement and more specific objectives. A mission statement can convey the program's overall ambition, for instance at the individual level (e.g., prevent and treat stress-related problems among the target population in a strictly confidential manner), the departmental level (e.g., maintain and improve the department's effectiveness), and the community level (e.g., ensure a high quality of law enforcement services to citizens).[7] Program objectives would be more specific, focusing on both the intended operation of services and their anticipated effects. Objectives will vary depending on the size of the department or departments served, available resources, and other factors, but they might include the following: o provide stress management training sessions each year to all officers and nonsworn employees, or to a certain percentage of them; o conduct at least two family workshops on stress management each year; o recruit at least two peer supporters from each department served by the program; o reduce the number of divorces among officers by 25 percent within three years; o reduce the department's rate of absenteeism, disability leave, turnover, and citizen complaints by a given percentage over a specified period of time; and o improve department morale. Generally speaking, program objectives should be stated in terms of measurable effects. Furthermore, the more operationally defined a program's objectives are, the more useful they will be as measures of achievement, statements of purpose, and guidelines for staff. (See chapter 12, "Monitoring and Evaluating the Program," for a more detailed discussion of planning and conducting program evaluation.) Staff therefore need to think through their mission statements and specific objectives carefully. The director of the Erie County stress program emphasized that it is important to be realistic about what the program can do and not to promise what staff cannot deliver. Also, staff may find it necessary to revise their mission and objectives from time to time to respond to local circumstances, such as program growth, budget cuts, or newly identified needs or target populations. A program's mission and objectives should flow naturally from the initial needs assessment and from the factors that motivated the program's development in the first place. When a stress program was first established in Providence, Rhode Island, in response to the 1978 on-the-job suicide of the city's police chief, the director's overall goal was simply "to keep cops from killing themselves." It may be helpful to develop the program's mission and objectives during a planning or steering committee meeting to ensure that they address each group's needs and are articulated in a clear way that will help the program gain support among all parties represented. Selecting Service Mix and Referral Sources The "service mix" of law enforcement stress programs ranges from peer support or individual counseling alone to a wide combination of components. Determining which services are most in demand and most feasible involves careful forethought. Planners and staff can review other programs as a preliminary means of identifying the services they may wish to consider providing. Chapter 10, " Responding to Stress-Related Problems After They Occur," describes the services offered by programs contacted for this publication. Below is a discussion of factors that program staff might consider in deciding which services to offer. Clients' needs and desired services. The needs of most officers and family members are similar across law enforcement agencies, regardless of a given agency's size or location. Chapter 1 reviews some of the common causes and effects of stress and suggests sources of additional information about them. Program planners should be sure, however, to select services that will address any specific needs that were identified in their own needs assessment survey; they should also try to be responsive to officers' and other potential clients' specific requests. As noted above, the director of the Erie County program found that over 90 percent of the officers she surveyed reported that they would like to have a stress debriefing immediately after experiencing a critical incident, and when union officials in Michigan learned that many troopers were not comfortable approaching the department's psychologists for assistance with alcohol problems, that program added a recovering alcoholic trooper to its staff. Staff may want to prioritize their services to ensure that the needs of certain clients are met before the needs of other clients' are addressed. For example, the director of Tulsa's Psychological Services gives priority to an officer's need for counseling over any other kind of service should a conflict regarding staff availability occur. Program practitioners and administrators are increasingly seeing the benefits of focusing their efforts on proactive preventive services, such as training and changing organizational sources of stress, in addition to traditional reactive services, such as counseling. Already available services. A number of available resources--including city or county EAPs, police chaplains, wellness programs, support groups, and local private service providers--may already provide stress-related services to law enforcement personnel and their families. As discussed above, program planners need to be sure they do not duplicate effective existing services or cause unnecessary "turf" problems with other providers. Just because a particular service exists, however, does not mean it is meeting--or can meet--officers' needs. Respondents contacted for this publication consistently said that officers do not use city or county EAPs because these organizations do not provide sufficient confidentiality and because their staff do not usually understand law enforcement. Program staff also need to consider the extent to which informal support networks, such as family members, friends, and colleagues, as well as officers' personal coping methods (e.g., listening to music, playing softball), already help to prevent or relieve stress-related problems. A needs assessment can help determine the effectiveness of existing services and personal coping mechanisms for dealing with stress. Staff credentials. The training and credentials of staff may limit the services they can offer in terms of skills, legal liability, and credibility. Licensed police mental health practitioners, for instance, usually can provide in-depth counseling on a short- or long-term basis, while peer supporters are limited to listening, assessing, and referring. Even credentialed mental health professionals may be limited by their training or the specialty supervision they receive; few police practitioners, for instance, are qualified to provide counseling to children. Chapter 4, "Choosing Among Staffing Options," discusses the issue of staff qualifications further. Program credibility and support. Staff may wish to start with basic services and then add additional services on a gradual basis as the program gains credibility among officers and management. The director of the Erie County Law Enforcement EAP initially offered assessment, referral, and short- term counseling services; as she became better known and more widely accepted she began to offer training, counseling to family members, and peer support services. Only when it was well established did Michigan's Behavioral Science Section establish a peer support component. Focusing on basic services at the outset also helps to ensure that staff do not overextend themselves but instead provide high-quality services. An important element of the service mix of most programs consists of referrals to sources both within and outside the agency. Available departmental resources might include chaplaincy services or a wellness program, and local professionals can provide, for example, alcohol and drug abuse treatment, child counseling, or long- term adult counseling. Chapter 5, "Establishing a Referral Network," discusses the selection of referral sources in more detail. Subjectivity and a certain amount of guesswork are inevitable in initially determining a program's appropriate mix of services. It is important, however, to inject as much rationality as possible into the process so that the program offers the maximum benefit to the greatest number of clients considering its resources. In addition, it is important for staff to remain open to modifying their initial or current service mix based on a number of contingencies: o Some services may prove to require more time than is warranted relative to the benefits they provide. o Officers and family members may reveal a need which program planners did not anticipate. o Local events, such as a critical incident, may signal the need for new or more in-depth services. o It may be possible to expand--or necessary to curtail--some services depending on funding changes. Estimating Funding Needs and Identifying Funding Sources At a time when many law enforcement agencies are already cutting back on staff and other departmental expenditures, little money may be available for a stress program. As emphasized in several other parts of this publication, program planners must be able to convince administrators and other funding sources of the benefits and cost- effectiveness of stress services. Program planners need to estimate their minimal (but realistic) funding needs. They may need to look for funding outside of the department or departments they will be serving. Funding requirements will vary depending on program objectives. Nevertheless, cost estimates can be developed for all anticipated program services and materials, even if planners expect that the department will provide some in-kind assistance in case these materials or resources are discontinued and funding for them must be obtained elsewhere. Chapter 13, "Managing Program Costs and Funding," discusses cost elements of a law enforcement stress program and potential sources of funding. Establishing and Disseminating Written Policies and Procedures Developing detailed written policies and procedures is important for at least two reasons: (1) Written policies and procedures can be used as a marketing tool to make officers and family members aware of the program, including its mission, services, methods of referral, confidentiality guidelines, and other features. Policies and procedures can help correct any misconceptions about the program and help ensure that everyone uses it properly and effectively. (2) Current staff and consultants can use the policies and procedures as a guide for their own behavior, while new counselors can use them for orientation to program operations. As with a program's mission and objectives, it is best if planners and staff work out the policies and procedures in collaboration with an advisory board or, at a minimum, with selected administrators, union representatives, officers, and other targeted clients. This helps to ensure that the policies and procedures meet these individuals' needs and wishes (and therefore that they will use the program), that these individuals and the groups they represent will feel a sense of ownership in the program, and that there will be less of a chance of conflict among the parties over what the program does and how it should be used. In addition, it is important to consult with an attorney about the program's potential legal vulnerability if staff do not follow its policies and procedures, and about how to write the relevant guidelines so as to reduce potential liability. Written policies and procedures can include the following kinds of information: o the reasons for setting up the program; o the program's mission and overall objectives; o definitions of relevant terms; o types of services offered; o eligible clients (including whether some clients are eligible for fewer or less frequent services than others); o types and methods of referrals (be careful when distinguishing between voluntary and mandatory referrals, if both are accepted); o confidentiality guidelines (one of the most important provisions--see chapter 6); o record-keeping policies and sample forms; o staff positions and responsibilities; and o program organization and location. In general, the more detailed and organized these written policies and procedures are, the more useful they will be. Revisions may be necessary as a program generates clients and as staff have the opportunity to see how effective its policies and procedures really are. The wider the distribution of written policies and procedures, the more useful they are likely to be. Distilling the information onto a single page and using bullets and other attractive formatting techniques will help to ensure that officers read and understand them. Some programs target primarily administrators an