As we’ve recently been delving into the topics of employee assistance programs, counseling, and confidentiality it’s necessary to address the issue of “Fitness for Duty” examinations and mandated counseling, and what distinguishes them from voluntarily sought therapy. There is often confusion about how seeing a mental health professional as part of a fitness for duty assessment might differ from seeing one for counseling, especially with regard to your confidentiality and what should be expected.
A fitness for duty exam is very different from counseling and the two should never be confused by officers, supervisors, or administrators. When they are, the misunderstanding has two serious ramifications: First, officers may resist voluntarily seeking therapy for fear of having what they reveal in session disclosed to others in the department. Second, if and when they think they are being “sent for counseling” but are actually being assessed for psychological fitness, they will be surprised and outraged to find there is no associated ethical or legal expectation of privacy attached when certain is released.
Fitness for duty (FFD) exams are, in the most general understanding, used to determine if employees are psychologically fit–or unfit–to continue on in the performance of their job duties when their emotional soundness has somehow come into question.
Psychologist Gary L Fischler, a board certified specialist in Police and Public Safety Psychology, states a fitness for duty exam “initially seeks to answer two questions:
First, does an employee have a psychological problem and, second, can he or she perform his or her job in a safe and effective manner? Both conditions must exist for an employee to be found unfit for duty. That is, if an employee has a psychological problem but no work problems (or clear potential for work problems) then he or she may be referred to mental health treatment, but could continue to work without restriction. In this case, the employee would not be compelled to such treatment and it would be at his or her discretion.
Conversely, if there are work-related problems, but no psychological problems, the issues should be handled through remedial or disciplinary channels.” (Fischler, 2001)
When an organization notices an employee is failing to fulfill essential duties or is acting in an irresponsible, unethical/illegal, or dangerous manner, and recognizes it possibly stems from an underlying psychosocial issue rather than incompetence or insubordination, it is in everyone’s best interest to get that employee help. Getting to the bottom of the problem is the first order of business, however, and that is where the FFD exam is critical.
True FFD exams are almost always stressful for the employee and likely considered an act of punishment. The truth is, they are a component of progressive discipline that, if properly utilized and not revealing of some irreconcilable disturbance, is designed to help the employee avoid more severe punishment. By the time an employee is being referred to one, refusal to submit to the assessment can be much worse and probably means either severe limitations on job duties or even termination. Restoring the employee to full functionality and good standing in the organization is almost always the goal.
Of course, it follows that an employee mandated to undergo a FFD exam as a condition of continued employment or to avoid serious discipline has much less an expectation of confidentiality; the mental health professional conducting the FFD is working for the benefit of both the employer and employee, will be sharing certain findings, and is responsible to make a recommendation to the employer regarding the employee’s fitness for duty and any recommended follow-up.
- - - - - - - - - -
The term “fitness for duty” is sometimes misused to represent other types of employment-related assessments, and especially in law enforcement. Law enforcement is an extremely stressful profession that, over time, can wear on even the most emotionally stable officers’ psyches to the extent the ability to safely, effectively, and fairly doing the job is compromised. When this happens, identifying troubled cops and getting the help they need to be restored to full function is critical. In certain rare but unfortunate instances, it may be necessary to remove those cops who simply cannot be trusted to do the job. This is what “fitness for duty” is supposed to mean.
Unfortunately, the assessments and mandatory therapy some police departments implement after a critical incident are sometimes considered and called “fitness for duty” counseling. This is a misnomer; simply being involved in a serious critical incident or trauma does not mean an officer’s ability to function is compromised or s/he will suffer any ill effects. Nonetheless, it is sometimes smart to require some mandatory follow-up counseling for certain events. To imply these are or should be FFD assessments is wrong.
For instance, an officer involved shooting (OIS) is an event that can have a tremendous emotional, psychological, and even physical impact on involved officers. Many departments require a psychological assessment and recommend or mandate post-incident counseling before the officers’ return to full duty. In most cases the assessment and follow-up counseling are short-term and may maintain confidentiality to some degree even though required. These mandated exams or sessions are often wrongfully considered fitness for duty, implying the officer has done something wrong when, in reality, s/he acted lawfully and in accordance with training and policy.
A large part of the problem is when neither police management nor the officers understand the distinctions. Without that understanding, terms are misused and expectations misaligned. There may be no clarity at the policy level, leading to post-critical incident actions being well-intentioned but slapdash and doing more harm than good.
The advice we offer is this:
For officers: If it’s clear you are being mandated before a mental health professional make sure you understand why. If it is after a critical incident, know if it is a matter of routine policy and procedure, the terms of the meeting(s), and how any information you divulge will be used, if at all. If it is seemingly out-of-the-blue, or due to a disciplinary issue, ask, “Is this a ‘fitness for duty’ exam?” of both your administration when you are referred, and again when you meet the professional you’ll be working with. Be clear about the purpose of your meetings, and what, if anything, will be released to the department or other parties. In any case, be absolutely clear about the level of confidentiality you can expect.
For administrators: Have clearly defined and consistently applied policies and procedures in place before the critical incident, or before you find yourself wondering what to do with an officer in crisis, so you are not creating a piecemeal action plan after-the-fact. Make sure everyone knows what to expect, and when, from Day 1. Trust between the officers and supervisors who serve on the line and administration is one of the most critical components of high morale.
And if you ever find yourself in a FFD exam, do not treat it as therapy. It is not. Trust your examiner’s intentions to help you, follow their lead carefully, read and understand any releases you will be asked to sign, and ask a lot of questions! Together, you can make the most of an unpleasant and unwanted situation.
References
“Psychological Fitness-For-Duty Examinations: Practical Considerations for Public Safety Departments” by Gary L Fischler, PhD. Illinois Law Enforcement Executive Forum. 2001.
