Dirty Secrets – Law Enforcement Mental Health

Law enforcement is facing scandals weekly, (not really), use of force happens minute(ly), (not really), people are killed daily (not really), officers are suffering from mental health (really), there is a collectively effort to help them (not really), everyone operates within silos (truly), and no one is sharing information (absolutely).  The true reality is that law enforcement mental health is a mine field, of propriety information, protected data, and agencies, business and therapists who do not want to admit the problems or collective share information.  Chief executives, and administrators, who say they are doing things for their agencies, but are only giving lip service to what is truly needed. Officers who are becoming more resentful, falling into mental health despair, and are shamed for having mental health problems.

To go more into depth mental health providers who aren’t sharing information, aren’t working collaboratively, are actively working against others in the same industry, are selling there wears as if they are the only wears in the industry.  Mental health professionals who put on a good dog and pony show, and appear to care for the officers, however upon closer inspection are clearly only chasing the dollar. Or doing it for name recognition, a pat on the back.  Law enforcement, and mental health trainers who are addressing retirement, and yoga as opposed to the what I contend are the real issues of anxiety, depression, substance use/abuse and morale.  While sleep, yoga, and ensure monetary stability is all important, if there is not a solid brain/computer how can the other things come into play at all. Officers therapist, executives, and pundits are putting their heads in the sand.  Thinking that peer review groups, and CIT are the same things, and that peers officers are counselors.  The next waves of litigation will be to attack peer review/counselors for failure to document, and that there is a lack of privilege so the information shared isn’t protected, so information that is shared will be damning in a civil nature, as well as a mental health nature.

While there is a time and place for peer counselors and that the research suggests they work at times, they are not a replacement for appropriately training professional.   Mental health professionals that are attempting to make change, or challenge the paradigm are getting bullied, silence, shamed, or not included in discussions at macro and micro levels on any issues surrounding mental health.  The quasi-experts, or people spouting off the right political agenda are being brought to the table, those that might not have the experience therapeutic, but have a good story, a personal history of recover, or trauma.  While these are awesome to demonstrate recovery, success and resilience.  What does it really demonstrate about evidence-based practices or research related to what is really working towards officers mental health. Policy leaders at the IACP appear to be executives and talking heads who have no experience with true issues around mental health.  They generally have no experience as therapists, and fit for duty exams are not the same as providing protracted therapy related to a mental health disorder.  Mental health symptoms are still hidden, protected, and kept silent, hushed conversations around the office.  Very few agencies are truly leading the way in helping officers. Very few executives have their officers true virtues at heart and are protecting the protectors.

Specifically looking at the IACP OSW, since 2019, arguable there have been less than 10 sessions that have specifically addressed mental health issues at the officer or agency level.  They address national policy levels, addressed peer support, how to address stress with the chief, putting sleep first, healthy eating, and introducing yoga (almost ever year).  These are all important issues and can be tangentially connected, but if the officer(s) are not of sound mind, then none of the aforementioned really matters.  The real issues in mental health aren’t being addressed, PTSD and suicide are being addressed, while a large substantial issues, it still impacts a small fraction of the total officers.  How many officers and employees of agencies are impacted by anxiety, depression, and substance use/abuse or any of the other disorders in whatever variation of the DSM used for diagnosis.  Don’t get me started in diagnosing. That is for an article moreover a rant.  One can’t get PTSD from a peach-pit, or emotional trauma, or even having a nightmare.  There is specific criterion that needs to be met.  The ICLD codes are expanding for Complex or Compounded PTSD, but that hasn’t been universally accepted within the United States yet.

What are officers, leaders, managers and executives missing, and not doing around these mental health issues?  Why are risk managers looking at and lost wages, lost work hours, and productivity related to these mental health conditions.   All of the monies and dollars are in PTSD, but based purely on dollars and cents (sense), how much money is lost when there isn’t a proactive, or productivity officer because of anxiety, or depression.  When there is no motivation, because of depression?  Therapist are attempting to hold on to their piece of the pie.  They don’t want anyone to horn in on their territory.  Chiefs and executives do not want the true breadth of the problem being known.  The reality is that mental health is impacting more and more people every day.  COVID, and other stressors is making society more driven to be impacted by mental health. Or is it that we as a society are just becoming more aware of mental health as a condition.  Much akin to the different symptoms or presentations of heart disease in women versus men.

The entire article is not about grousing.  There needs to be some recommendations for growth, or movement.  While I can say that not everyone is going to like this, not everyone likes me (tough cookies).  First and foremost there needs to be more research within agencies, executives need to open doors and have mental health research conduct proactive research regarding mental health conditions using officers are sample populations.  I attempted to conduct an 8 month research project in Minnesota.  I am working on crunching the numbers.  But I got more negative feedback, fighting, and tension about asking 31 questions than positive feedback, or questions about the purpose or how the research might help the officers/profession.   This research sheds some great light on trends in Minnesota, sadly it does not have a statistically significance, it still holds value, with the information that it has garnered.  I believe there is practical significance and real

Executives can candidly work with unions, and thought leaders within the agencies to make mental health a priority.   They can demonstrate the importance by leading the way an modeling the behaviors.  Create contracts, and MOU’s with many mental health agencies so that officers don’t feel like the agency has a hidden agenda or “tied” to one firm, as if they have a special relationship.  Supervisors can understand the signs and symptoms of other mental health disorders like anxiety, depression and substance abuse.  Address accordingly, and not in punitive manner.   FTO’s and agency recruit trainers can understand that anxiety starts before they even start their first shift, anxiety might start when the recruit interviews for the job, also anxiety might not necessarily spike on any personality tests, because it is not a personality disorder.   There is nothing deviant about depression, or anxiety, but they impact behaviors, and performance.

I argue and contend, that anxiety, and depression are having a far greater impact on officers these days than PTSD.  While PTSD is tragic and has a specific impact if it leads to the death of an officer, it still only impacts a relatively small percentage of officers compared the overwhelming number of officers who are dealing with anxiety, and depression.  Which then directly impacts productivity, safety, shift coverage, morale, and overall agency performance. Which then can lead to more substantial agency problems.  This is to say that the agency has a solid leadership, great support from the community, and isn’t facing any scandal in the media or national level event.

Source: www.lawofficer.com