Authored by Stephen E Berger*
Abstract
It is essential that the public has confidence that police officers are Fit for Duty. Of course, that starts with being physically fit to perform the demands of their jobs. However, it is also essential that they are of sound mind also – that they are Fit for Duty. The assessment begins during the initial hiring process. In the United States, each individual state sets the standards that police officers have to meet to be considered Fit for Duty. There will be individual differences among the various police organizations in each state. Thus, not only will state police departments have their standards, counties, cities and other jurisdictions will have their standards. In assessing a police officer’s quality of mind, cognitive neuroscience has much to contribute. This article presents two different police officers who were assessed for Fitness for Duty. One was referred by the officer’s own Department due to questionable actions on the job. The other officer self-referred after suffering a head injury, and after taking actions that the officer thought was inappropriate. Data from the cognitive neuropsychological evaluations of each officer are presented. There is an emphasis on the results from the Rorschach, as the differences between those profiles were remarkably divergent, yet each officer was having problems conforming their behavior to proper standards, but each of them for different reasons. The analyses of their psychological assessments demonstrate how cognitive neuroscience can be applied to assessing police officers’ psychological fitness for duty.
Introduction
It challenges credulity to imagine a civilized society without a police force. It would be lovely if all citizens obeyed laws and did not commit crimes. That state of human development and functioning has clearly not occurred yet. Therefore, society is dependent upon some kind of police force to enforce the laws and provide protection for citizens. Obviously, the police force itself must be law abiding and competent to provide professional, police services. Consequently, police officers must be physically, intellectually, emotionally, and characterologically capable of enforcing and abiding by the laws.
To that end, societies must assess whether officers are capable and competent of performing their job duties. This paper focuses on the intellectual and emotional capabilities of police officers. To help ensure that police officers have the intellectual and emotional capability of performing their jobs, laws are enacted to provide a legal mechanism for assessing the intellectual and emotional capa bility of police officers. The task of assessing Fitness for Duty is a reflection of the concept of whether a given employee is capable, physically, intellectually and emotionally of satisfactorily performing their job. Thus, assessments of applicants for a job as well as reassessments of current employees occur frequently.
Legal Foundations for Police Officer Fitness for Duty Evaluations
The assessment of a police officer’s Fitness for Duty is encoded in American Law. Specifically, a police officer may be discharged for cause [1,2]. For example, cause is defined in the State of Illinois as a “substantial shortcoming recognized by law and public opinion as a good reason for termination,” and a “substantial shortcoming which renders the employee[’]s continuance in office in some way detrimental to the discipline and efficiency of the service” [2,3]. In an illustrative recent (2016) Illinois Appeals Court ruling [4], the Court stated, “There is a well-defined and dominant public policy in Illinois in favor of a disciplined and efficient police force comprised of officers who are fit for duty.” See, e.g., (policy in favor of ensuring public safety and maintaining a reliable, responsible police force) [5].
Since the two case examples provided here occurred in the State of California, some relevant aspects of California law are provided here. Under California Government Code section 12940(f) (2), covered employers may require that an employee undergo a medical or psychological examination or make medical or psychological inquires of employees that are “job related and consistent with business necessity” [6]. Under California Government Code section 12940(f)(2), covered employers may require that an employee undergo a medical or psychological examination or make medical or psychological inquires of employees that are “job related and consistent with business necessity” [7]. In regard to California, California Government Code Section 1031 (8) mandates that all peace officers in California “[b]e found to be free from any physical, emotional or mental condition which might adversely affect the exercise of the powers of a peace officer” [8].
Psychological Assessment of Fitness for Duty
The history of the application of testing instruments being used for selection of employees and personnel can be traced to World War I where the use of the Army Alpha (literate version) and Army Beta (illiterate version), spearheaded by psychologist Robert Yerkes and six others, sought out to systematically classify individuals for roles based on their mental aptitude [9,10]. Given the perceived efficiency that this process provided during World War I for recruits, private industry and organizations began to apply similar models to streamline employee selection based on various criteria unique to their organizations. According to the literature, use of testing measures within organizational structures taps the following areas, or combination of areas: intellectual/aptitude tests, psychomotor abilities, employment specific knowledge (i.e. work sample), vocational inclination, and personality [11].
To read more about this article.....Open access Journal of Addiction and Psychology
To know more about our Journals....Iris Publishers
No comments:
Post a Comment