By Alexis Artwohl, Ph.D.

[This article was originally published in The Tactical Edge, the professional publication of the National Tactical Officer’s Association (NTOA), and is reprinted with permission. ntoa.org]

It was reprinted on Calibrepress.com.

This article will discuss some of the key elements of four types of debriefings that can be done in the wake of an officer-involved shooting (OIS) and other critical incidents:

  1. Individual debriefing with a licensed mental health professional (MHP)
  2. Group psychological debriefing
  3. Tactical debriefing
  4. Incident clarification

The purpose of such debriefings is education and support, with an emphasis on resiliency, positive coping and potential for personal growth. It is recommended that debriefings provided to involved personnel be considered as on-duty and paid assignments, but the officer should not return to work immediately following the debriefings.

The nature of the incident, the feelings of involved personnel and their family members and the legal, investigative and political aftermath should all be taken into consideration when deciding if, when and how the various types of debriefings are to be conducted. Rigid adherence to any particular model or rules about how debriefings should be conducted is discouraged. While some issues such as confidentiality may have little leeway, there are aspects of debriefings that can, and should be, fluidly adapted to individuals, incidents, local customs and other considerations.

Some of the recommendations below are taken from the OIS Guidelines written by the Psychological Services Section of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (PSS/IACP). A copy of this and other guidelines published by the PSS/IACP can be obtained by going to the IACP Web site at www.theiacp.org.

Individual debriefing with a licensed mental health professional (MHP)

As noted in the OIS Guidelines, it is generally recommended that one confidential individual debriefing with a licensed MHP be mandatory for involved personnel. This is not because there is an expectation of widespread traumatization. Research shows that most people, including most officers, are resilient and will cope well over the long term. However, there is no way of perfectly predicting who will be in the minority that will develop PTSD, so the debriefing is an opportunity to educate everyone about the latest research on resiliency, reactions to trauma, and to provide current information on where and how to seek treatment for self and/or others if PTSD should develop.

It is recommended that this information be provided both verbally and in writing. It should be noted that while attendance can be mandated, once the officer is there, any further participation or discussion on his/her part should be voluntary. Voluntary follow-up sessions for those officers wanting further assistance should be offered.

In addition to being a licensed MHP, the provider should have experience and training in working with law enforcement and trauma, and be up-to-date on the research in the field. It is recommended that this debriefing happen within a week after the incident and take place before any group debriefings.

If the agency is going to require a fitness-for-duty evaluation, it should not be conducted by the same MHP who provided the debriefing. In regards to the fitness-for-duty exam after an OIS, the OIS Guidelines state that:

It should be made clear to all involved personnel, supervisors, and the community at large that an officer’s fitness-for-duty should not be brought into question by virtue of their involvement in a shooting incident. Post-shooting psychological interventions are separate and distinct from any fitness-for-duty assessments or administrative or investigative procedures that may follow. This does not preclude a supervisor from requesting a formal fitness-for-duty evaluation based upon objective concerns about an officer’s ability to perform his or her duties However, the mere fact of being involved in a shooting does not necessitate such an evaluation prior to return to duty.

It is recommended that significant others be invited to participate in individual debriefings. The officer and his/her significant other may have preferences about whether the significant other will accompany the officer into his/her debriefing, or whether each one will have separate and confidential sessions. Separate individual sessions plus a joint session are not mutually exclusive.

Group psychological debriefings

Group debriefings bring together the involved personnel to share their perceptions, memories and feelings about the incident. This may include dispatchers and other involved personnel the officers may want to invite. Tactical analysis of the event is typically discouraged in this type of debriefing to keep it focused on personal feelings and reactions.

Attendance in group debriefings should be voluntary. The officers are typically receiving education and support from multiple sources: The mandated individual sessions with an MHP provide an opportunity for the involved personnel to receive education and support in a private setting with privileged confidentiality; peer support teams also can provide individualized support; and officers often receive additional support from attorneys, union reps, police clergy, etc. Group sessions are not for everyone, although most personnel like them and will choose to attend if they are well conducted. If attendance is mandated, participation should still be voluntary.

Group debriefings should be led by a team of at least one licensed MHP plus members of a trained peer support team. Confidentiality may not be privileged depending on local laws, and local laws may or may not apply in federal court cases. (The PSS/IACP has also published guidelines for peer support teams.)

The advantage of group debriefings is that they are an opportunity for the officers to find out what happened from the perspective of the other participants. Since it is highly likely that everyone will have different memories about exactly what occurred, this will help the officers get the big picture and clear up second-guessing of self and others.

Second-guessing of self and others is a common reaction of individuals in critical incidents. In research done by the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, it was a common emotional effect reported by 982 officers involved in critical incidents, 90 percent of which were OIS. It should be noted that this second-guessing is in fact an emotional reaction in which individuals obsess over things that typically no one could have had any control over under the same circumstances. It should not be taken as evidence that anyone has done anything wrong. Clearing up second-guessing, no matter how it’s done, can be helpful to both individual recovery and repairing relationships among involved personnel that might have been strained by the incident.

Getting the big picture is also helpful since it is common for people involved in critical incidents to have memory gaps or false memories. Most people are not comfortable with memory gaps and feel the need to find out what really happened.

Another advantage of group debriefings is that it helps mobilize peer social support, which is important when individuals are struggling with a difficult circumstance.

Hopefully agencies also have family peer support teams who offer voluntary group sessions for the involved officers’ significant others. As in the individual sessions, the officers can be asked if they would like to combine the officer and family group debriefings into one group, or if they prefer to keep them separate. Combining these debriefings may seem like a radical idea to some, but one agency I worked with did this routinely and it worked very well. The agency started out with an officer peer support team for OIS. Later, a family OIS peer support team was developed. Each team decided to integrate into one team so both could receive the same peer support training opportunities.

After an OIS, the officer members of the team offered individual peer support to the officers, and the family members of the team offered individual peer support to the officers’ family members. When the group debriefing was offered, the involved officers and their significant others attended one group together. This proved to be popular and voluntary attendance was virtually 100 percent.

Group tactical analysis

At some point after the individual and group psychological debriefings, involved personnel (which might include dispatchers) may want to participate in a voluntary group tactical analysis in which they come together to discuss the event from a tactical perspective. This can often be a valuable “lessons learned” training opportunity for the officers. It can also further dispel second-guessing, as well as help instill a sense of mastery over the event.

This voluntary debriefing should be led by tactical experts, preferably of the officers’ choosing, who are trained to conduct tactical discussions in a positive and constructive manner. This is not to be confused with any administrative shooting review process done by the agency.

Depending on the nature of the incident, the officers may feel more comfortable having a familiar and trusted MHP in attendance and this can be offered as an option for them to choose. These debriefings are unlikely to have any confidentiality.

One thing to consider for this type of debriefing is that it may be best done only after the investigations are over and it has been determined that officers will not be facing any criminal or disciplinary charges.

Incident clarification debriefings

Critical incidents, especially OIS, are high-profile events that typically engender large amounts of curiosity, second-guessing, rumors and a range of emotional reactions on the part of many people who were not involved in the event, including community members, the media and everyone else in the agency.

Incident clarification debriefings are multiple debriefings provided to all these interested individuals and groups in which knowledgeable representatives of the investigative process provide appropriate facts of the event as they become available. Agencies have learned, sometimes the hard way, that withholding information is rarely a constructive strategy, so most seek to proactively provide swift and accurate incident clarification to the media and the community.

What is sometimes overlooked is incident clarification within the agency itself. Critical incidents have the potential to cause emotional reactions for uninvolved personnel because many officers may realize “that could have been me,” or they may be close and personal friends of the involved officers.

Since involved officers are generally ordered or at least recommended to not discuss the details of the event (outside of with those officially involved in the aftermath, such as attorneys, MHPs, investigators and such), this dearth of information can help feed the internal rumor mill. Unfortunately, sometimes these rumors are not complimentary to the involved personnel, and as the rumors spread they have the potential to cause harm.

Telling people not to gossip is rarely effective. People are naturally curious, especially about dramatic and anxiety-producing situations. Discussing them (or “gossiping”) is a perfectly normal way for people to try and find out what happened and cope with their own feelings about an event. A more effective strategy is to provide accurate information on a regular basis as it becomes available so they can talk about what really happened instead of passing along false rumors. This can be done in a variety of ways, such as updates at roll calls and emails.

The involved officers themselves may also want to consider doing their own incident clarification upon returning to work, assuming the circumstances make it feasible. Sometimes the officers wonder what their peers are thinking and want to get their side of the story out, yet are sick of talking about it and just want to get back to normal without answering anymore questions.

One strategy for returning officers would be to proactively take charge of this return to work process by arranging ahead of time with their supervisor to schedule a briefing with their immediate coworkers during which the officers will explain the incident from their perspective, offer any information they want on how they are doing and offer to answer questions. Once this peer incident clarification is done, then the returning officers have the option of requesting that their coworkers not focus on the incident unless the officers themselves bring it up. This peer incident clarification could be done as group and/or individually.

Summary

Critical incidents have the potential to be disruptive and even destructive for the involved officers and their families, the agency and the community. Getting the facts of the incident clarified, educating the involved personnel about reactions and how to seek further assistance if needed, mobilizing social support and giving everyone an opportunity to process their own feelings and reactions can help mitigate the destructive potential of these events.

References

Artwohl, Alexis. “Confidentiality of Debriefings.” The Tactical Edge, Fall 2011, Vol. 29, No. 4.

Artwohl, Alexis. “Why Do Debriefings?” The Tactical Edge, Summer 2011, Vol. 29, No. 3.

Artwohl, Alexis. “No Recall of Weapons Discharge.” Law Enforcement Executive Forum, Volume 3, No. 2, May 2003.

Artwohl, Alexis. “Perceptual and Memory Distortions in Officer Involved Shootings.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, October 2002.

Best, Suzanne; Artwohl, Alexis; Kirschman, Ellen. “Critical Incident Reactions and Early Interventions.” In Handbook of Police Psychology, Jack Kiteaff, Ed. Prentice-Hall, 2011.

Honig, A.L. and Sultan, S.E. “Reactions and Resilience Under Fire: What an Officer Can Expect.” The Police Chief, Vol. LXXI, No. 12, 54-60. December 2004.

“Officer-Involved Shooting Guidelines.” IACP/PSS: International Association of Chiefs of Police: Police Psychological Services Section. http://psych.theiacp.org.

“Peer Support Guidelines.” IACP/PSS: International Association of Chiefs of Police: Police Psychological Services Section. http://psych.theiacp.org