Author: WDC Marketing

Fair Leadership Matters

Posted on by WDC Marketing

“Procedural justice” is a popular term today. This term generally means fairness and respect in processes that resolve disputes or allocate resources. Many use the term when discussing police-community relations, arguing that law enforcement officers must act in a procedurally just manner (showing professionalism and respect) when interacting with the public in order to have the support of the public. Whether or not he or she received a traffic citation does not matter much to the citizen if the officer making the stop profanely insulted the citizen. The substantive outcome may be a verbal warning, but the manner in which it was administered (the procedure) will be viewed as unjust if it was blatantly disrespectful.

The idea of procedural justice can also be applied to the workplace. Research has revealed that when supervisors and managers within an organization are perceived to be acting in an unfair or disrespectful manner toward their employees, workplace performance suffers. Law enforcement organizations are no exception when it comes to procedural justice.

The Effects of Organizational Fairness in Policing

One study, involving 292 patrol officers from eleven police departments in Arizona, revealed that officer perceptions of supervisor support and organizational fairness were the strongest predictor of organizational commitment. It was also one of several predictors of officer job satisfaction. The more that the officers perceived they were treated fairly, the more likely the officers were to speak positively about their organizations and plan to stay until retirement.

In a national study of 843 law enforcement officers, it was revealed that officer anxiety, depression, and emotional exhaustion from their work experiences was significantly reduced if the officers reported that their leaders ran the organization in a fair manner and treated them with respect. Even the stress from violent assaults on officers was lessened if the officer perceived his or her leaders were fair and just, while officers who worked for leaders who were unfair and disrespectful had high levels of depression and anxiety.

A study of law enforcement officers from the Midwest revealed that the more these officers trusted their supervisors, the greater trust they also had in the public. When officers perceived their supervisors treated them poorly, this negativity and lack of trust influenced their interactions with citizens. Yet another large study, this time of 590 patrol officers, revealed that the strongest predictor of officer support for fair treatment of the public was whether or not the officers felt their own bosses treated them fairly. Officers who believed their bosses were fair and respectful were more likely to treat members of the public with respect and less likely to accumulate citizen complaints.

Finally, a study of 868 federal law enforcement officers revealed that supervisor fairness had its greatest impact when officers dealt with situations of uncertainty. For example, because of the incredible variety of situations, patrol officers encounter, and the fact it is often difficult to prescribe one exactly right way to handle many of these situations, patrol officers deal with far more uncertainty in their jobs than do officers assigned to training or other administrative tasks. A lack of fairness in managing officers in high uncertainty jobs, such patrol officers or SWAT, has the greatest damage on officer morale, job satisfaction, mental health, and job performance.           

What Does Fairness Mean?

Some might ask, “What do you mean when you say supervisors are fair or unfair?” Here is how the research mentioned above-measured fairness. Basically, supervisors are perceived as being fair if officers tended to agree with these statements:

  • Citizen complaints are handled fairly on my department.
  • The majority of promotions and special assignments in my department are based on merit.
  • When an officer is a focus on an internal affairs investigation in my department, he or she will be treated fairly.
  • The leader of our team supports us.
  • My employer shares my same values, goals, and quality standards.
  • My supervisor cares about my career development opportunities within this agency.
  • Supervisors in my department are considerate of their officers.
  • My supervisor provides clarity in goals and role expectations.
  • My supervisor regularly provides information and feedback on my job performance.
  • My superior acknowledge it when I perform well at my work.

Supervisors are also perceived as being fair if officers tend to disagree, or strongly disagree, with these statements:

  • I do not identify with the values of this police department’s leadership.
  • The handling of citizen complaints in my department is the result of administrators and supervisors trying to appease the public rather than treating officers fairly.
  • The majority of promotions or special assignments on my department depend on who you know rather than merit.
  • When an officer is a focus on an internal affairs investigation in my department, the officer is usually presumed guilty even when it can be proven the officer was innocent.

How would the officers on your department answer these questions? Every workplace usually has a few malcontented employees who gripe and display workplace negativity no matter how fairly they are treated. Concern should arise, however, when a majority (or a substantial minority) of your employees do not perceive the organization is being led fairly. Morale will plummet, good people will leave, depression and suicide risk will increase, and employee hostility will leak out into officer-citizen interactions on the street.

The Bad News

The bad news is that a substantial percentage of law enforcement officers do not perceive that they are being treated fairly by their supervisors or organizations. Many studies, ranging from the 1970s to the present, have consistently revealed a sizeable minority of law enforcement officers in the U.S. perceive they have been treated disrespectfully or unfairly by their supervisor and their employing agency. For example, in a study of law enforcement officers from multiple agencies in the Phoenix area, a full third of patrol officers did not perceive they were treated fairly by their bosses and organizations.

Some of the blame for this can be placed on officers over-investing in their careers and the experience of hyper-vigilance, as a veteran officer and psychologist Kevin Gilmartin often notes. Many officers place too much emphasis on their careers as their primary source of personal identity and significance, so that when they do not get the assignment they feel they deserved, they perceive it as a personal attack and a devaluation of their human worth. Because of the hyper-vigilance that comes from always being on guard against an attack, many officers also tend to view most in their lives with suspicion and cynicism. When they do not get picked for an assignment, or even if they do not get the day off they requested, there is a tendency to want to perceive these decisions as personal attacks or part of a wider conspiracy.       

Nevertheless, the few existing studies on the subject have consistently revealed that law enforcement agencies often treat employees unfairly. Four different studies in the U.S. have demonstrated that the severity of disciplinary punishments officers receive is generally unrelated to the seriousness of their offense or their past disciplinary record – having more to do with internal politics and personal friendships with those in command. These studies have consistently shown two officers who have committed the same type of offense, and share similar past disciplinary records, often receive very different levels of punishment. In fact, the most common reason given by grievance arbitrators for overturning a police officer’s suspension or termination is that other officers have committed the same misconduct and received much less severe discipline. So in addition to the problems over-investment and hyper-vigilance, there is also evidence of some truly unfair leadership in many agencies.

Conclusion

Leading your organization with fairness and respect for your employees is crucial to the operations of your organization. Treating your people with fairness and respect will not only improve their individual job satisfaction, it will improve their mental health, help retain good people, and improve employee attitudes toward members of the public. Fair and respectful treatment within the organization will seep out into fair and respectful treatment of citizens on the street by your officers, thus reducing citizen complaints and improving public perceptions of the police.

There is a great deal of discussion around the concept of procedural justice in dealing with the public and that conversation is undoubtedly important. But how often do we consider procedural justice when it comes to the work lives of our own officers? The available evidence indicates that a perceived lack of fairness in police leadership among officers is a problem that should be addressed for the sake of law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.

Don’t Have a “Rubber Gun Squad”? Separation Agreements in Public Safety

Posted on by WDC Marketing

For years, the New York City Police Department has reserved a place within the department that is widely known as the “rubber gun squad”. This “squad” is comprised of individual officers who cannot be put on the street to conduct normal police operations for a variety of reasons.

Many of the officers have been reinstated by an arbitrator or judge, but the department leadership cannot put them back on the street. Agency leaders have concerns about these officers’ ability and/or willingness to protect and serve in a safe manner, not to mention a potential lack of credibility in testifying in court due to past instances of dishonesty. So leaders conclude, “We can’t fire them, we can’t trust them on the street, so we’ll put them in the corner and have them wait out the clock until they retire.”

A 2011 investigative article by the New York Post estimated that the annual cost to taxpayers of keeping these individuals on the payroll was approximately $22 million.[1] Although a 2015 report by the New York Daily News indicated that these numbers were substantially reduced under Commissioner Bill Bratton down to 260 officers, the cost is still substantial.[2]

The NYPD is certainly not alone in this predicament, even though the nation’s largest municipal law enforcement agency’s rubber gun squad is probably the most famous. What often does not gain as much public attention is the fact that countless public safety agencies throughout the country are essentially hiding problem officers, firefighters and other public safety professionals in positions where they are believed to be least likely to trigger liability, threaten public safety and damage the public trust. What is particularly troubling is that many agencies hide these individuals in positions that should be reserved for the best of their personnel—recruiting, training and community relations. This extremely small percentage of agency personnel remain employed and persist in causing stress and strain for supervisors and often lower morale for fellow employees.

In cases like these, agencies should consider whether separation agreements are an effective way of dealing with toxic employees in a way that allows the agency to move forward.

What are Separation Agreements?

Although the terms of a particular agreement may vary, a separation agreement is typically entered into between the agency and the employee that agency leaders consider to be a “bad apple”. The basic terms of these agreements are simple—the employee waives his or her rights to arbitration or court claims related to their employment with the agency and in return the agency pays the employee to walk away from the agency.

For the agency, the thinking behind the agreement is fundamentally that:

  • We have failed to thoroughly document this employee’s history of misconduct, have handed him or her annual “get out of jail free” cards in the form of positive performance evaluations, and are therefore unlikely to be successful in arbitration or in a court of law if we try to terminate this employee. This is because, as the saying goes, if it’s not in writing, then it didn’t happen.
  • On the other hand, we have a professional and ethical responsibility to prevent this individual from serving in a position where his or her misconduct could result in danger to co-workers and members of the public and the loss of public trust that accompanies it.

Are Separation Agreements Actually Being Utilized by Public Safety Agencies?

Throughout the nation, some public safety agencies are utilizing these agreements. They can be used immediately following a termination decision—in anticipation of a lengthy battle in arbitration or in court—or after an order of reinstatement has come from a court or arbitrator. A few recent examples include:

  • In 2017, a terminated Seattle police officer agreed to accept $100,000 to waive her right to challenge her termination before an arbitrator.[3]
  • In 2016, an Illinois firefighter agreed to accept $100,000 to waive his right to challenge his termination before an arbitrator.[4]
  • In 2017, a Montana deputy accepted $400,000 to waive his right to return to work after he was ordered to be reinstated by a judge.[5]
  • In 2017, a Rhode Island firefighter accepted $175,000 to waive his right to return to work after he was order to be reinstated by an arbitrator.[6]

In all of the above cases, the governmental decision-makers publicly argued that it was in the agency’s best interest to pay the financial price necessary to move forward without the employee in question retaining the profound responsibilities of a public safety professional. Obviously, since all of these public safety employees were terminated, it is at least the position of their former employers that they are not fit to serve the community as first responders.

Possibly more common than opting for separation agreements are agency leaders who openly acknowledge that they wanted the employee fired but have capitulated due to the fear of reinstatement. It seems difficult to overstate how damaging it can be to the public trust for leaders to acknowledge that they believe an individual is unfit to serve but they continue to serve nonetheless.

Not a “Magic Bullet”

Separation agreements seem to be an underappreciated option at the disposal of frustrated agency leaders who feel helpless in the face of arbitrators and judges who have, or seem poised to, reinstate individuals that they feel pose some threat to the public and agency members. Leaders are prone to protesting that they believe that arbitrators, in particular, go out of their way to reinstate officers even in the face of clearly egregious misconduct. They often feel powerless in determining the composition of the ranks that they lead.

Without either confirming nor challenging this common assertion, the fundamental question emerges: what options to agency leaders have when they believe that they have an obligation to remove a “bad apple” from their ranks? First, they can tolerate the behavior and seek to minimize it by “hiding” the employee to the extent possible. Second, they can terminate the employee with the knowledge that arbitrators or courts might well overturn their decision.  But third, they can negotiate with the employee to separate from the agency in a way that sticks—a way that is contractual and legally binding.

The first two options—either tolerating or terminating and “rolling the dice”—have certainly been tried by public safety leaders throughout the country. And the third option of separation agreements generally involves the payment of substantial sums of money.

But how expensive is it to pay the salary of a public safety professional who could cost the agency millions of dollars at any moment? It seems that agency leaders would be well served to at least consider separation agreements as a less-than-perfect but hopefully better-than-disastrous third option.

About the Author

Matt Dolan is a licensed attorney who specializes in training and advising public safety agencies in matters of legal liability. His training focuses on helping agency leaders create sound policies and procedures as a proactive means of minimizing their exposure to costly liability. A member of a law enforcement family dating back three generations, he serves as both Director and Public Safety Instructor with Dolan Consulting Group.

His training courses include Recruiting and Hiring for Law Enforcement, Confronting the Toxic Officer, Performance Evaluations for Public Safety, Making Discipline Stick®, and Supervisor Liability for Public Safety.

[1] https://nypost.com/2011/03/20/outcast-cops-still-rake-it-in/

[2] http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/exclusive-nypd-disciplinary-process-bad-cops-revamping-article-1.2162759

[3] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/city-attorney-defends-settlement-payment-to-seattle-cop-fired-over-golf-club-arrest/

[4] http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/news/ct-sta-oak-lawn-settlement-st-1131-20161202-story.html

[5] https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/crime/fired-gallatin-county-deputy-settles-civil-cases-for-k/article_9d1f3981-df2e-5550-98a9-8425196c9221.html

[6] http://www.newportri.com/a0da0e57-1845-5d28-ba7b-a07cff80957b.html

4 Performance Evaluation Pitfalls Your Agency Should Avoid

Posted on by WDC Marketing

Broken performance evaluation systems damage public safety agencies across the country in two ways. First, they inaccurately give positive documentation to officers that are later used to reverse important disciplinary decisions in court or in arbitration. Second, by selecting “meets expectations,” supervisors are denying performance merits to officers who have earned much greater recognition.

More often than not, it seems that supervisors view the completion of annual performance evaluations to be a tedious chore that they have to undertake once a year with little genuine regard for why we are conducting these evaluations and how they are helping the subordinate, the supervisor or the agency.

This dim view of performance evaluations by supervisors often results from four fundamental problems in the process. So, as public safety professionals, you may want to ask yourself if these common mistakes are harming your agency operations.

1—The Evaluation criteria has no real relationship to day-to-day job responsibilities.

Often the criteria by which officers, deputies, firefighters and other public safety personnel are “graded” is so generic as to be seen as meaningless. These criteria could often apply to the personnel in parks and recreations, the public library or any other facet of government—all important jobs but ones that have no nuts and bolts similarities to the work of a police officer or firefighter. In fact, some local governments essentially create city-wide or county-wide evaluation forms that inevitably fail to take into account the unique “nuts and bolts” of the various jobs included under that umbrella.

If you want your evaluations to be a meaningful communication of how well a patrol officer is coming along (where they have room for improvement and areas where they should keep up the good work) then the criteria should be directly related to their unique job description. Furthermore, ask the question: what do our patrol sergeants expect to see from their people on a given shift? Those are the criteria that should be reflected on the evaluation forms rather than generic categories that essentially amounts to “gets along well with others.”

 2—Requiring Additional Documentation Based on the Quality of the “Grade” Given

Most men and women drawn to public safety are not in it for the paperwork. They already feel that they are buried in administrative tasks as it is. Why would we communicate to them that a “needs improvement” grade or an “exceeds expectations” grade will trigger a new round of paperwork assignments while a “meets expectations” grade requires basically no documented justification whatsoever? The unintended consequence of such a system is to encourage supervisors to “circle down the middle”—regardless of the subordinate’s performance—in order to avoid documentation that is not only time-consuming but requires the supervisor to recall specific incidents of misconduct or exemplary work spanning 12 months.

If you want to require documentation to support ratings, consider requiring the same amount of documentation regardless of the quality of the grade. The desire to avoid paperwork is a powerful incentive to overlook performance problems as well as excellence. Removing that inherent incentive to “circle down the middle” may be a necessity.

3—Averaging Scores Across the Board

There are some areas of public safety work that are essential to an individual’s ability to safely fulfill their obligation to the agency and the community. And a severe deficiency in one area does not necessarily mean that there are similar deficiencies across other areas of daily work performance.  However, an overall positive evaluation may well be an inaccurate reflection of the fact that the severe deficiency in one particular area could result in significant discipline, including termination, if there is not substantial improvement.

For instance, a patrol deputy could show up promptly for every shift in appropriate attire, show pro-activity in initiating stops for serious traffic violations, respond promptly to calls for service and do so with little or no complaints from the public as a result of the fact that he is professional in his dealings with the public. The only problem is that he is a dangerously incompetent driver. He “needs improvement” in his skills as a driver and his accidents and close calls are duly documented on his performance evaluation. But his overall grade as a deputy is “meets expectations” due to his proficiency in other areas.

Can an individual’s deficiencies in a key safety area be so significant that an overall “meets expectations” is not a fair reflection of their need to address performance issues? Furthermore, could these deficiencies be so significant in one key area that it is unethical for an agency to allow him to remain employed in his current capacity without substantial improvement? It seems obvious that the answers to these questions is a clear yes.

If you want to give individuals a general sense of how they are performing overall, while they may exceed expectations in some areas but need improvement in others, consider the caveat that a “needs improvement” in particular key areas renders an overall grading of “meets expectations” as an impossibility. Fundamentally, a patrol deputy is expected to demonstrate proficiency in following lawful directives, driving ability, firearms proficiency, professional communication with the public and adherence to protocol related to officer safety in making stops and responding to calls for service. It would seem impossible that a deputy could consistently fail in one of these areas while simultaneously meeting a supervisor’s standards set forth for the position of deputy. Your evaluations should reflect this common-sense reality.

 4—Tying Merit Pay Raises to Obtaining a Particular Grade

The idea of tying pay raises to performance sounds like a good one. Well-intentioned local political leaders are often enthusiastic to pass rules and legislation requiring, for instance, that only those who “exceed expectations” in their performance be justly rewarded with a pay raise. They assume this will encourage public safety personnel to strive for excellence and ensure that excellence is rewarded.  The reality tends to be starkly different.

Very quickly, merit pay raises are seen by those within the agency as an overdue pay raise for all department members. Therefore, a supervisor’s decision to indicate anything lower than “exceeds expectations” is nothing short of taking money out of somebody’s pocket. The reluctance of supervisors to accurately identify performance problems in this environment is often predictable.  Supervisors often reason that, “I know she’s not getting the job done and she’s causing more problems than she solves when she’s working…but we haven’t had a pay increase in five years and I’m not going to take money out of her pocket”. 

So, an employee who is the source of constant problems now has a piece of paper from her subordinate stating that she is doing great. And that piece of paper may well become very relevant if the agency decides to deny her a promotion, suspend her or even terminate her at some point in the future. “If she’s been such a problem”, the argument will be in court or in arbitration, “then why did the agency consistently grade her as an excellent employee?”

If there is funding available for merit pay raises, agency leaders should consider advocating an across the board pay increase in light of the nation-wide prominence of the unintended consequences associated with tying pay increases to positive performance evaluations. Inflating evaluation grades across the agency can have extremely detrimental effects when agency leaders attempt to make disciplinary decisions down the road.

Improving Case Clearance Rates in Criminal Investigations

Posted on by WDC Marketing

While it is obviously best to prevent or deter crime before it occurs, this is not always possible. Despite the fact that modern policing tactics, such as problem-oriented policing and intelligence-led policing, have contributed to massive crime decreases since the 1990s, agencies still have to grapple with the challenge of solving crimes that cannot be prevented.[i]

When criminal offenders avoid detection and punishment, it signals to the rest of society that the justice system is impotent and may encourage future offending.  This applies not only to the most heinous crimes such as homicide and rape but also applies to violations of people’s fundamental sense of security in cases of burglary and robbery.

The available evidence strongly suggests that agencies should always be mindful of the fact that the first officers or deputies on the scene play a crucial role in solving these crimes.  Officers’ actions upon arriving are often the difference between a case becoming solved or going unsolved.   

Burglary and Robbery Cases

One study conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum examined burglary and robbery cases across three years within three large law enforcement agencies. This study discovered that, of the cases cleared by arrest, most were cleared through the initial investigation conducted by the first patrol officers on the scene. A much smaller number of cases were cleared later through follow-up investigations by detectives. Analysis of all of the solved cases revealed what investigating techniques were most effective at clearing a case through an arrest. The most techniques were close cooperation between patrol officers and detectives, neighborhood canvasses looking for witnesses, use of informants, and the collection and analysis of physical evidence.[ii]

A study by the Police Foundation examined the length of time it took to solve a burglary, robbery, and theft cases in Rochester, New York. This study found that close cooperation between patrol officers and detectives in locating witnesses and physical evidence was a major factor in clearing these cases quickly.[iii] 

Violent Crimes and Homicides

One study examined case clearance rates for violent crimes in four cities across two years. This study found the most effective actions the first officers on the scene could take to help solve the case were to secure the scene to protect physical evidence, search for eyewitnesses, and request assistance from other officers, detectives, or crime scene technicians. After the scene was secure, the most effective officer actions included searching for additional witnesses, collecting physical evidence, and submitting evidence for forensic analysis. Additionally, the more training the officers and detectives had received in criminal investigation techniques, the higher their case clearance rates.[iv]

Finally, a three-year examination of homicide cases in Boston revealed found that specific actions by patrol officers increased the clearance rates of homicides by 18%. These actions included quickly securing the scene, rapidly summoning detectives and crime scene technicians, locating physical evidence for the investigators, and continuing to look for, and interview, witnesses in the days following the homicide. Regarding the actions of the detectives, the most influential actions they could take to solve the case involved finding witnesses, collecting physical evidence, and having that evidence forensically analyzed.[v] 

Conclusion

These four studies paint a consistent picture about what is needed in order to increase criminal case clearance rates. Strong cooperation and sharing of responsibilities between patrol officers and detectives is crucial. Patrol officers play a major part in the process by securing the scene, protecting potential evidence, locating witnesses at hand, and continuing to search for additional witnesses and informants over the days following the crime. Detectives, patrol officers, and crime scene technicians together play a joint role in locating, collecting, and analyzing physical evidence. Finally, criminal investigation training plays a pivotal role in equipping officers to perform these functions effectively, and giving them the confidence to seek justice for victims of crime.  

[i] Hoover, L. T. (2014). Police Crime Control Strategies. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar.

[ii] Eck. J. E. (1983). Solving Crimes: The Investigation of Robbery and Burglary. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

[iii] Bloch, P., & Bell, D. (1976). Managing Criminal Investigations: The Rochester System. Washington, DC: The Police Foundation.

[iv] Wellford, C., & Cronin, J. (1999). An Analysis of Variables Affecting the Clearance of Homicides: A Multistate Study. Washington, DC: Justice Research and Statistics Association.

[v] Braga, A. A., & Dusseault, D. (2017). Can homicide detectives improve homicide clearance rates? Crime and Delinquency, 1-33.

References  

[1] Hoover, L. T. (2014). Police Crime Control Strategies. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar.

[1] Eck. J. E. (1983). Solving Crimes: The Investigation of Robbery and Burglary. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

[1] Bloch, P., & Bell, D. (1976). Managing Criminal Investigations: The Rochester System. Washington, DC: The Police Foundation.

[1] Wellford, C., & Cronin, J. (1999). An Analysis of Variables Affecting the Clearance of Homicides: A Multistate Study. Washington, DC: Justice Research and Statistics Association.

[1] Braga, A. A., & Dusseault, D. (2017). Can homicide detectives improve homicide clearance rates? Crime and Delinquency, 1-33.

Citizen Complaints and Misconduct—The 3 Career Paths

Posted on by WDC Marketing

Most research on citizen complaints and rule violations shows that allegations against police officers generally happen within the first five years of that officer’s career. If the officer is lucky enough to still have a job after these first five years, complaints and other career problems tend to subside for the rest of the officer’s career. Most officers who receive a complaint or two as they learn the craft of policing have learned how to deal with the public, and have learned to fit in within their organization, by year six. For the rest of an officer’s career, complaints and rule violations tend to be rare.[1] 

In our training courses on liability and management issues, however, we often hear a different story from police executives, first-line field supervisors, and human resources professionals. Quite often we hear stories about a long-term toxic employee who wreaked havoc within the organization well beyond the first five years of their career. Although few in number, these long-term toxic employees, who generate stress for fellow officers and supervisors, are such a distraction from the agency mission that supervisors and other employees seem to spend more time dealing with internal issues than they spend actually serving and protecting the public. Toxic employees tend to be perpetual plaintiffs who file baseless grievances, complaints, and lawsuits throughout their careers. As they generate citizen complaints and lawsuits, they also work to intimidate supervisors through threats of legal action.    

How are these two perspectives reconciled? Recent research conducted by Dr. Christopher Harris, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Massachusetts – Lowell, has shed new light on the various career pathways of law enforcement officers with regard to citizen complaints and other misconduct allegations. Dr. Harris had the unique opportunity to examine almost two decades of data from the personnel files of a medium-sized city police department in the state of New York. Crunching the data on citizen complaints, he identified three distinct career paths among the officers employed by this law enforcement agency. These three career paths are illustrated in the graph below.[2]

Officer Career Paths

The first career path, what we will call Group 1, made up approximately 61% of the officers who served with the department. Group 1 officers start their careers experiencing very few problems. They may experience between zero and two citizen complaints or rule violations during their first six years of service, and even these are generally for minor issues. After that, their risk of accumulating further citizen complaints or rule violations declines steadily with further misconduct rarely to occur again. These are the officers who come to the career with a strong set of skills—especially interpersonal skills—and adapt quickly to the law enforcement work environment. They never receive a large number of complaints or misconduct allegations and the low rate of incidents continually decreases as they become more seasoned officers.[3]         

The second career path, Group 2, makes up approximately 35% of officers. Members of this group experience a rough start to their careers, as they accumulate several citizen complaints or rule violations. During the first six years of their careers, Group 2 officers make mistakes and may average as many as two complaints a year as they find their footing and learn the craft of policing. Most of their rule violations and citizen complaints are still minor, but progressive discipline and remedial training may communicate the necessity for behavior change and help these officers improve their performance weaknesses. Those Group 2 officers who are able to make it to year six of their careers without being terminated because of their performance, generally experience a steady decline in future performance problems. This decline continues until, by mid-career, Group 1 and Group 2 officers are indistinguishable. Group 2 officers needed to learn over the course of a few years what came naturally to Group 1.[4]

Officers in the last group, Group 3, make up only about 4% of the officers on the department. They also experience a rough start to their careers. Many times (but not always), the seriousness of the allegations against them are more severe than what is encountered with Group 2 officers. Furthermore, Group 3 officer misbehavior does not show much of a decline across the officer’s career. Misbehavior starts high and decreases only slightly from the start to the middle of the officer’s career, if the officer is able to stay employed with the agency. Progressive discipline, retraining, reassignment, and suspensions have no impact on these officers.[5]

Dr. Harris’ research also discovered another interesting finding. At roughly the mid-point of the officer’s career, Group 3 misconduct begins to increase again. Perhaps when these officers are past the mid-points of their careers they feel impervious to lawsuits and departmental discipline. Somehow they have kept their jobs after ten or fifteen years of complaints, lawsuits, and internal allegations. It makes sense that they might feel untouchable. In addition to being a menace to the community, these officers are a drain on the morale of the organization. One study that surveyed officers from a number of law enforcement agencies in Arizona revealed patrol officers know the identities of the problem officers on their departments, and they are bitter that management has not gotten rid of these toxic officers.[6]

Dr. Harris’ findings about these persistent problem officers coincide with a different study that examined a sample of police officers arrested for criminal offenses. In that study, a nationwide sample of police officers who ended up getting charged with a criminal offense was tracked for 10 years after arrest. The types of officer’s offenses involved drunken driving, public drunkenness, domestic battery, stalking, simple battery, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and solicitation for prostitution. Of these officers, 61% were terminated, but 36% were miraculously able to keep their jobs. Among those who remained employed as law enforcement officers, 79% ended up being re-arrested for a new criminal offense within 10 years. Severe lapses of judgement that lead to criminal charges tend to persist.[7]  

Conclusion

It appears that termination is often the eventual appropriate outcome for Group 3 individuals. However, unless their early misbehavior is serious, such as a crime, it may take time to differentiate whether a new officer is exhibiting Group 2 or Group 3 behavior. The immediate response to misbehavior should be documentation and progressive discipline applied to correct performance. It may take time to develop sufficient documentation and justification to terminate the misbehaving officer. As part of this documentation, keep in mind that if misbehavior has occurred, the officer should not be receiving satisfactory performance evaluations because the officer’s performance did not meet expectations if misbehavior was confirmed. An underserved satisfactory performance evaluation will also come back to bite your organization later if it is necessary to pursue the officer’s termination. If corrective action fails to show signs of significant performance improvement by year six of the officer’s career, termination may be overdue. Luckily, these types of employees tend to be rare – less than 1 in 20 officers in Dr. Harris’ study.

 

References  

[1] Harris, C. J. (2010). Problem officers: an analysis of problem behavior patterns from a large cohort. Journal Criminal Justice, 38(2), 216-225; Hassell, K., & Archbold, C. (2010). Widening the scope on complaints of police misconduct. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 33(3), 473-489; Lersch, K., Bazley, T., & Mieczkowski, T. (2006). Early intervention programs; an effective police accountability tool or punishment for the productive? Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 29(1), 58-76.

[2] Harris, C. J. (2010). Pathways of Police Misconduct. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press; Harris, C. J. (2011). Problem behaviors in later portions of officers’ careers. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 34(1), 135-152.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Solomon, S. J., & Johnson, R. R. (2013). Subsequent arrests of previously arrested police officers: the influence of continued employment in policing. Law Enforcement Executive Forum, 13(1), 24-33.

Public Perceptions of Police Profanity

Posted on by WDC Marketing

The use of profanity when dealing with members of the public has been debated in law enforcement circles for years. Most law enforcement leaders argue the use of profanity with members of the public is unprofessional and should be avoided whenever possible. Other leaders disagree with this. They instead argue that officers often need to use the “language of the street” in order to be understood and viewed as authoritative by some segments of the population.[1]

Prior research has revealed that the use of profanity generally has negative repercussions in various social settings. Studies of doctors and therapists have revealed that patients view them as less competent if they use profanity.[2] In other studies, job applicants for college faculty positions were less likely to be hired if they used profanity, and faculty members were perceived as less professional if they used profanity in speeches and presentations.[3] Unfortunately, no research has examined police use of profanity until now.

How Speech Affects Sense of Authority

Findings from a very important study, conducted by a research team from West Virginia University, have just been released in the Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology. This study examined the influence of profanity on public perceptions of police use of force. In this study, in-car cameras were used to video record a use of force scenario. The participants in these scenarios were defensive tactics instructors with the Pennsylvania State Police. In the scenario, one instructor portrayed a criminal suspect who refused to exit a car on a traffic stop. Another instructor, dressed in uniform, played the role of the officer. In the scenario, the officer made repeated commands for the suspect to exit the vehicle while the suspect refuses to exit the car. The officer then lawfully employs an armbar technique to remove the suspect from the car and take him into custody.[4]

In one version of the scenario, the officer uses one word of profanity only once during the interaction. In another version, the officer does not use any profanity. One set of scenarios were recorded with a male officer, and another set of videos were recorded with a female in the officer role. A nationwide sample of 522 people were each recruited to view one version of the video and indicate if they thought the officer’s use of force was appropriate. Each participant also completed a survey that gathered demographic data (age, sex, race, etc.) and measured the person’s level of trust in the police.[5]

The findings revealed the participants were more likely to believe that the officer’s use of force was excessive in the scenario where the officer used profanity. Both individuals who reported high trust of the police and individuals who were skeptical of the police were more likely to believe the use of force was excessive if the officer swore during the interaction. The same was true, no matter if the participants saw the version with the male or the female officer. The participants’ race, sex, or age also had no influence on their responses. In all situations, the participants were more likely to perceive the version involving profanity as excessive, and less likely to perceive the “clean” version as not excessive.[6]

It is important to note that the use of force portrayed in all versions of the scenario was lawful and legitimate under the circumstances. In all versions, the word “fuck” was said once and did not involve any derogatory insults or threats toward the citizen. Nevertheless, this simple utterance of frustration was enough to sway the opinions of members of the public who viewed the interaction, causing them to be more likely to perceive that the officer’s actions were illegitimate.

This is important information for any law enforcement officer who interacts with the public. It also reinforces what we teach in our Surviving Verbal Conflict® and Winning Back Your Community courses about the fallacy of the “language of the street.” This study provides important evidence that officer use of profanity, even when not directed at a citizen, causes the officer’s actions to appear illegitimate in the eyes of the public. Furthermore, there are countless examples of controversial and even career-ending encounters caught on tape that turn not solely on an officer’s actions but an officer’s words—leading up to, during, and following an encounter.

Conclusion

While we recognize that this job—and the words and actions of those you encounter on-duty—can be very frustrating at times. Expressing profanity within earshot of the public, however, will only continue to hurt our profession. This new study supports the idea that reasonable members of the community accept the fact that officers must utilize force and engage in other enforcement actions that are not necessarily pleasant. What they have a more difficult time accepting is the notion that law enforcement officers fail to exhibit a professional demeanor consistent with their position.             

 

 

 References

[1] Baker, M. (1985). Cops: Their Lives in Their Own Words. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster; Fletcher, C. (1992). What Cops Know. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

[2] Heubusch, N. & Horan, J. J. (1977). Some effects of counselor profanity in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 24, 456-458; Kottke, J. L. & MacLeod, C. D. (1989). Use of profanity in the counseling interview. Psychological Reports, 65, 627-634; Phillips, M. & Kassinove, H. (1987). Effects of profanity, touch, and sex of the counselor on perceptions of the counselor and behavior compliance. Journal of Rational Emotive Therapy, 5, 3-12.

[3] Morgan, B. L. & Korschgen, J. A. (2001). The ethics of faculty behavior: Students’ and professor’s views. College Studies Journal, 35, 418-432; Powell, L., Callahan, K., Comas, C., McDonald, L. & MansellJ. (1984). Offensive language and impressions during an interview. Psychological Reports, 55, 617-618.

[4] Patton, C. L., Asken, M., Fremouw, W.J., & Bemis, R. (Forthcoming 2017). The influence of police profanity on public perception of excessive force. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[1] Baker, M. (1985). Cops: Their Lives in Their Own Words. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster; Fletcher, C. (1992). What Cops Know. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

[1] Heubusch, N. & Horan, J. J. (1977). Some effects of counselor profanity in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 24, 456-458; Kottke, J. L. & MacLeod, C. D. (1989). Use of profanity in the counseling interview. Psychological Reports, 65, 627-634; Phillips, M. & Kassinove, H. (1987). Effects of profanity, touch, and sex of the counselor on perceptions of the counselor and behavior compliance. Journal of Rational Emotive Therapy, 5, 3-12.

[1] Morgan, B. L. & Korschgen, J. A. (2001). The ethics of faculty behavior: Students’ and professor’s views. College Studies Journal, 35, 418-432; Powell, L., Callahan, K., Comas, C., McDonald, L. & MansellJ. (1984). Offensive language and impressions during an interview. Psychological Reports, 55, 617-618.

[1] Patton, C. L., Asken, M., Fremouw, W.J., & Bemis, R. (Forthcoming 2017). The influence of police profanity on public perception of excessive force. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology.

[1] Ibid.

[1] Ibid.

The FTO Process—A Once-in-a-Career Opportunity

Posted on by WDC Marketing

The probationary employment period presents public safety leaders with a unique opportunity to evaluate performance, identify “red flags” and take proactive measures to address misconduct. For most officers, the close supervision and continual feedback that they receive from their Field Training Officers (FTOs) during this period will not be replicated for the entirety of their career. If, during this period, FTOs find probationary officers to demonstrate fundamental job deficiencies, there is no better time to have the difficult but critical conversation concerning whether the officer is salvageable. 

While it is certainly normal for probationary officers to make mistakes, there is often a clear distinction between understandable mental mistakes versus performance issues that reflect on core character issues such as honesty, willingness to accept responsibility for errors and ability to receive corrective feedback. 

There is no good time for agency leaders and front-line supervisors to determine the severity of performance issues with the possibility of termination on the table. But, from a legal liability standpoint, there is no better time than during the FTO process—prior to an officer’s status shifting from probationary to permanent, with all of the arbitration, appeals and/or due process rights that come with this change in employment status.   

There are several key factors that make the FTO process crucial to supervisors’ ability to effectively gage officer performance and make fundamental decisions regarding the men and women that represent their agency now and for years to come.

  • For many probationary officers, this is not just their first job in public safety. It is their first job of any kind or, at least, the first job in which they will be subjected to the unique challenges associated with encountering people in crisis. It is often unreasonable to expect a background investigation or even an academy curriculum to reveal all that an agency should want to know about the character and resiliency of their latest hire. Your FTOs may prove to be the people best suited to genuinely vet applicants before they are permanent employees.
  • The probationary period is typically a period of unparalleled supervision and constant corrective feedback. A new officer’s ability and/or willingness to accept that feedback and respond appropriately to that often proves to be an indicator of future problems. The refusal to accept responsibility and engage in a good faith effort to meet performance expectations is frequently cited by public safety leaders as one of the telltale signs of a toxic officer who can present a career’s worth of problems for the agency.
  • The in-depth documentation of this corrective feedback and the officer’s responses is likely more consistent, detailed and accurate than the performance evaluations that will follow for the remainder of a permanent officer’s career. If termination is necessary during the probationary period at the urging of hands-on FTOs, it is likely to be accompanied by documentation demonstrating the objective performance and misconduct issues that have led to the termination decision.
  • The legal protections afforded to permanent employees in public safety is generally substantial—including federal and state anti-discrimination protections, state police officers’ bill of rights laws and due process rights. While probationary employees do have some legal recourse in the face of termination, the burden placed on the agency to demonstrate that a probationary employee was lawfully terminated for performance deficiencies often pales in comparison to the burden they face in terminating a permanent employee.

In light of the window of opportunity presented by the probationary employment period, public safety agencies would be well served to analyze the time and resources that are dedicated to the FTO process.  In our Recruiting and Hiring for Law Enforcement training, we discuss the concept of the FTO process as an integral part of the hiring and vetting process. Also, in our Confronting the Toxic Officer training, we identify the probationary period as the best available opportunity to make necessary termination decisions that stick when subjected to legal challenges.

Agencies across the country often realize too late that the chance to streamline the evaluation and possible termination of the few bad apples inside the department has come and gone only after the FTO process has ended and a problem officer’s status has gone from probationary to permanent.

Verbal De-escalation Techniques: How They Actually Work

Posted on by WDC Marketing

Our verbal de-escalation courses help public safety professionals deal with difficult and argumentative verbal interactions with citizens without risking their careers.

At the heart of this is the Rhetorical Continuum—in other words, just like there are ranges of force, there are also various levels of rhetoric that you can use to overcome citizen resistance. Like the use of force continuum, the Rhetorical Continuum provides public safety personnel with a range of response techniques that are applied to the situation in proportion to the citizen’s level of verbal resistance.

It is crucial that we understand how this works, because we must operate under an unprecedented amount of transparency today. Every conversation you have with a citizen can be recorded and posted online. With that in mind, it’s crucial for you to understand how verbal de-escalation techniques can be applied in the situations you respond to every day.

In this article, we’ll look at the various forms of persuasion along the Rhetorical Continuum and what it looks like to use them in common situations faced by public safety professionals. The examples in this article are things that every public safety professional of any rank can use when talking to the public or responding to a potentially dangerous call.

Types of Persuasion

The principles underlying the Rhetorical Continuum come from Aristotle’s principles of rhetoric.[i] Rhetoric is another term for persuasion with words, the art of changing someone’s mind through reasoning, and Aristotle revealed three methods of persuasion—ethos, logos, and pathos. Today these can be understood as the ethical appeal, the logical appeal and the emotional appeal. 

Ethos, or one’s ethical appeal, refers to people being persuaded to comply because it is perceived as the ethical or moral thing to do. The ethical appeal only works when people accept that you, and your requests, are legitimate. If people perceive that you lack legitimacy because of your appearance, words, or actions, then it is hard to gain compliance. Logos, or one’s logical appeal, refers to the use of logical explanation in order to change a person’s mind. Some people need to hear a logical reason for a request before they will comply. Pathos, or appeals to one’s passions, refers to people being persuaded by reasoning that touches their personal sentiments or emotions. Pathos persuasion shows people how they will personally benefit from cooperating.[ii]

Language—Verbal and Nonverbal

How do these three concepts apply to helping public safety professionals deal with difficult and argumentative verbal interactions with citizens? People respond better to one type of persuasion over another depending on their personality, the context of the situation, or their mood at the moment. Public safety professionals need to be able to determine the most appropriate method of persuasion for each specific situation, and apply the appropriate persuasion method to gain citizen compliance or cooperation.

Public safety professionals exercise the ethical appeal by conveying legitimacy through their official position, physical appearance, and professional communication. Most people in society are agreeable, and they will comply with authority figures if they believe the authority figures are legitimate. Public safety professionals carry legitimacy in their official position, being a law enforcement officer, firefighter, or EMT. Citizens most often determine your authority by your uniform.[iii] For the ethical appeal to work, how you dress needs to communicate your legitimate authority. Do the clothes you wear at work clearly communicate to citizens your profession? Can a citizen easily determine that you are a public safety professional. Will people have difficulty determining if you are a police officer, soldier, or firefighter based on your uniform choice? Does the neatness of your uniform communicate that you are detail-oriented and competent? In order to effectively persuade citizens with your ethical appeal, your appearance needs to convey that your official position and your competence.

Ethical appeal also includes your words and nonverbal body movements. To establish your legitimacy with words, you should introduce yourself and briefly state the reason for your interaction. Besides being a universal human cultural norm, introducing yourself reinforces your legitimate authority. Just as your uniform says “I’m a police officer,” so does your introduction. “Hello, sir. I’m Officer Dolan with the Raleigh Police Department.” This statement respectfully conveys that you have certain authority (police authority) in this specific context (Raleigh). It politely and subconsciously communicates, “I’m a cop. You should obey what I say.” Following this with a brief explanation for your interaction provides a legitimate reason for interrupting or detaining the citizen. “The reason I stopped you today is because of your excessive speed.” Quick sentences like this explain that you have a legitimate legal right to be there and to intrude on the citizen’s life. Your nonverbal behaviors, such as your stance, tone of voice, and facial expression, should also be consistent with your statements, so that there are no mixed messages to confuse the citizen.

The ethical appeal will usually work to gain compliance from most citizens, especially law-abiding ones. Failure to use at least the ethical appeal, however, will cause even agreeable people to turn against you. If you do not look unprofessional, and address people in an unprofessional manner, then even law-abiding citizens may be reluctant to cooperate with you.        

While the ethical appeal can persuade many people to comply, it will not persuade everyone. In such cases, a public safety professional may need to add logical appeal. The logical appeal entails explaining to the citizen why it makes logical sense to cooperate with your requests. “Folks, I’m going to need you to move back from the police tape, so we can get an ambulance in here. We have a person who needs immediate medical attention at the hospital.” This quick statement provides a logical reason for clearing a path and is far more effective than simply yelling, “Everybody get back!”

It is important to note that one adds the logical appeal to the ethical appeal, rather than switching from one method to the other. While employing logic to persuade the citizen, one also needs to keep employing the professionalism of the ethical appeal. If the citizen becomes argumentative or insulting, use verbal deflection to step over the distraction and get back to the point. Imagine that while you are clearing the way for the ambulance, one person is not moving and says, “I have a right to be here!” Employing both the ethical and logical appeals means not engaging in a debate with the citizen, but deflecting the statement and providing logical persuasion instead. “I hear that, sir, and I’m not saying you have to leave, But I do need to clear a path for the ambulance to save this person’s life.”

The vast majority of people will comply when you use the ethical appeal, or combine it with the logical appeal. Nevertheless, there might still be that individual who needs even more persuasion. In these situations, the emotional appeal is added in an attempt to reach the citizen’s internal motives for compliance. For example, if the citizen still refuses to clear an ambulance path, the emotional appeal could focus on fostering feelings of guilt. “Sir, if that person dies because you delayed the ambulance, are you willing to live with that on your conscience? What will the people in this neighborhood think of you for doing that?” These statements tap into the person’s self-centeredness and desire to maximize pleasure while minimizing pain—in this case, the pain of guilt or neighbor retribution.    

The emotional appeal sometimes involves giving people options that will allow you to get your job done, yet still offer benefits for the citizen. “Sir, you got some good options for places to stand to still watch what is going on. I’m not telling you to leave. You can stand over there on the sidewalk or the grass, but I need the street clear. What do you say you work with me on this and watch from the sidewalk?” If all else fails, you may need to explain the negative consequences that will befall the citizen if he refuses to cooperate, and confirm that he really wants these consequences. “Sir, I’m going to do whatever I can to try to save that person’s life. If you will not clear a path for the ambulance, then I will have no other option left but to arrest you. Sir, that would be a shame as you have lots of other options right now. Is this really what you want?”

In these statements, the professionalism of the words conveys the ethical appeal and the sensibleness of the suggestions conveys the logical appeal. The emotional appeal builds on top of the other two persuasion styles. If the logical appeal fails, however, the situation was beyond verbal de-escalation and physical or legal action needs to be taken. Nevertheless, if an accusation later arises that you acted unprofessionally, anyone who saw or recorded the interaction would reject such an accusation.   

Like the use of force continuum, the Rhetorical Continuum arranges verbal persuasion options from lowest to highest levels of complexity and engagement. At the low end of the continuum is the ethical appeal alone, which requires the least complexity of effort. In the middle is the addition of the logical appeal, and the high end of the continuum is the emotional appeal. Also, like the use of force continuum, the citizen’s level of resistance determines the persuasion option applied by the public safety professional. 

Verbal De-escalation in Practice     

Here is what the Rhetorical Continuum looks like in action. Imagine that you are a law enforcement officer responding to a 911 call at an apartment. Neighbors reported hearing a women screaming for help from inside the apartment. You and your backup officer arrive at the apartment, dressed professionally in your clean and pressed duty uniforms. You do not hear any screaming, and when you knock a man answers the door looking surprised. Your uniform signals your authority, and you continue your ethical appeal with a meet and greet. “Hello, I’m Officer Smith with the police department. The reason I’m hear is we got some calls about a woman screaming in this apartment. May I come in to make sure everything is okay?” You have laid down a firm ethical appeal that a lot of Americans would accept and let you in the door to talk.

But what if he doesn’t let you in? What if he stands in the way and says, “Everything is okay. They must have just heard my television. I was watching a horror movie. I’ll keep the volume down.” You need to verify the safety of those inside the apartment, but right now there is no evidence of an emergency situation requiring you to rush inside immediately. Plus, the guy could be telling the truth. Because of his resistance, however, you now need to add your logical appeal by explaining why it is logical that he should let you inside the apartment.

“Sir, it may have been your television as you say, but I have an obligation to make sure that it was and that there is no one in danger in this apartment. Put yourself in my shoes for a minute. If neighbors were calling saying someone in this apartment was being attacked, you wouldn’t leave without making sure that wasn’t the case. Right? Of course you would make sure that everyone was safe before you left, and I’m in the same boat. We cannot leave until we verify everyone in the apartment is safe.” These statements lay out the clear logic behind a quick protective sweep, and anyone who wouldn’t comply at this point is intentionally trying to be difficult.

What if the man starts arguing or insulting you? Verbal deflectors are used to avoid being sidetracked with a debate, and keep on topic. For example, the man says, “You need a warrant to come in here.” You respond by saying, “In many cases we would need a warrant to enter, however not this time. The courts have ruled that 911 calls create exigent circumstances that allow us to come in. Could you please step aside so we can obey the law?” The man says, “You fascist thugs are violating my rights!” You respond, “I hear what you’re saying, Sir. I wouldn’t want the police in my house either, however the circumstances right now require it. What do you say we do this quickly? If everything checks out, we’ll be out of here in just a couple of minutes. Can you work with me here?”

If he still refuses to comply, it is time to add the emotional appeal by appealing to the man’s self-interests, explaining his positive options, explaining his potential negative consequences, and asking him to confirm noncompliance. “Sir, your neighbors are probably watching us right now. Why don’t you let us in so we talk about this in private so the neighbors won’t hear? Sir, this is taking up more of your time and we cannot leave until we check the apartment. You got a good option here. The faster you let us check the apartment, the faster we get out of here, leave you in peace, and stop making a scene for the neighbors. What do you say you let us make a quick check?” These statements appeal to the man’s self-interests and present cooperation as a positive, self-serving option for the man.

The man continues to block the door. You say, “Sir, I’ve explained we cannot leave without doing this first. I have explained I have a legal obligation to check the safety of anyone who might be in this apartment, and I’ve given you some good options for handling this. But if you delay me further I am going to have to physically move you. If that has to happen, someone might get hurt and you will probably end up getting arrested tonight. Do you really want to risk getting injured and spending the night in jail over this? Is it really worth it, and is it really what you want?”

At this point, if the man refuses to comply, the situation is beyond the Rhetorical Continuum and now moves to taking physical action. Depending on the situation, taking physical action can mean ending the encounter and withdrawing, requesting backup or SWAT, making an arrest, or using force. In this particular scenario, taking action would mean pushing past the man and arresting him if he physically resisted your efforts.        

Conclusion

We offer two types of verbal de-escalation classes: Surviving Verbal Conflict© and the Train the Trainer program. Both classes emphasize the Rhetorical Continuum when dealing with verbal resistance and argument from a citizen. Like the use of force continuum gives you physical force options, the Rhetorical Continuum gives you verbal persuasion options—ethical, logical, and emotional appeal—that correspond in complexity with the level of verbal resistance encountered. Using this tool helps public safety professionals visualize their verbal options, and understand when it is best to use each one. The Rhetorical Continuum helps officers use these options to survive verbal conflict.   

 

References

[i] Aristotle (2004). Rhetoric. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Johnson, R. (2001). The psychological influence of the police uniform. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 70, 27-31.

“Gypsy Cops”: Does Your Agency Have a Policy?

Posted on by WDC Marketing

The intense media spotlight placed on law enforcement in recent years has often been one-sided, unfair or even disingenuously slanted against the profession.  However, at least one area of scrutiny should be welcomed by law enforcement professionals: the nation-wide problem of agency hopping, problem-prone individuals known as “gypsy cops”.

For years, law enforcement leaders have been aware of this widespread problem within the profession.  A very small number of toxic individuals are bouncing from agency to agency, leaving a trail of lawsuits, depleted community trust and YouTube® moments in their wake.  What is most frustrating is the fact that they keep getting hired.

Why Do They Keep Getting Hired?

Background investigators often produce valid waivers and request work history information, only to be told that “Mr. Smith was employed here from 2013 until 2017” without anything further.  Agencies are not cooperating with background investigations that are intended to uncover past misconduct, if it exists.  Many uncooperative agencies are acting out of fear that if they disclose any substantive information, it will result in some kind of lawsuit.  This concern is prevalent throughout the country in spite of the fact that, in the vast majority of states, agencies are immune from liability absent evidence that the former agency was seeking to “blacklist” their former employee by maliciously giving false information.

Many of the same background investigators who are frustrated by the brick walls they hit in dealing with an officer’s past employer simultaneously acknowledge that their own agencies turn around and put up a similar brick wall in dealing with other agencies inquiring about their past problem officers.  So, there is a circular motion in which Agency A stays silent about a problem officer who was fired or left in the midst of an internal affairs investigation, and then finds themselves in the same bind when Agency B refuses to cooperate in discussing the work history of their past problem officer.

In spite of this lack of cooperation, and the resulting lack of vital information, agencies are hiring these former officers anyway.  Why?  Because they are already certified officers and therefore represent short-term savings in terms of cost and training.  Because agencies “need warm bodies.”  Because backgrounds are not necessarily valued inside the organization as they should be.  And, regrettably, because many agencies don’t even have a formal policy for conducting background investigations until they have already made national headlines or seen an officer sentenced to jail time.  It is often only then that agencies create policies prohibiting the hiring of officers from other agencies without gaining access to their work history.

What Is Your Agency’s Policy?

Recently, Michigan passed legislation aimed at addressing this problem by requiring law enforcement agencies to communicate the circumstances surrounding an officer’s departure.  And, as previously mentioned, laws across the vast majority of states provide statutory immunity to agencies that disclose this type of crucial work performance information absent evidence of willful dishonesty.

It is yet to be seen how effective legislation of the type recently passed in Michigan will be.  It’s possible that more states will follow suit.  But it seems that agency leaders should be asking themselves a fundamental question regardless of the decisions made in state legislatures: Do we need the state to tell us to exercise due diligence in hiring officers?  The notion of hiring an officer without reviewing the terms of their departure can and should be standard operating procedure for law enforcement agencies.  It should be policy and it should be practiced.

As for the common concern that “we don’t have enough to justify not hiring this person,” agency leaders must ask themselves what type of an individual leaves an agency for unknown reasons, applies for a position with your department, and then threatens to bring a lawsuit if you refuse to hire them without due diligence?  As leaders in law enforcement, part of the job is deciding which lawsuits you are willing to take on.  With very few exceptions, it’s not the officers you don’t hire that cost you time, money, and public trust.  It’s sometimes the ones you do hire.

Not in Our House? Substance Abuse among Police and Firefighters

Posted on by WDC Marketing

It is not something we like to think about, but the evidence reveals that many law enforcement officers and firefighters struggle with abuse of alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs. Public safety professionals experience unusually high levels of stress related to potential dangers to their physical safety and the effects of experiencing a multitude of gruesome events. Some, as a result, turn to alcohol and/or drugs as a coping mechanism. The prevalence of drug and alcohol use among police officers and firefighters may be higher than you think.

Prevalence in Law Enforcement

One national study of law enforcement officers found that 20% abused alcohol on a regular basis, and, when compared to the general population, law enforcement officers were 200% more likely to abuse alcohol than the average citizen.[1] Furthermore, while men drink more than women in the general population, studies of law enforcement officers have revealed male and female officers abuse alcohol at equal rates.[2] Across three decades, a total of 2,119 New York City police officers were terminated for criminal charges they acquired while off duty. The majority of these officers had been drinking at the time of their arrest, and 13% were arrested specifically for an alcohol-related violation of the law, such as drunken driving.[3] A survey of 1,410 officers from Austin, Dallas, and El Paso, revealed that approximately 70% consumed between zero and 10 alcoholic beverages weekly, but 30% reported regularly drinking more than 10 alcoholic beverages every week.[4]

In a survey of 980 police officers in Baltimore, 38% reported that in the last year their alcohol consumption resulted in such problems as family arguments and drinking to unconsciousness.[5] Another study involved a nationwide study of news stories over a five-year period. It revealed 221 arrests of law enforcement officers on drug charges, and 782 arrests of officers for drunken driving. Of the drug arrests, 64% of the officers were using illegal drugs on duty. Of the drunken driving arrests, 14% of the officers were driving drunk while on duty.[6] The problem of substance abuse in law enforcement has also been detected my law enforcement executives. In a survey of police chiefs, these chiefs estimated as many as 25% of their officers abuse alcohol.[7]

Prevalence in Firefighting

The fire service faces similar struggles. A survey of 1,481 firefighters in New York City revealed that the majority consumed alcohol regularly, and 30% abused alcohol often.[8] Another survey of 112 firefighters with one urban fire department in the Northeast revealed 58% admitted to binge drinking at least once in the last 12 months, and 14% admitted to having driven drunk during that time.[9] A Pacific Northwest study of 188 firefighters, and another study of 408 firefighters from three cities across the nation, showed similar levels of alcohol consumption, and also revealed that binge-drinking behavior tended to remain stable across a firefighter’s career unless they received intervention or treatment.[10]    

Furthermore, opioid addiction is becoming a growing social problem across the nation with a large proportion of illegal heroin users being those who were initially proscribed opioids for pain from physical injuries. A very large national study of several thousand patients suffering from back pain revealed that 24% became addicted to the painkillers and routinely used the drugs more often than was proscribed.[11] Since lower back pain is one of the most common physical maladies of law enforcement officers, paramedics, and firefighters, the fact that 1 in 4 persons prescribed opioids for lower back pain become addicted to the drugs is extremely troubling for the public safety profession.[12]

Consequences of Substance Abuse

Substance abuse by public safety personnel poses many significant negative consequences. While most public safety personnel who abuse alcohol or drugs do so as a stress management strategy, the use of alcohol and drugs actually exacerbates the symptoms of stress and posttraumatic disorder. It increases depression and risk of suicide or other violent behaviors. It contributes to divorce and other family strife, and could cost the individual his or her career due to work-related misconduct.[13]

Beyond the effects substance abuse has on the individual, that individual’s substance abuse has negative repercussions on the organization. The addicted individual’s poor job performance hurts the entire team’s performance, and may put peers in danger. Having a team member who cannot concentrate, or displays volatile emotions, can cause someone to get hurt or at the very last create unnecessary conflict in the ranks. Any accidents or acts of poor judgement by the addicted individual can impact negatively on the reputation of the entire organization, not to mention the public scandal if the media learns of the employee’s addiction–especially through that individual’s arrest.

The public is also at great risk if a law enforcement officer is patrolling the streets under the influence of drugs or alcohol. These substances will likely impact the officer’s judgement in choice of words with a citizen or use of force. The public is at great risk when firefighters are responding to calls in a 20-ton fire apparatus while under the influence. Paramedics place the public at great risk when trying to render medical treatment while being cognitively impaired by drugs or alcohol. Therefore, it is crucial that public safety leaders and municipal human resources officials address this issue.

Conclusion

The evidence suggests that substance abuse by public safety professionals is a serious issue that appears to involve a quarter to a third of law enforcement officers and firefighters. This substance abuse is damaging the lives of employees, their families, their peers, and the communities they are supposed to protect. Luckily, substance abuse treatment can be very effective in improving the lives of individuals who wish to change. Therefore, if public safety and municipal leaders can identify their substance-abusing employees, help them get access to treatment, and hold them accountable, then they can improve the lives of the public safety officials, protect their agencies, and keep their communities safe.

Upcoming Training

We offer training that can help your agency avoid the cost of impairment. Learn more about our Detecting Substance Abuse in the Workplace classes today.

 

 

 

References  

[1] Violanti, J. M. (1999). Alcohol abuse in policing: prevention strategies. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 68(1), 16-18.

[2] Farmer, R. (1990). Clinical and managerial implications of stress research on the police. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 17(3), 205-218; Pendergrass, V., & Ostrove, N. (1986). Correlates of alcohol use by police personnel. In Reese, J. & Goldstein, H. (Eds.). Psychological Services for Law Enforcement. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

[3] Stin, P. M., Liederbach, J., & Freiburger, T. L. (2012). Off-duty and under arrest: a study of crimes perpetrated by off-duty police. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 23(2), 139-163.

[4] Bishopp, S. A., & Boots, D. P. (2014). General strain theory, exposure to violence, and suicide ideation among police officers: a gendered approach. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 538-548.

[5] Swatt, M. L., Gibson, C. L., & Piquero, N. L. (2007). Exploring the utility of general strain theory in explaining problematic alcohol consumption by police officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 596-611.

[6] Stinson, P. M., Liederbach, J., Brewer, S., Schmalzried, H., Mathna, B., & Long, K. (2013). A study of drug-related police corruption arrests. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 36(3), 491-511; Stinson, P. M., Liederbach, J., Brewer, S., & Todak, N. (2014). Drink, drive, go to jail? A study of police officers arrested for drunk driving. Journal of Crime and Justice, 37(3), 356-376.

[7] Paton, D., Violanti, J. M., Burke, K., & Gehrke, A. (2009). Traumatic Stress in Police Officers. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Press.

[8] Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P. A., & Doveh, E. (2008). Firefighters, critical incidents, and drinking to cope: the adequacy of unit-level performance resources as a source of vulnerability and protection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 155-169.

[9] Carey, M. G., Al-Zaiti, S. S., Dean, G. E., Sessanna, L., & Finnell, D. S. (2011). Sleep problems, depression, substance use, social bonding, and quality of life in professional firefighters. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(8), 928-933.

[10] Kimbrel, N., Steffen, L., Knight, A., Zimering, R. Meyer, E., Kruse, M., & Gulliver, S. (2011). A revised measure of occupational stress for firefighters: psychometric properties and relationship to posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and substance abuse. Psychological Services, 8(4), 294-306; Murphy, S. A., Beaton, R. D., Pike, K. C., & Johnson, L. C. (1999). Occupational stressors, stress responses, and alcohol consumption among professional firefighters: a prospective, longitudinal analysis. International Journal of Stress Management, 6(3), 179-196.

[11] Martell, B., O’Connor, P., Kerns, R., Becker, W., Morales, K., Kosten, T., & Fiellin, D. (2007). Systematic review: opioid treatment for chronic back pain: prevalence, efficacy, and association with addiction. Annals of Internal Medicine, 146, 116-127.

[12] Cady, L., Bischoff, D., O’Connell, E., Thomas, P., & Allan, J. (1979). Strength and fitness and subsequent back injuries in firefighters. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 21, 269-272; Nabeel, I., Baker, B., McGrail, M., & Flottemesch, T. (2007). Correlation between physical activity, fitness, and musculoskeletal injuries in police officers. Minnesota Medicine, 90(9), 40-43; Reichard, A., & Jackson, L. (2010). Occupational injuries among emergency responders. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 53, 1-11; Poplin, G., Harris, R., Pollack, K., Peate, W., & Burgess, J. (2011). Beyond the fireground: injuries in the fire service. Injury Prevention, 18(4), 228–233.

[13] Blum, L. N. (2000). Force Under Pressure. New York, NY: Lantern Books; Kimbrel et al. (2011); Paton et al. (2009).