Police Drug and Alcohol Abuse, Research Paper Example

Introduction

An unfortunate reality is that the demands of police work involve dangers beyond that of apprehending criminals. More insidiously, police officers are among the segments of society particularly vulnerable to developing alcoholism and/or drug use problems. The issue is further compounded by other realities within the scenario. On one level, police officers are notably fraternal in character, and inclined to “look out” for each other. Then, there is a hyper-masculinity component, in that the police reflects a subculture which emphasizes excessive drinking, and consequently other forms of substance abuse (Anon., Milestone Group, 2010). It seems, in fact, that a great deal of the difficulty in addressing substance abuse within the police arises from elements inherent to the work itself; as camaraderie and high levels of “machismo” both attract officers to the job and maintain their relations within it, these same factors exacerbate substance issues. Ultimately, however, the inescapable fact remains that policing, primarily because of its high stress levels, creates serious dangers of substance problems. Departments everywhere, therefore, are attempting to deal with these problems, yet in an internal manner. Testing occurs and repercussions are usually severe, going to immediate dismissal from the force. Nonetheless, the most common mode of dealing with police alcoholism and substance abuse today relies on the measures each department is willing to take.

Causes and Rates

It is commonly believed that the level of danger in police work contributes to substance abuse issues, and this is partially true. Clearly, this is a job in which many types of physical threats and emergency situations are handled. It is equally true that police and firefighters are highly susceptible to substance addiction. The greater reality, however, is that police work is more defined by long periods of tedious, bureaucratic functioning. Actual time spent facing extreme danger is relatively minimal; desk work, more than anything, occupies the average officer, and this in itself creates high stress levels (Harrington, 2012, p. 276). This is not to discount, however, the factor of those occasions when real danger is imminent. An officer must be continually “ready” to face grave risk, and this demands an emotional stability taxing to even trained individuals. Then, vulnerability is further enabled by the mentioned insularity of most police departments, typically based on a masculine concept of belonging to a clan of sorts, and widely documented as a reality of the job (Milestone Group, 2010). Changing societal attitudes notwithstanding, this is a force founded on American ideas of male courage, which is inextricably tied to demonstrating the masculinity through an ability to drink heavily. That such an attitude would expand to incorporate drug use is inevitable.

Determining just how widespread alcohol and drug use is among police officers is, not unexpectedly, problematic. Long accustomed to looking out for one another against a sometimes hostile media and public, police are thought to “cover” for abuse issues of their fellow officers. The impetus is also not necessarily invalid; research reveals that, while general attitudes from the public regarding the police are somewhat favorable, virtually all jurisdictions contain populations or areas in which the police are mistrusted and disliked (Gaines, Kappeler, 2011, p. 412). An insular, protective nature of a police force, then, is generated, and this must offer protections for all those wearing the uniform, offered by the same.

Nonetheless, investigations are conducted, and it is estimated that nearly 25 percent of all police have serious problems with alcohol and/or drugs. This percentage, while disputed, has been validated by specific studies, including one conducted in 1988 finding that over 20 percent of police in a single agency were under substance influence while on duty. The same study noted that older officers were more prone to alcohol abuse, while the younger police abused drugs. More interesting is that an earlier study of 1979 revealed that 67 percent of the officers admitted to drinking while on duty (Gaines, Kappeler, 2011, p. 237). The admissions were in response to anonymous questioning, so it is probable that the officers felt secure in revealing the truth. What is most unsettling about any such study, of course, is that the police carry firearms. They are often the only presence standing between the citizen and great danger. Consequently, there can be no allowance of substance abuse in so critical a profession.

Approaches and Solutions

One approach widely adopted in dealing with the problem, and set in motion by societal demand, is that of systemized testing of officers. The most common method of testing for the presence of substances, and one used by the city of Los Angeles, is urine analysis. In New York City and Boston, hair is tested, which may more reliably trace older drug use going back for several months (Smalley, 2006). Even within the cloistered ranks of typical police departments, the consequences for failing drug and alcohol tests are, not unexpectedly, extreme. As noted, police carry weapons and are entrusted to preserving public safety, and an officer under the influence is a far more serious threat than an office employee working while inebriated. Consequently, the usual result of a failed test is termination. Officers who have drug or alcohol traces in their systems in New York and Los Angeles are fired immediately, while some cities, like Boston, provide a chance for a second screening. There is evidence to support that these second chances are valid; after seventy-five officers tested positive for substance abuse in Boston, two-thirds reported clean systems upon a later screening (Smalley, 2006). Nonetheless, as the nature of police work is so essential to public safety, there remains debate about such a “forgiving” policy, which may be more suitable to ordinary professions.

In regard to addressing these issues, there is, in fact, a history within the police of taking on the problem. This may be a response at least partially fueled by a police commitment to maintaining authority over its own personnel; if so, it remains the most prevalent form of addressing the issues. In 1955, the Chicago Police Department organized a program wherein officers would help peers who were showing signs of alcoholism, and instituted counseling and buddy-system support measures. Not long after, Boston police conducted a similar approach, initially focusing on officers with drinking problems, and then expanding the counseling to include all stress-related matters affecting performance. In more recent years, most police departments now offer some form of in-house treatment or assistance. The results have been noteworthy; in Philadelphia, for example, the rate of sick days was reduced by 38 percent and injuries dropped by 62 percent, following the installation of a treatment program (More, Miller, 2010, p. 408). It certainly appears that the determination of police departments to exercise as much authority as possible in these matters is a stance accepted by governmental agencies. Moreover, given the camaraderie aspect of police work, evidence suggests that peer counseling for officers experiencing abuse problems is highly effective, a likely consequence of the average officer’s degree of trust for fellow officers (More, Miller, 2010, p. 415). If issues of stress are compounded by public mistrust, police are all the more inclined to turn only to their peers for assistance.

Conclusion

Whatever the actual percentages are of alcohol and substance abuse within the police force, the blatant reality is that, given the importance of the work, any at all poses serious risks to public safety, aside from the harm created for the officers concerned. Clearly, stress, both of the tedium of the job and the intermittent and potentially violent circumstances of it, enables at least a higher vulnerability to abuse of this kind. Awareness of the problem is certainly public, and officers failing drug tests are typically removed from their jobs. When it comes to actual measures to address this matter, however, it seems that the police themselves are the primary respondents. This approach has shown significant success, as it both acknowledges and makes use of the inherently cloistered environment of the police force. In time, it may be that other agencies will be called into play, if police substance abuse substantially increases. Today, however, the situation remains much as it was when the first alcoholism program for officers was created within Chicago’s force. The most common method of dealing with police substance abuse largely relies on the measures each department undertakes to address the issue.

References

Gaines, Larry K., & Kappeler, Victor E. (2011). Policing in America, 7^th Ed. Waltham: Elsevier.

Harrington, Rick. (2012). Stress, Health, and Well-Being: Thriving in the 21^st Century. Belmont: Cengage Learning.

Milestone Group, LLC. (22 July, 2010). “Alcoholism Among Law Enforcement Personnel: Its Unique Challenges.” Retrieved 9 April, 2012, from http://milestonegroupnj.com/?p=142

More, Harry W., & Miller, Larry S. (2010). Effective Police Supervision, 6^th Ed. Burlington: Elsevier.

Smalley, Suzanne. (30 July, 2006). “75 Officers Failed City Drug Tests: Cocaine Use Most Prevalent, Raising Concern.” The Boston Globe. Retrieved 9 April, 2012, from http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/07/30/75