Current Issues in Psychological Fitness-for-Duty Evaluations of Law Enforcement Officers:

ABSTRACT

Courts throughout the United States have ruled that that the “awesome powers” entrusted to law enforcement officers, and the safety-sensitive nature of their positions, impose on their public employers a responsibility to ensure that they are fit to perform their duties. But, as with an officer’s powers, the authority of a police employer to mandate a psychological fitness-for-duty evaluation (FFDE) is not without boundaries. This chapter addresses the legal authority of a police employer to require an FFDE, the limits to that authority, and the implications of these constraints both for police employers and the psychologists who conduct these evaluations on their behalf. Written by two prominent experts in police employment law and police psychology, this chapter concerns itself with both the law and professional standards of practice. Key topics include the legal threshold for requiring an FFDE, limitations to the content of an FFDE report, and evaluator qualifications.

INTRODUCTION

A long series of statutory and case law authority dating...

Read More!

Psychological Fitness-for-Duty Evaluation Guidelines

1. Purpose
1.1 The IACP Police Psychological Services Section (PPSS) developed these guidelines to educate and inform the public safety agencies that request fitness-for-duty evaluations (FFDEs) and the practice of examiners who perform them.
1.2 These guidelines are most effectively used through collaboration between examiners and public safety agencies. It is desirable that these guidelines be reviewed by both the referring agency and the examiner and that any conflicts between an agency’s or examiner’s policies or practices and these guidelines be discussed and the rationale for action contrary to the guidelines be documented before commencing the FFDE.
2. Limitations
2.1 The term guidelines‖ refers to statements that suggest or recommend specific professional behavior, endeavors, or conduct for examiners. Guidelines differ from standards in that standards are mandatory and may be accompanied by an enforcement mechanism. Guidelines are aspirational in intent. They are intended to facilitate the continued systematic development of the profession and facilitate a high level of practice by examiners. Guidelines are

Read More!