Submitted by Hogencamp, James
FACTS REFUTE LONG-STANDING MYTHS ABOUT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Dr. Audrey Honig
Published in The National Psychologist, Vol. 16, no. 5, September/October, 2007
Myths abound in the law enforcement culture. Data from research conducted in the 1980s as well as old wives tails that have been passed down from generation to generation with little or no factual basis routinely are quoted as fact. The “data” quoted vacillates between depicting officers as poorly trained and inept to active conspirators or super human heroes. All law enforcement officers and all law enforcement agencies are assumed to be the same. This cookie cutter approach does not account for such factors as the variations in size, jurisdiction and, most important, the organizational culture and resources of a given agency. As psychologists, we have a responsibility to independently evaluate the quality of any research we quote rather than merely accept it on face value. Only by doing so will we ever succeed in stopping the perpetuation of these same old myths. Some of the more common law enforcement myths are:
Myth
Twenty-five to 30% of law enforcement personnel reportedly abuse alcohol on a regular basis. This figure is generally perceived as considerably higher than the accepted rate among the general population.
Fact
A recent survey conducted on more than 40,000 adults by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism found that 42% of men and 20% of women in the general population have abused or suffered from Alcoholism at some point in their lives. Use of alcohol or other substances of abuse clearly appear to be a common societal method for coping with stress. A recent Department of Health and Human Services study covering the period of 2002-2004, found that law enforcement averages a prevalence rate of 9% with at least eight other professions exhibiting significantly higher rates. Pre-employment screening programs have likely contributed to this effect.
Myth
Law enforcement officers (LEOs) suffer a significantly higher rate of divorce than other professions.
Fact
According to the CDC, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, between 40% to 50% of all new marriages ends in divorce. While some professions do have higher than average divorce rates, law enforcement is not one of them. In fact, the most significant factor bearing on the variable divorce rate appears to be the individual’s state of residence.
Myth
Suicide is epidemic amongst LEOs.
Fact
Suicide by law enforcement officers is by no means an epidemic. Research by such eminent academicians as Michael Aamodt et al. (2001) suggest suicide amongst LEOs is lower than for the general population. When you control for factors such as age, gender, race, marital status and state of residency, the rate is actually 26% lower. That said, any officer suicide, is clearly a tragedy. Family/friends, work colleagues, supervisors, commanders, first responders, investigators as well as the Department as a whole all feel the loss. Agencies such as the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and the Miami Dade Police Department have shown that utilizing an array of strategies and training directed at supervisors and colleagues, as well as early identification and intervention with employees at risk, is critical to a comprehensive and effective program of prevention and intervention.
Myth
One-fifth of the law enforcement fitness for duty evaluations stem from involvement in a shooting.
Fact
Fitness for duty evaluations are not routinely conducted merely because an officer has performed as trained and consequently been involved in a shooting. This is contrary to both the Fitness for Duty and Officer Involved Shooting Guidelines promulgated by The International Association of Chiefs of Police (see www.theiacp.org).
Myth
Two thirds of LEOs involved in a shooting experience suffer psychological problems and 70% of these officers leave law enforcement within seven years. Officers who must resort to taking the life of another person, even for the protection of self or others feel guilt that renders them incapable of finding psychological resolution of the relevant emotional conflicts.
Fact
The vast majority of officers involved in shootings initially report a range of emotions that typically resolve within days or weeks. Symptoms that last more than three to six months, require special intervention. Extensive research by Audrey Honig, Ph.D. and Steve Sultan, Ph.D (2004). has found a 4% PTSD rate among officers involved in shootings. Similar police studies report a rate of no more the 14%. In comparison, the rate of diagnosable PTSD among combat veterans is approximately 30%. It is rare that an officer retires following a shooting. Factors contributing to a premature post-shooting retirement relate to the incident itself such as an ambush or circumstances in which an officer either shoots or is shot by a fellow officer. Additional factors relate to personal and organizational issues, a shooting that occurs very early in an officer’s career or a lack of appropriate organizational support. (See specific post-shooting guidelines at www.theiacp.org)
Myth
The majority of law enforcement officers die within five years of retirement
Fact
According to both the Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System and The Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, male law enforcement officers who retire at age fifty-five, the typical age of retirement, live an average of twenty-four years while females live an average of twenty-nine years after retirement.
Myths
Law enforcement agencies are reluctant to involve psychologists in daily operations.
Fact
In-house psychologists as well as some long term contract providers are often intimately involved in providing consultation regarding daily operations, training techniques, legislative and policy recommendations, threat assessments and so on. Many routinely participate as Executive Advisors and serve on a number of departmental committees. (See Consulting Police
Psychologist Guidelines at www.theiacp.org).
Myth
Due to liability concerns, agencies prefer to contract with outside providers for pre-employment psychological assessment and fitness for duty evaluations.
Fact
Agencies contract for these services, because they are typically “feast or famine” functions making them hard to consistently staff. (See Fitness for Duty Guidelines at www.theiacp.org).
Myths
Law Enforcement Officers have great reservations about asking for or accepting psychological services for fear that it will jeopardize their careers. They often prefer to pay for counseling, even when free or reimbursed services are available, to avoid their agencies knowing they are seeking help.
Fact
While there are certainly some personnel who would choose to utilize services unbeknownst to their agency, this appears to be more a reflection on that agency’s culture than the law enforcement profession in general. Officers often report their willingness to seek counseling in the first place stemmed from their comfort with a particular psychologist based on familiarity and/or referral from a trusted friend or supervisor, the psychologist’s expertise working with law enforcement and/or the psychologist’s agency affiliation. Obviously trust and assurances of confidentiality are critical issues. Utilization figures typically reflect high use across all ranks and all divisions within an organization.
Dr. Honig has been the Chief Psychologist for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for the past 21 years and currently serves as Chair of the Police Psychological Services Section of the International Association of Chief’s of Police. Dr. Honig can be reached at (213) 738-4500 or via e-mail at alhonig@lasd.org
Note: Special thanks to public safety psychologists Dr.s Allen, Aumiller, Bohl, Curran, Fabricatore, Kirschman, Kaufmann, North, Pilarc, Price and Rostow for their personal support and contributions to this article.
