Psychological Fitness for Duty Evaluations (FFDE), when used legally and correctly and performed competently, are a vital component of a comprehensive officer wellness program for law enforcement agencies.¹ However, many officers enter the FFDE assuming the worst—that they will leave the evaluation no longer employed by their agencies. Police and public safety psychologists and police leaders alike have an obligation to undo the harmful legacy left when some FFDE were used inappropriately and “weaponized” to try and remove an officer.

In addition to helping agencies determine when an officer should be referred for an FFDE or not, police and public safety psychologists are encouraged to approach the FFDE in a manner described more fully by Schlosser and Kudrick.² Briefly, the primary goal of the FFDE should be to ensure that officers are fit to safely and effectively perform their duties; if they are, then they are returned to duty. If an officer is not fit at the time of the evaluation, however, then the evaluating doctor should help the agency and the officer by providing recommendations for the officer to follow that will allow him or her, hopefully, to be restored to full duty. It is important to understand that the FFDE should be seen as a career saver, not a career ender.

“The primary goal of the FFDE should be to ensure that officers are fit to safely and effectively perform their duties.”

Previous research showed that, in a sample of nearly 500 police officers referred for an FFDE, 94.3 percent of officers were returned to duty—either immediately or eventually.³ Said another way, only 5.7 percent of officers were found unfit for duty with little chance for recovery (i.e., they were highly likely to be separated from employment). That research was published in 2016, and the data underlying the results were gathered between 2011 and 2014; hence, the timing was right to take an updated look at FFDE data. In addition, questions were raised about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the civil unrest, and calls for defunding the police on the mental health and wellness of police officers. Hence, the present study was undertaken to examine FFDE during the COVID-19 pandemic and to see what trends might emerge, if any, between the 2016 study and the current data set.

Previous Study (2016)

The following information regarding the 2016 study was previously published in the New Jersey Police Chief and is reprinted here with permission from the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police. The 2016 data set was derived from nearly 500 FFDE conducted between 2011 and 2014. These FFDE were conducted by multiple experienced FFDE examiners, two of whom are board certified in police and public safety psychology. The sample was limited to people serving in sworn, firearm carrying law enforcement positions. Most of the sample were municipal police officers (401; 81.3 percent), with smaller numbers of state troopers (81; 16.4 percent), detectives/investigators (9; 1.8 percent), and sheriff’s officers (2; 0.4 percent). The breakdown by rank was as follows: patrolman (266; 55.4 percent), corporal/detective (43; 8.9 percent), sergeant (80; 16.7 percent), lieutenant/captain (25; 5.2 percent), and deputy chief/chief (4; 0.8 percent). Unfortunately, due to incomplete data, rank information was not available for 62 (12.9 percent) members of this sample. Officers reported an average of 15 years overall working police and public safety and 14 years of service with their current agency; a closer inspection revealed the following breakdown: 0–9 years (143; 29.9 percent), 10–15 years (149; 31.2 percent), 16–20 years (81; 16.9 percent), and 21+ years (105; 21.9 percent).

With regard to gender, the sample was overwhelmingly male (90 percent); 10 percent of the sample identified as female. The average age of an officer referred for an FFDE was 40 years old; however, there was a wide range of ages represented in the sample (24–61). Most of the subjects identified as white (274; 57.1 percent), with a diverse representation of other racial/ethnic groups: black (52; 10.8 percent), Hispanic (76; 15.8 percent), Asian (2; 0.4 percent), and other (5; 1 percent); however, 71 (14.8 percent) subjects in this data set did not provide their ethnicity.

Table 1 provides the reasons why officers were referred for FFDE. Table 2 provides the outcomes of the FFDE. Lastly, it is important to note that, of the 28 officers who were found “not fit for duty with little chance of recovery,” almost half (12; 43 percent) had chronic PTSD.

Current Study

The current data set was derived from 141 FFDE conducted by the author, who is a board-certified police and public safety psychologist and an experienced evaluator (i.e., having conducted more than 1,000 FFDE). These evaluations were conducted between March 2020 and July 2021. The sample was limited to police and public safety personnel who serve in firearm carrying positions. In terms of the specific position being held, the majority of the subjects were municipal police officers (111; 78.7 percent), followed by state troopers (12; 8.5 percent), county detectives/state investigators (7; 4.9 percent), correctional police officers (5; 3.5 percent), sheriff’s officers (4; 2.8 percent), and other positions (2; 1.4 percent).⁴ The breakdown by rank was as follows: patrolman (107; 75.9 percent), detective (7; 5 percent), sergeant (21; 14.9 percent), lieutenant (5; 3.5 percent), and captain (1; 0.7 percent). Officers reported an average of 12.5 years overall working police and public safety and 11 years of service with their current agency; a closer inspection revealed the following breakdown: 0–9 years (70; 49.6 percent), 10–15 years (31; 21.9 percent), 16–20 years (25; 17.7 percent), and 21+ years (15; 10.6 percent).

This sample was predominantly male (93 percent); 7 percent of the sample identified as female. The average age was just under 38 years old, although the age ranged from 23 to 61. Most of the subjects identified as white (106; 75 percent), with a diverse representation of other racial/ethnic groups: black (14; 9.9 percent), Hispanic (17; 12.1 percent), Asian (3; 2.1 percent), and other (1; 1 percent).

Table 1 provides the reasons that officers were referred for FFDE. Relatedly, given the general reports of increased alcohol use during the COVID-19 pandemic, the author sought to understand if that applied to police officers, too.⁵ In the current data set, alcohol played a role in 39 (27.7 percent) out of the 141 FFDE. Table 2 provides the outcomes of the FFDE. Finally, of the 6 officers who were found not fit for duty with little chance of recovery, 5 (83 percent) had chronic PTSD and 1 (13 percent) had a personality disorder.

Trends Observed

When data from the 2021 study were compared with that from the 2016 study, a number of interesting trends were observed. Demographically, there were only a few minor changes; the 2021 sample is slightly younger with slightly fewer females and little change to the overall racial/ethnic breakdown (with the exception of more whites identified). That said, it is hard to make true comparisons across the two data sets due to incomplete data on race and ethnicity from the 2016 study. With regard to positions represented in the sample, there was an increase in the different types of law enforcement positions represented; however, municipal police officers remained the largest group represented. This finding most likely represents a growth in (a) the use of FFDE among law enforcement agencies and (b) the author’s practice (i.e., an increase in the number and types of agencies served).

In terms of experience, the 2021 data set was less experienced overall when compared to the 2016 group; as noted above, half of the 2021 group had less than 10 years of service, whereas the 2016 study had 50 percent of the sample with 10 to 20 years of service. In addition, there were fewer referrals for officers with more than 20 years of service in the 2021 data set when compared to the 2016 group. In addition, there were fewer referrals made for officers who held any rank above sergeant; however, this comparison was also limited by the incomplete data on rank from the 2016 study. The trend of officers being referred for FFDE in their first 10 years of service may be a result, at least in part, of a 2018 directive from the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General mandating that all police departments have an early warning system. It may also be a function of increased awareness among agencies regarding the utility of the FFDE in terms of officers who appear to be demonstrating problems. That said, across both samples it appears that the rank and file (i.e., officers most likely to be out on the road and/or frontline supervisors) are the group most likely to be sent for FFDE.

In terms of the reason for referral, domestic violence was the number one reason that officers were referred for FFDE in both 2016 and 2021. This is due to a long-standing directive from the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General indicating that all officers who have been involved in an incident of domestic violence must have an FFDE prior to being returned to duty.

“While it may remain the wellness intervention of last resort, FFDE remains an important and effective tool.”

One of the biggest changes noted was an increase in alcohol misuse/abuse as a reason for referral; there was a 10 percent increase from 2016 to 2021 and alcohol use/misuse played a role in 27 percent of all FFDE referrals in the 2021 sample. Does this mean that officers are drinking more during the COVID-19 pandemic? While the answer to that question is possibly yes given data from the general population, the more optimistic approach to this finding is that positive progress is being made in terms of the stigma attached to seeking mental health treatment among law enforcement officers. Said another way, it is possible that more officers are willing to ask for help and seek treatment for their alcohol misuse/abuse in 2021 when compared to the 2016 group. In New Jersey, the state’s Policemen’s Benevolent Association has established relationships with multiple treatment facilities that specialize in helping first responders; this was done to make it easier to facilitate officers getting into treatment when they need it and help them with their mental health and wellness so they can return to duty. The union’s involvement here also serves to normalize and further destigmatize the experience of asking for help among police officers.

The last trend related to the reason for referral was the proportion of officers being referred for an FFDE due to an identified mental health condition; interestingly, this data point was relatively consistent between the 2016 and 2021 data sets. Given the highly stressful conditions present in the time period covered in the 2021 data set, including the COVID-19 pandemic, civil unrest, and calls to defund the police by a segment of the population, it was hypothesized that a greater proportion of officers would present with an identified mental health concern. This was not the case, which is likely explained by law enforcement officers generally being a very resilient group as well as officers relying on one another for social support. Another possible explanation is that some of those officers who developed an identified mental health condition opted for retirement due to the contextual factors of 2020 and 2021.

In terms of FFDE outcomes, three trends bear mentioning. First, there was an increase in the proportion of officers who were returned to duty right after the FFDE. For officers who are concerned that being ordered for an FFDE equates with the end of their career, they should be encouraged with the data that three out of every four officers were immediately returned to duty following the FFDE. Relatedly, there was an increase in the proportion of officers who were returned to duty, but who were also mandated to some form of counseling recommendation. This finding reflects a desire to return officers to work whenever medically reasonable and to fight the stigma associated with seeking mental health treatment by making it a condition of the subject officer’s return to duty (i.e., officers can “save face” about seeking counseling because they are being ordered to do so). Finally, there was a slight decrease in those officers found to be “unfit and unfixable;” this is good news as almost everyone goes back to work. Moreover, in the 2021 sample, five of the six officers who were in this category were seeking a voluntary disability retirement. All of the outcome trends are consistent with the philosophy of the FFDE as noted previously (and as described by Schlosser and Kudrick)—to ensure that officers are psychologically healthy, and if they are not, to help them take steps to restore their mental health and wellness and return them to duty whenever possible.

Conclusion

Across both studies discussed in the current paper, the FFDE demonstrates utility as a component of the officer wellness toolbox. While it may remain the wellness intervention of last resort, it remains an important and effective tool for helping officers maintain their psychological health and wellness as they navigate the challenges and stressors inherent in a police and public safety career. d

Notes

¹IACP Police Psychological Services Section Orlando, Psychological Fitness-for-Duty Evaluation Guidelines (ratified during the 125th IACP Annual Conference and Exposition: Florida, 2018).

²Lewis Z. Schlosser and Andrew A. Kudrick Jr., “Psychological Fitness-for-Duty Evaluations,” Police Chief 88, no.5 (May 2021): 54–57.

³Lewis Z. Schlosser and Matt E. Guller, “Unfit and Unfixable: A Closer Look at Officers Found Unfit for Duty with Little Chance of Recovery,” The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine 22, no. 3 (March 2016): 11–13.

⁴In New Jersey, corrections officers are referred to as correctional police officers and their off-duty expectations are similar to other police officers in the state.

⁵Grace Hauck, “Americans Are Using Alcohol to Cope with Pandemic Stress: Nearly 1 in 5 Report ‘Heavy Drinking,’” USA Today, September 22, 2021.

Please cite as

Lewis Z. Schlosser, “Current Trends in Psychological Fitness for Duty Evaluations,” Police Chief 89, no. 5 (May 2022): 32–36.