Employment-Related Psychological Evaluations: Risk Management Concerns and Current Practices

• NCJ Number: 197791
• Journal: Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology Volume: 17 Issue: 2 Dated: Fall 2002 Pages: 18-31
• Author(s): Daniel J. Rybicki; Randolph A. Nutter
• Date Published: 2002
• Length: 14 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Survey
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This paper reports on the methodology and findings of a national survey of the 50 largest police and sheriffs' agencies to determine their methods and patterns of service delivery for pre-employment and work-fitness psychological evaluations, using department size to partition the data.

Abstract

A total of 37 (74 percent) out of 50 departments returned completed survey documents. Of the 37 departments that responded, 22 departments reported having an in-house behavioral sciences services unit. Fifteen departments did not employ such a unit, but rather relied on independent consultants, EAP (Employee Assistance Program) organizations, and contract mental health services. Of the agencies that had in-house psychological service units, most employed doctoral-level psychologists, and to a lesser extent, may have additional master's level practitioners or trainees (interns). The majority of the agencies with such units divided their duties between two groups, one focusing on personnel selection and the other on police psychology employee services. Most of the units offered clinical services, organizational development, peer counseling, critical incident stress debriefing, stress management, staff training, and operational support services. Clinical and organizational services were the focus of most of the in-house police psychology services. Results from the total sample suggest that when officers become psychologically impaired or when questions about their fitness for duty arise, the majority of agencies used an outside mental health consultant. This article also provides survey findings on source of referrals for duty-fitness exams, confidentiality requirements, evaluation procedures, and duty-reassignment practices for officers found unfit for duty. One significant finding is that although the agencies showed similar patterns of service delivery, they did not share a uniform standard for pre-employment and work-fitness evaluations; they had multiple models of service delivery tailored to specific agency needs. 3 tables and 18 references