FII|.|.|.|'|.|'|.|IIII'll-Ir :w. _ ,,.

llllllllaillH1H||HllllllllllllIHIHI“)Illllllllllillilllllli
1293 00788 3683

 

; .UBE‘.ARY ‘
gMzchégan State
University j

._....J

L._¥

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

THE TROUBLED WORLD OF THE PEACE OFFICER

presented by

Howard Niiiiam Troost

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Doctor of Ph1'1050phy degree“, Crimina'l Justice

 

 

 

Date August 11, 1989

 

M5 U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE ELLE DATE DUE DATE DUE
C a ‘21:: '

HM:
'~ 3‘32»
E. 2"

. v- ) 'E‘T

 

 

 

.F . : t
"I" 5., U 1":1

 

\

t);
y.)@ E’
’,,, ‘ ‘5 f; «ATE.

 

 

 

 

W

 

I

"Hi 1 4 gear,
V I '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
cmmmG-nt

THE TROUBLED WORLD OF THE PEACE OFFICER

By

Howard William Troost

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Criminal Justice

1989

I ," / .— x'. \ 'H‘.
L) '. , t} j ('1' ‘y'/K

ABSTRACT
THE TROUBLED WORLD OF THE PEACE OFFICER
By

Howard William Troost

We
There is an on going debate amongst law enforcement
practitioners regarding alleged maladies and afflictions
rates of Peace Officers. Some studies show that officers
have no higher problem rates than people of the general
population. Conversely, many point to other evidence and
insist officers are disproportionately afflicted. This

study attempted to determine which is most accurate.

Methgd

An intra-profession examination of issues was
conducted using a sample of 413 officers from seventeen law
enforcement agencies in Michigan, including State Police,
county sheriffs, and municipal/local police. The agencies
were surveyed with a questionnaire that contained, in
addition to questions directed at the officers’ background
information and their perceptions of their status
regarding, a "Job Stress Scale.“ The scale made possible
the division of participants into "Low-stress“ and “High—
stress" sub-groups of officers.

The primary interest in this study was veteran
officers (those with 63 or more months in an assignment) in

high-stress positions (those who scored 68 or higher on the

Job Stress Scale). Three areas of controversy — drinking,
health, and family/marital problems - were examined, as
were possible mitigating effects of such intervening
variables as attending school, being active in sports, and

having a second job.

Findings

The results of the data analysis contained mixed
findings. Data which supported the hypotheses of high
problem rates for officers in high-stress assignments
included: drinking levels and indications of drinking
problems of officers in high—stress assignments were higher
than their low—stress colleagues; average health level
changes for veteran officers in high-stress assignments
showed greater deterioration than did "rookie" officers in
similar assignments; low-stress officers reported higher
average family happiness than did high-stress officers.

Data contradicting the hypotheses included: high-
stress officers reported fewer health problems than did
low-stress officers; high-stress officers reported higher
average increases in their marriage happiness levels than
did low-stress officers.

Finally, a large percentage of findings were in the
predicted direction or supportive of the hypotheses, but

‘were not considered statistically significant.

Copyright by
HOWARD WILLIAM TROOST
1989

Dedication

This document is dedicated to those who paid for it -
Rusty, Danny, Nancy, and especially Susan. I merely

provided the time, effort, and finances.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

As those who have reached this goal before me have
done, so do I express my sincere appreciation to those who
have helped, guided, cajoled, threatened, taught, and
befriended me in this project - my committee of Dr.s Philip
Marcus (may he rest in peace), Norbert Kerr, Kenneth
Christian, Peter Manning, and especially the Chairman,
Vincent Hoffman. A bit of each of these gentlemen is
reflected in the following dissertation. Nine years of
effort and traveling 10,000 miles a year (just ask the IRS)
were made less stressful by the security of knowing these
professionals there when needed.

My appreciation is also expressed to the heads of the
participating law enforcement agencies whose cooperation
was invaluable to this study.

Finally, to those unidentified hundreds who placed
trust in a fellow officer and took the time to fill out
then return a lengthy, sometimes probing and impertinent
questionnaire, without which there would be no
dissertation, I thank you. Had I been asked to fill out
the questionnaire used in this study I probably would have
discarded it as something that asked too many questions
about my personal life. As an officer interviewed in one

vi

of the review articles commented, "Any study involving the
relationship between the necessarily authoritarian police
officer and the not so necessarily subordinate wife invades
areas avoided not only by angels but by social scientists
as well !"1 While the 37.1% response rate was not as high
as in the pilot study rate (two Class IV agencies with 40
members returned 27 replies, or 68%), it was still
gratifying to have hundreds respond when one considers that
a total stranger was asking State Police Troopers, Deputy
Sheriffs, and municipal Police Officers to answer questions
about their sex lives, family lives, and their drinking
habits. It is a compliment to the professionalism of those
415 Peace Officers who responded in spite of the sensitive
nature of many of the questions. Being in the same
profession as the study participants, I assume that I am
similar to them. We are by nature, by training, and by
experience, generally suspicious cops that are leery of
supervisors giving us a document asking such questions as
do we hit our wives or are we closet drunks. In the wrong
hands the answers to questions such as these could earn us
interviews with our respective departments’ Internal
Affairs Section ! Their participation, in spite of being
asked to answer such sensitive questions, reinforced my
belief in the existence of serious problems in our

profession, and my belief that others in my profession

 

1 Pat James, "The Police Family - A Wife’s Eye View,"
EBl_Le1_Eanrcsmsnt_Bullstin 44/11 (November 1975) 12.

vii

consider the issues real enough and serious enough to
respond to.

Finally, my own hypothesis suggests that I should be
divorced, drunk, and have one foot in the grave. None of
these things are true. I have, of course, asked myself why
I defy my own suspicions. I can see, retrospectively,
there was a time when I could have slipped into my own
forecast of maladies and afflictions. It was by chance,
not conscious thought, that I escaped the primrose path of
police work when I returned to graduate school, mostly to
prove to myself and anyone else who was interested that I
was not just a (fill in the blank). There are
of course MANY intervening variables that blunt the
negative effects of police work. Personally, I thank my
good fortune for having a strong family and marriage and
supportive non-police friends all of which blunt the
negative effects of police work. I know many other
officers who, although they have high-stress jobs, have
also escaped the many maladies and afflictions attributed
to police work, and did not have going to school as a
crutch. I selected three variables that I felt were
influential and were easily measurable (by simply answering
yes or no) in a written questionnaire survey such as the
one conducted for this study. The three I elected to
investigate were, (1) current schooling, (2) working a
second job, and (3) being active in sports. The results of
these influences will be discussed in detail in Chapter Four.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables / 1 - xii

List of Figures i; xiv

List of Symbols xv

Chapter 1 - The Problem 1

PREFACE 1

I. Introduction 3

II. The Problem: 4

A. Occupational Susceptibility 5
B. Aspects of the Unusual World

of the Peace Officer: 6

1. The Stress 8

2. The Street 20

3. The Organization 22

4. The Mission 27

5. The Personnel Pool 31

C. Model of the Problem 37

III. Operationalizing the Variables (Definitions) 38

IV. Purpose 44

V. Rationale 4?

VI. Hypothesis 48

Chapter 2 - Review of the Literature

I. Review Purpose 50

II. Introduction 51
III. Literature Which Contradicts

the Many Problems Legend 54

ix

IV. Literature That Supports
, the Many Problems Legend

A. Non-study Areas of Inquiry
B. Study Areas of Inquiry

1. Drinking
2. Health
3. Family/Marriage
V. Literature Review Summary

Chapter 3 - Design
I. Purpose
II. Population and Sampling
III. Methodology
IV. Measuring Device
A. The Questionnaire
B. Question Sources
C. Measures
Chapter 4 — Data Analysis
I. Introduction
II. Samples and Sub-sample

III. Organizational Size and Type Correlates of
Stress

IV. Testing the Hypotheses
Drinking Problems
Health Problems
Family/Marital Problems

.05”?

V. Intervening Variable Effect
Current Schooling

Second Job

Active in Sports

.09"?

VI. Serendipitous and/or Surprising Findings

Chapter 5 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

I. Conclusions
A. Significant Findings Which Supported
the Hypotheses
B. Trends Which Supported the Hypotheses

X

85
86
88
91
91

91
93

100
103

110

116
116
125
135

149
150
153
156

159

163
163

164
165

F5353?

Data Contradicting the Hypotheses
Stress As A Possible Predictor
Intervening Variable Effects
Data Summary

II. Policy Recommendations

III. Future Research Recommendations

IV. Summary
A. Limits
B. Consequences

EPILOGUE

APPENDIX

Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix

Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix

msJGUl-wat-l
I I I I l I I

12-
13-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

List of Stressors
Afflictions and Maladies
Letter to Agency Heads
Response Totals
Number of Respondents by Job Title
Number of Respondents by Assignment
Questionnaire
Questionnaire Cover Letter to

the Officers
Consent Form From the Chiefs
Codebook
Job Stress Scale Example
Assignment Codes - Clustered
Findings Summary Letter to

the Participants

xi

167
168
169
173

174
176
178
178
181

184

186

186
191
197

199
200
202

210
211
212
227
229

231

233

LIST OF TABLES

2213111219.
4.1 Job Stress Scores Distribution
4.2 Job Stress Scale Cross Tabulations
4.3 Michigan Law Enforcement Organization
Sizes and Types
4.4 Study Organizations Sizes and Types
4.5 Job Stress Scale Scores vs Assignments
4.4 Distribution of Time (Months) Served
in Current Assignments
4.7 Job Stress Score by Type of Organization
4.8 Job Stress Score by Law Enforcement
Organization Size
4.9 Job Stress Score vs Law Enforcement Agency
Type and Size
4.10 Distribution of Drinking Level Change Scores
4.11 Job Stress Scores vs Drinking Level Changes
4.12A Age vs Drinking Level Change
4.12B Time on Job vs Drinking Level Change
4.12C Time in Assignment vs Drinking Level Change
4.13 Distribution of Drinking Problem Indicators
4.14 Job Stress Scores vs Drinking Problem Indicators
4.15 Low/High Stress Scores vs Age
4.16 Job Stress Scores vs Age (by quartile)
4.17 Age vs Health Level Changes

xii

101
102

104
104
107

108
111

113

114
117
119
120
120
120
121
123
126
126
128

bhhfihkbfih

1h.

bhhékufiufi

.18
.19
.20
.21
.22
.23
.24
.25
.26

.27

.28
.29

.30
.31
.32
.33
.34
.35
.36

.37

Distribution of Health Level Changes

Job Stress Scores vs Health Level Changes
Distribution of Health Problem Indicators

Job Stress Scores vs Health Problem Indicators
Distribution of Marital Status

Distribution of Family Scores

Family Scores vs Job Stress Scores (2 X 2)

Job Stress Scores vs Family Scores (4 X 4)

Veteran Officer Job Stress Scores vs
Family Scores

Quartile Veteran Officer Job Stress Scores vs
Family Scores

Distribution of Marital Happiness Level Changes

Job Stress Score vs Married Officers’
Number of Friends

Marital Status vs Job Stress Scores

Job Stress Scores vs Divorce Rates

Job Stress Scores vs Hit Spouse
Distribution of Job Satisfaction Scores
Distribution of Spouse Support Scores

Job Satisfaction Scores vs Spouse Support

Job Stress Scores vs
Time in Assignment (Supervision)

Job Stress Scale vs Working Nights

xiii

130
131
132
134
136
137
139
140

140

141
142

145
146
147
148
159
160
160

161
162

Figure Title

1.1
3.1
3.2

LIST OF FIGURES

Ends
Model of the Problem ' 37
Number of Participants By Agency Class 87
Sample Characteristics 88

xiv

LIST OF SYMBOLS, ABBREVIATIONS, OR NOMENCLATURE

DLC - Drinking Level Change

DPI - Drinking Problem Indicator

FS - Family Score

HC - Marital Happiness Level Change

HLC - Health Level Change

HPI - Health Problem Indicator

JSS - Job Stress Score

P.O. - Peace Officer

Rookie - Officers with 1 to 62 months in assignment
SS - Statistically.significant

Veteran - Officers with 63 to 300 months in assignment

Chapter 1
0 TO H ROB E

PREFACE:

Before a discussion of the problem, an explanation of
what is meant by the term "Peace Officer" as it is used in
this study is needed. As used here, Peace Officer is not
meant to conjure up images of the stereotypical wild west
gun-slinging mercenary in the mold of Wyatt Earp. In the
following pages, Peace Officer is meant to include members
of the Michigan State Police, Michigan County Sheriffs and
Deputies, and local Michigan law enforcement agencies such
as municipal, local, and campus police.

I elected to use this term because once, when pressed
for an answer to succinctly state what my job was 1, after
careful deliberation I gave an answer that I thought best
summarized all the facets of an officer’s job - keeping the
peace. Whether apprehending criminals, deterring crime,
writing tickets, directing traffic, intervening in domestic
disputes, or getting cats out of trees, the end result of
an officer’s efforts is keeping a community peaceful.
Keeping the peace can also be generally considered as the

mission of other officers such as those in County Sheriff

 

1 In the fall of 1980, I was a large city police
officer and a graduate student at Michigan State University
in a Criminal Justice course titled "Seminar in Criminal
Justice and Criminology". The question was posed in class
by a fellow student who could best be described as a
antagonist to police in general.

1

departments and State Police.

Bittner commented on an irony of this police mission
when he wrote, "...one cannot understand how the police
‘found themselves’ in this unenviable position without
taking into consideration that one of the cultural trends
of roughly the past century—and—a-half was the sustained
aspiration to install peace as a stable condition of
everyday 1ife."2 In other words, as society moves more and
more in the direction of less tolerance of violence, the
police represent the last bastion, other than the armed
forces, of the legal use of force. The ironic aspect of
this circumstance is that the police, in order to maintain
peace, must use the threat of violence and, when
situational contingencies require it, the actual use of
violence in meeting their mission.

For the purposes of this study, the term "Peace
Officer" seems appropriate when referring to the various

law enforcement officer types.

 

2 Egon Bittner, The Functions of the Police in Modern
Society (Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental
Health, 1972), 45.

I. INTRODUCTION:

There are claims and counter—claims that police are
highly stressed. These claims are made on a variety of
different kinds of evidence, some of which is conflicting.
This dissertation is a study of stress in Peace Officers.
Its intent is to empirically examine different levels of
stress, and the resultant consequences on the officers’
lives in an autonomic-like response to being impacted by
the stressful features of the occupation.

The problems faced by officers that are reviewed in
this and the next chapters draw on literature by scholars
(criminal justice, medical, sociologists, psychologists,
etc.) as well as my own experiences spanning 19 years as a
member of a large urban police department. Where
appropriate, I introduce my own observations, in particular
when it is the source of an inference or a connective
argument that I make. I recognize that the "war-
story/anecdotal approach“ is cliche, but what I am
attempting to do is make the logic of my argument clear.
Hopefully, it can be evaluated such that the examples,
anecdotes, and materials from my own experience can be seen
in that framework.

Whether certain problems I address are deviant,
abnormal, or a typical is not an issue of this study.
Rather, I am saying that observing these problems over the

years from an officer’s viewpoint has sensitized me to

4
them. The problems focused on are the complex personal cost

that seem to be associated with the occupation.

II. THE PROBLEM:

Many law enforcement practitioners today believe that
Peace Officers (P.O.s), when they are considered as an
occupational group, have some of the nation’s highest rates
of certain maladies and afflictions. Officers are
perceived as having serious problems with high divorce,
alcoholism and suicide rates, neuroticism, occupational
burnout, and cynicism. These same practitioners further
believe that some of these problems result in such physical
ailments as ulcers, digestive disorders, high blood
pressure, chronic headaches, heart disease, nervous
breakdowns, strokes, and others, sometimes culminating in
premature death.3

An argument for the presence of unacceptable levels of
maladies and afflictions in Peace Officers is that they are
promoted over a period of time by an accumulation of a
phenomenon commonly referred to as "stress." (A detailed
discussion and model of this term comes later in this

chapter.)

 

3 See Appendix 2 for a comprehensive listing of
afflictions and maladies, and the authors who mentioned
these as being problems for Peace Officers. Sources that
are research studies are in bold print and CAPITALIZED.

5
Not only do those in the profession suspect problems,
the media has also supported the notion. Prime time
national television news presented a special on this topic
which included the observation that, "Cops have one of the
highest rates of suicide in this country, and of

alcoholism, and divorce"4.

A. OCCUPATI N USCEPT IL

This study is not attempting to establish a case for
job-specific hazards, such as the black-lung disease being
specific to coal miners. To link a certain problem, such
as alcoholism, to a particular profession is not an idea
that applies only to Peace Officers. Many different
professions can lay claim to the dubious distinction of
fostering maladies and afflictions, such as alcoholism, in
their membership. For example, Danielle Hitz conducted a
study which explored the question of drinking problems in
specific occupations. Her report listed the most fatal
occupations, ranked according to high mortality ratios from
cirrhosis of the liver, as, (1) waiters, (2) bartenders,
(3) counter workers, (4) longshoremen, and (5) stevedores.
Peace Officers did not even make it to the "top five" of
her list. In the study, Hitz listed policemen behind

bartenders and bar owners, seamen, cooks and restaurant

 

4 NBC Nightly News - Special Segment, 6:30 PM
telecast, Tuesday, February 23, 1987, subject - "Police
Suicides," Jack Reynolds.

6

workers only in the "high intake" category 5.

B. ASPECTS OF THE UNUSUAL WORLD OF THE PEACE OFFICER:
A case can be made by those who claim Peace Officers
are unusually high in maladies and afflictions, that a
significant contributor to the onset of the alleged
problems is the unusual nature of the occupation. It is
often argued that rather than "unusual", the term "unique"
better describes a Peace Officers’ job environment.
However, the use of the word "unique" is a flag to critical
readers to immediately ask, "How so ?" Some say that
"unique" infers there is nothing like it, one of a kind, or
singular. As this term applies to the police profession,
it is the perception of the combination of the various job
features or stresses faced by Peace Officers that gives it
its uniqueness. These same features and stresses can be
found singly or in different combinations in other
occupations. Social workers and clergy also operate in
slums; physicians and firemen also save lives. Are the
problems that Peace Officers face really unique 7 A study
by Kroes, Margolis, and Hurrell addressed that question,
noting:
It has been said that the stressors on policemen

are not unique compared to working men in
general. Many workers face deadlines, complex

 

5 Danielle Hitz, "Drunken Sailors and Others:
Drinking Problems in Specific Occupations", Quarterly
Journal_2f_§tudies_gn_A12one; No. 34 (1973) 496. (NOTE: She
advises that "the results of this study must be taken as
being suggestive findings only.")

7

and frustrating bureaucracies, equipment

problems, lack of say, etc. Can we then, in

truth, say that the police are in a uniquely high

stress occupation? The answer in an unqualified

yes.6

When applied to the combined mission, work, and home
environments of a Peace Officer, the use of the word
"unique" has much of support. What seems to many officers
to be a "them versus us" situation may explain in part the
unusual, or as the authors below state, unique nature of
the job. As Bennett noted, "...attitudinal and value
differences between police and citizens are due to the
unique demands of the occupation"7. A New York
psychiatrist characterized some unusual aspects of the job
in the following manner:

The job of being a policeman is unique. It is one

of the few occupations in which one is feared,

sometimes hated, occasionally reviled or even

assaulted in the ordinary performance of one’s

duties.8
Conversely, this same person with a badge and gun is
revered and needed today by many who scorned him yesterday.

The following paragraphs attempt to explain the

characteristics of the officers’ world which are unusual

 

6 William Kroes, Bruce Margolis, and Joseph Hurrell,

"Job Stress In Policemen.“ Jeu__al_cf_figlice_§cience_and
Administration 2 (February 1974): 154

7 Richard R. Bennett, "Becoming Blue: A Longitudinal
Study of Police Recruit Occupational Socialization,"
Journal of Police Science and Administration 12:1 (March
1984):47. Emphasis on the word "unique" was added.

8 Martin Symonds, "Emotional Hazards of Police Work, "

Aussiesn_qurnal_2f_Bsxcb2enalzsis 30 (February 1970): 155.
Emphasis on the word "unique" was added.

8
and which many would argue are "unique". These areas
include (but are not limited to) its stress, its work
environment (or “the street"), its organization, its
mission, and its personnel pool. First, and possibly most

important, will be a discussion of the officers’ "stress".

1. THE STRESS:

It is not my intention to pin down the notion of
stress or stressors, but rather to determine if there is a
connection between the symptoms and the stressors. I wish
to emphasize that the utility of the term is that it is a
kind of gloss for a set of kinds of problems. Stress is a
concept which makes sense here, but I am not trying to
define it. The aim is to simply look at the clustering of
symptoms and see how they fall out in the population as
they relate to specific stressors.

The importance of the stress concept cannot be over
stated. The "father of the stress concept", Dr. Hans
Selye, defined stress as, “the nonspecific response of the
body to any demand", but admitted, “...you cannot study
stress: you can merely explore real and tangible things
such as (its) effects..."9.

When investigating the term stress, the word
"imbalance" constantly appears. Some examples: Stress

"...results from an imbalance between the demands of the

 

9 Richard Lawrence, "Police Stress and Personality
Factors: A Conceptual Model," Journal of Criminal Justice
12 (March 1984):248.

9
environment and the individual’s ability to adapt to these
demands"10. When applied to police work, Violanti wrote
that police stress, “...is a perceived imbalance between
occupational demand and the police officer’s capability to
effectively respond, under conditions were failure alweys
has important consequences"11.

Silbert wrote, "Police work can be viewed as combining
two elements, both of which research has indicated cause
the most significant stress to workers: (1) work with
people and (2) work within a bureaucratic organization"12.

Hill dramatically described the situation when he
wrote, "As a psychologist who has specialized in the
treatment of police officers and their family members, I
have seen in this select group of persons a tendency toward
self-destruction due to the stress which is inherent in
such a high risk occupation"13. Two criminal justice
researchers noted, "The effects of long-term stress are
serious physical, emotional and behavioral problems and --

ultimately--premature death"14. The fatalistic implication

 

10 I. Gayle Shuman, "Stress: An Overview," Crimigal
We; 2 (November 1982):14.

11 John M. Violanti, "Police Stress: A Conceptual
Definition," Police Stgess (February 1982):27.

12 Mimi H. Silbert, "Job Stress and Burnout of New
Police Officers," The Police Chief (June 1982):46.

13 Wayne Hill, "Stress, Police Officers, and
Survival," Belice Stress (Spring 1981):35.

14 F. Barry Schreiber and Jack Seitzinger, "The
Stress Pressure Cooker: A Comprehensive Model of Stress
Management," The Police Chief (February 1985):46.

10
of the authors’ observations is not simply for dramatic

effect, rather it may be seen as a warning.

8- Stressors:

A general definition of "stressors" has been provided
by Symonds who defined them as, "...anything which produces
an autonomic nervous system response in an individual"15.
He grouped those that effect policemen into two categories:
1) Stress which is due to the nature of police work, and 2)
Stress which is a result of the nature of the police
organization 16. Perhaps the most infamous stressor facing
Peace Officers is the potential for harm. As Trojanowicz
noted, "Though occupations such as mining, lumbering and
agriculture rate higher in annual rates of death and injury
- with policing at most a distant fourth - the threat in
police work is uniquely chilling and deserves closer
examination"17.

Many stressors have been identified that, when the
stressor is considered by itself, is readily found in other
professions, and thus is get "unique". However, when
considered as part of a cluster of simultaneous stressors,
the group of stressors facing Peace Officers in police work

is arguably unique. Stratton grouped the stressors in the

 

15 Symonds, p. 59.
16 Ibid., p. 155.
17 Robert Trojanowicz, “Loss A Tragic Reminder of

Police Risks,“ Michigan Police Chiefe Newgletter (May
1988):24.

11
following manner:
Stratton’s Stressor Clusters

EXTERNAL STRESSORS:

Frustration with the criminal justice
system,including the court’s leniency,
decisions which restrict methods of criminal
suppression, and inconsiderate scheduling of
court proceedings.

Negative or distorted media presentations

Unfavorable attitudes of some minority groups

Negative attitudes of administrative bodies
toward law enforcement funding

Too few and/or lacking community resources

INTERNAL STRESSORS:
Poor training, supervision, equipment, and pay
Inadequate career development opportunities
Poor reward/reinforcement system
Offensive intradepartmental policies
Excessive paperwork
Lack of appreciation from the department and
community
Political interference

STRESSORS FOUND IN POLICE WORK ITSELF:
Shift work
Court time and holdover time
Role conflict
Fear and danger
Fragmented nature of the job
Constant exposure to others in distress
Boredom vs a suddenly developing situation
Responsibility for others’ safety
Work overloads
Need to present "superman" image always

STRESSORS CONFRONTING INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS:

Worries about one’s competency

Being fear-ridden

The necessity to conform

Being a member of a minority

Being a female in law enforcement

Social status and attitudinal changes that
develop just because of being an officer

Necessity of taking a second job

Continuing education for professional
advancement 18

 

18 John Stratton, "Police Stress: An Overview," The
Police Chief (April 1978): 59, 60.

12

Terry presented almost an identical list using similar

terminology.

Terry’g Streggor Clugters

EXTERNAL STRESSORS:

Frustration with the criminal justice system (i.e.,
courts)
—Lenient court decisions
-Scheduling of court appearances

Unfavorable media presentations

Unfavorable attitudes of some minority communities

Restrictive attitudes and decisions of some
administrative bodies affecting police work

INTERNAL STRESSORS:
Poor training
Poor equipment and pay
Poor reward and reinforcement system
Inadequate career development opportunities
Offensive department policies
Excessive paperwork
Intradepartmental political favoritism

TASK RELATED STRESSORS:
Role conflict
Shift work
Boredom
Fear
Danger
Exposure to the miseries and brutalities of life
Work overloads

INDIVIDUAL STRESSORS:
Job competence
Individual success
Safety

STRESSORS ARISING FROM POLICE WORK:
Health problems
Alcoholism

Marital problems, divorce
Suicide 19

Here Terry contributes to the confusion over the concept of

 

19 W. Clinton Terry, "Police Stress: The Empirical

Evidence, Jeurgel of Police Science and Administration 9
(March 1981): 61, 62.

13

stress when he lists symptoms of stress (i.e., health
problems, etc.) as stressors. One can only assume that
Terry considers the symptoms as stressful in and of
themselves. For example, if I were an alcoholic, that
would be a stressful part of my existence.

Other authors have identified police work stressors
that are common with stressors in other professions, and
differentiated them from those which are found

predominately in police work:

Shared vs Police Specific Stressors
Shered With Other Occupations: Bgligg_§2§gifig;

 

Administration Courts

Job Conflict Negative Public
Image

Second Job Racial Situation

Inactivity Line of Duty/Crises

Shift Work Situations

Inadequate Resources

Organizational Territoriality

Job Overload

Responsibility for the People

Inequities in Pay or Job Status 20

Violent death of a partner(LOD) Taking a life(LOD)

Dismissal Shooting someone
Accepting a bribe Pursuit of an armed
suspect

Observing colleague corruption I.A./P.S.S.
investigations 21

Shift work

Working long hours

Constant fear and anticipation of danger and death

Actual confrontations with injury and violence

 

20 William Kroes and Sam Gould, "Job Stress in
Policemen: An Empirical Study“, Police Stress 1/2
(1979):10; and Friedrich Wenz, “Death Anxiety Among Law
Enforcement Officers". lourna1_of_Eolice_§cience_snd

Adn1n1strotion 7 (June 1979)=230.

21 James Sewell, “Police Stress," F.B a

Enforcement_fiulle&in (April 1981) 9.

l4

prejudice, suspicion, and hostility by the public 22
(Note: "LOD" refers to line of duty)

Finally, Reese listed what he described as "New" stressors
which included:

Turnover in executive policy—making posts

Frequent rotation in advisory personnel

Policies regarding deadly force

Adoption of affirmative action programs

Perceived or actual lowering of entrance requirements

Perceived or actual lowering of the department’s
image.

Fluctuation in promotional policies and
qualifications.

Increased legal liabilities and civil suits.

Specializations such as SWAT and undercover.

Police unions.

Devaluing traditional police work.

Failure to adopt psychological services programs for
officers.

Reduced manpower 23

b. Sygptoms:

Symptoms seem to indicate stress, so that they are
retrospectively indicative. Schreiber and Seitzer
subdivided the symptoms of stress into three groups which
they called common (1) physical, (2) emotional, and (3)
behavioral symptoms. Included in the common physical
symptoms were headaches, muscle tension (especially in the
face, neck, or shoulders), nausea, skin rashes or itching,
diarrhea, sexual problems, stomach ulcers, bowel problems,
back problems, and high blood pressure. Common emotional

symptoms included were chronic anger, irrational fears,

 

22 Hans Selye, "Stress of Police Work,“ Police Stress
1/1 (January 1978):7.

23 James Reese, "Life In the High-Speed Lane:
Managing Police Burnout," The Police Chief (June 1982):50.

15
sleep disturbances and nightmares, feeling depressed,
difficulty concentrating, forgetfulness, and chronic
anxiety or worry. Common behavioral symptoms included
withdrawing from people, making stupid mistakes, eating too
much or too little, frequent or excessive drinking,
compulsive gambling, sexual promiscuity, frequent

accidents, self-defeating or selfedestructive behaviors 24.

c. mm 25:

Many of the previously mentioned maladies and
afflictions are strongly related to the amount of stress
inherent in a profession. For example, "Some of the
physical reactions that are attributed to prolonged or
severe stresses are: excessive weight, high blood pressure,
impotence, frequent heartburn, disruptive sleeping habits,
frequent headaches, constant fatigue, shortness of breath,
ulcers, cardiovascular disease symptoms, diarrhea or
constipation, excessive nervous energy"28.

Other authors refer to these and other stress related

problems as "Diseases of Adaption/Adaptation", and list

 

24 Schreiber and Seitzinger, p. 45.

25 Review literature used both the terms "adaption"
and "adaptation" synonymously. As defined in one
dictionary (Webster’s New World Dictionary, 1960),
"adaptation" meant, in part, "3. in biology, a change in
structure, function, or form that produces better of an
animal or plant to its environment," and, "5. in eeeielegy,
a change in behavior to conform to cultural patterns.“ The
same dictionary defined "adaption" as, "n. adaptation."

26 Shuman, p. 14.

16
coronary heart disease, ulcers, high blood pressure,
digestive disturbances, increased alcohol consumption,
depression, anxiety clusters, headaches, paranoid patterns,
gastric disorders, rheumatic or allergic reactions, kidney
disease, and emotional problems 27.

As the authors above inferred, sometimes stress has
lead to a phenomenon whose name is occasionally used
interchangeably with stress - situation or condition
popularly known as "burnout". Definitions found in
literature to describe this phenomenon include:

To fail, wear out, or become exhausted by making

excessive demands on energy, strength, or

resources 28.

Refers to a syndrome of emotional exhaustion and

cynicism that frequently occurs among individuals

who do ‘people work’ - who spend considerable

time in close encounters with others under

conditions of chronic tension and stress 29.

As applies specifically to Peace Officers, Daviss
succinctly wrote, "Burnout is roughly defined as a loss of
physical and mental energy, and loss of enthusiasm for work

an officer once loved"30. This too can be referred to as a

disease of adaptation.

 

27 Stratton, p. 59, refers to "diseases of adaption";
and Sewell, p. 7, refers to “diseases of adaptation".

28 Cary Cherniss, Steffi Surggut (Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications, 1980) p. 16, quoted Reese, p. 49.

29 Christina Maslach and Susan E. Jackson, “Burned-
Out Cops and Their Families,“ Psychology Todey (May 1979):
59.

30 Ben Daviss, "Burn Out", Beliee_Megezine (May
1982):10.

17
d. Coping Mechanisms:

Coping mechanisms intervene between the stress and the
symptoms. A working definition of coping mechanisms is,
"Individual modes of ritualizing, or stratigizing, or
tactics to reduce stress"31. Coping mechanisms come in two
basic forms - negative and positive.

(1) Negative Coping Mechanisms:
Examples of negative coping mechanisms are:
(a) Development of a cynical attitude.
(b) Becoming overly protective and restrictive
of his wife and children.
(0) Begin to harbor negative attitudes toward
the public.
(d) Suppressing more emotions.
(e) Withdrawing from family and friends 32
(f) (Increased) physical fitness activities.
(g) Denial.
(h) Role distance 33.

What is frequently found in the literature, and what I
am exploring in this study, are the negative consequences
when the coping mechanisms fail. When that happens, coping

may be manifested in such responses as cynicism or other

negativism, which tends to be reflected in a diminishing of

 

31 A quote from Dr. Peter Manning, Michigan State

University, during an interview/conference with him on
March 6, 1987.

32 Hilda F. Besner and Sandra Robinson, "Police
Wives - The Untapped Resource,“ The Police Chief (August
1984): 62.

33 Mary Hageman, "Occupational Stress and Marital
Relationships," Journal of Police Science and

Admgpgenpepigp 6 (December 1978):410, 411.

18
the effectiveness of an officer.34
(2) Positive Coping Mechanisms:

This is a topic which is relatively unexplored. Thus
far the discussion of the officers’ situation would
indicate that the end result of the alleged stressors and
problems are all negative: poor health, poor family life,
and excessive drinking in addition to all the problems not
focused on in this study. What most of the studies
typically address are those negative consequences of stress
which are manifested in symptoms (e.g., alcoholism).

An example of a positive coping mechanism is a
rededication by the officer to a worthwhile cause or
activity (such as attending school or increased interest in
and participation with the officer’s children) as an escape

from job stress.

e. Resources to Combat the Deleterious Effects of

Stress:
A related and equally ignored sub-topic of the stress

concept is that of the “resources" that a person has to

 

34 My own "Job Stress Score" (which will be explained
in detail in Chapter 3) was 83 out of a possible 100. If
the hypothesis is correct, such a score is indicative of an
officer who should suffer numerous maladies. Fortunately,
there were several intervening variables which I feel
permitted me to avoid the destructive coping alternatives,
and allowed me to deal with stress in a different way that
is non-symptomatic. One example is my return to school,
which put me into a different environment, and gave me a
constant and regular relief from the stresses of my
profession. Whether such an intervening variable has any
effect on the maladies and afflictions rates will be
explored in Chapter 4.

19
offset the stress of this profession. By this term I mean,
for example, a close family unit, or strong religious
background, or activities in an organization outside the
work environment. It logically seems possible that certain
resources might diminish stress. However, research on this
topic is hard to find, possibly for the same reasons that
crime prevention data is difficult to validate. Just as
you cannot definitely measure how many crimes were not
committed, how can a researcher measure stress that did not
occur ? It is one of the conceptual problems when

attempting to investigate this topic.

f. Summary of Stress:

Stress is a concept over which there is a great deal
of debate. People take a set of symptoms (e.g.,
alcoholism) and argue that given those symptoms there must
be stress present. They, in effect, argue backwards. A
major dilemma is how can you define stress in the absence
of symptom patterns ? The answer is, "You can’t!" A
response could be that once you find the symptoms you can

infer the presence of stress. There are arguments for both

 

views. Stress can be considered a circular concept.35
Whereas this study will look at the concept from the point
of view that stress is a significant contributor to

maladies and afflictions, others could justifiably argue

 

35 Interview with Dr. Peter Manning, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, 6 March 1987.

20
that the maladies and afflictions are stressful in and of
themselves.

All professions experience stress. What is it then
that produces unacceptable levels of maladies and
afflictions in Peace Officer ? Or, as one author asked:

...what are the factors which assist stress in

operating so well within the police profession ?

Many believe it is a combination of occupational

and personal issues that produce a system in

which stress runs rampant. 36
Following are some answers to the question of which unusual

factors present in police work foster stress and its

consequent maladies and afflictions.

2. THE STREET:

The officers’ work place is commonly known in police
jargon as "the street". It is a place where officers
encounter many contradictions. To the "street cop" this
place includes (but is not limited to) the residential
neighborhoods, the business districts, schools, industrial
complexes, parks, and major thoroughfares. Of equal
importance the street can also include the alleys, slum
dwellings, abandoned homes and buildings, drug houses,
hospital emergency rooms, and even the morgue. This work
environment is further confused by the contradictions an
officer observes within the community status extremes while

working the street: e.g., the intelligence, kindness and

 

36 Lloyd Bratz, "Combating Police Stress," FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin (January 1986):2.

21
understanding a volunteer detoxification center worker
shows a filthy skid-row bum, contrasted with a senseless
multiple homicide/suicide of an sterilized upper-class
family in an exclusive neighborhood. These extremes seem
to belie their respective lowly or lofty social positions.
The street is not a static place, either, as one

author wrote, .in no other line of work in the world, is
one’s task subject to change on shorter notice or a more
frequent basis than that of the cop on the street"37.

The street also imposes severe demands on an officer’s
physical well-being. Another author wrote of the street,
"The physical demands made upon police officers are unique
by nature, requiring a wide variety of physical abilities,
such as split-second reaction time, dynamic and static
strength, agility, and the need for explosive energy
reserves following prolonged periods of sedentary
activity"38. A fitness authority noted that an officer may
go for days with physical activity no more demanding than
climbing out of the patrol car. However, on another day an
officer may suddenly have to subdue a violent suspect, or

become involved in a long foot chase. "The sudden heavy

physical exertion is extremely demanding on the officer’s

 

37 William D. Haynes, Stpese epd Beleted Disprders_ip

Policemen, (San Francisco: R&E Research Associates, 1978),
p. 15.

38 James Hillgren and Rebekah Bond, "Stress In Law
Enforcement: Psycho-Physiological Correlates and Legal

Implications." Journal.of_EQren§ic_Bsxcholosx (1975): 26

22
heart and respiratory system"39.

Few, if any other, professionals routinely come into
contact with a street or work environment as diversified,
contradictory, and suspicious as that of the Peace Officer.
This term, "the street", will appear frequently in the

following pages.

3. THE ORGANIZATION:

Bennett summarized Skolnick (1966), Niederhoffer
(1967), Chevigny (1969), and others as saying, "...the
organization’s demands and the nature of the occupation
lead to the uniqueness that has been observed by
researchers"40.

What is pep unique about police organizations is their
classic Weberian organizational structure. As with the
more traditional civilian organizations, police departments
are characterized by:

(1) formal structures are defined by a
centralized hierarchy of authority;

(2) labor is divided into functional specialties;
(3) activities are conducted according to
standardized operating procedures;

(4) career routes are well established and have a
common entry point; promotions are based on
impersonal evaluations by superiors;

(5) management proceeds through a monocratic
system of routinized superior-subordinate
relationships;

(6) status among employees is directly related to

 

39 Earl Gilbert, "Physical Fitness for Law
Enforcement," Ley_epd_9pdep 32 (August 1984):43.

40 Bennett, "Becoming Blue: A Longitudinal Study of
Police Recruit Occupational Socialization", 47.

23

their positions (jobs) and ranks.41
As Angell so aptly summarized, "These characteristics
result in a firmly established, impersonal system in which
most of the employees and clients are powerless to initiate
changes or arrest the system’s motions.”42

An unusual aspect of the police organization is its
para-military status. "Most police departments have
structured themselves after the military under the
assumption that in order to cope with the problems of
controlling crime and maintaining order, a closely
coordinated and disciplined body of personnel with clear-
cut lines of authority is necessary."43 This includes such
characteristics as the uniforms, carrying weapons,
saluting, being on duty 24 hours, etc.. For example,
unlike a postal carrier’s or fire fighter’s uniform, a
police uniform evokes the extremes of emotion in their
clients: from fear and hate to a sense of security and
love. Depue referred to the uniform when he wrote, "The
uniform sets the officer apart from other members of

society, and the nature of the work is unlike that of any

 

41 John E. Angell, "Toward An Alternative to the
Classic Police Organizational Arrangements: A Democratic
Model," Criminology 9 (August—November 1971): 186-187.

42 Ibid., p. 187.

43 John H. McNamara, "Uncertainties in Police Work:
The Relevance of Police Recruits’ Background and Training,"

The Eoliee: Six Sociolegieal Esseys (New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 1967): 178.

24
other occupation."44

Formal police organizations contribute to the
contradictions and frustrations their officers must work
through. A University of Tennessee research scientist
wrote about law enforcement organizations in general:

The member of the organization is exposed to a

conflicting set of expectations. On the one

hand, outside the organization, he is constantly

making on-the—spot decisions, carries deadly

weapons and is capable of live (sic) and death.

On the other hand, within the organization he

experiences himself as being treated like a child

who is not even permitted to decide on his own

which uniform to wear when the weather changes.45
Echoing this observation, the president of Los Angeles’
Police Protective League swore to eliminate the power of
the Chief of Police "to force the men to wear long sleeved
shirts ‘when goddamit, it is hot outside’"48.

This is not to imply that the wearing of a uniform by
officers is capricious and arbitrary. The uniform is a
symbolic element of the job which reflects the unquestioned
need for collective, coordinated, and disciplined action on
the part of the individual officers. However, what is

frustrating to officers is that apparently an officer’s

judgement is trusted in serious matters such as the use of

 

44 Roger Depue, "The Police Family," F.B.I. Law
Enforcement_flulletin (August 1981) 5.

45 Andrew Crosby, “The Psychological Examination in

Police Selection," Jouppal of Eolice Science ehd
Agpinistration 7 (June 1978):217.

46 Sam S. Souryal, "The Kojack Syndrome," The Police
Chief 48 (June 1981):60.

25

force, but not in such mundane matters as proper uniform.
What officers seem to be asking is that their judgement be
uniformly trusted in the serious as well as the mundane.
My own law enforcement agency employer also dictates what
an officer wears while on duty, and the major consideration
is he: the officers’ comfort.

When officers are not being treated metaphorically
like children (not to be confused with "as" children) by a
law enforcement agency as depicted in the preceding
paragraphs, their integrity may be questioned in subtle
ways. In one major metropolitan police department, if a
suspect or a prisoner should make a confession to a crime
while in police custody, its’ members are required to
immediately take the suspect or prisoner to a hospital for
a physical examination:

When a person has confessed to the commission of

a serious crime, the officer in charge shall

immediately call ...Receiving Hospital and make

arrangements to have the person examined by a

physician to determine whether there is any

evidence of physical violence having been used to

obtain the confession.47
This police agency’s administration apparently feels it
necessary to later prove (possibly in court) that the
confession was not beaten out of the suspect by its
officers. The agency’s intent may be just, but the effect

on the officers’ morale can be devastating. Instead of a

feeling of satisfaction and pride in solving a crime and a

 

47 Detroit Police Department Manual, "General
Procedures", Volume III, Chapter 5, Section 2.9, May 21,
1981.

26

job well done, an officer, in effect, may feel accused of a
crime (assault) simply because a suspect confessed, and as
a result the officer’s innocence must then be established.
An officer in this circumstance is not afforded one of the
most basic rights extended in the jurisprudence system to
even the most brutal criminal - that of the presumption of
innocence. Haynes made a similar observation when he
wrote, "It is also a fact of life for a police officer
that, when an accusation or intimation of wrongdoing arises
for that officer, he is guilty until proved innocent"48.

It is surprising that law enforcement organizations
are apparently so unfeeling to the officers, and not more
condescending if for no other reason than the agencies’
dependence on the front line worker. As two criminal
justice educators pointed out:

The police bureaucracy differs from most other

bureaucracies in that day-to-day activities are

initiated by the lower level worker; efficient

police functioning is not only highly dependent

upon the gathering of information from outside

sources,but also upon sharing and integration of

information among workers. Most information

crucial to the organization’s operation is fed

into the system by those at or near the bottom of

the formal hierarchy.49

The notion of the formal law enforcement organization

can be expanded to include elements of the system - the

criminal justice system - such as the Prosecutor’s Office.

 

48 Haynes, p. 19.

49 Ellen Hochstedler and Christine M. Dunning,
”Communication and Motivation in a Police Department,"

Spimihel Juetice and Behavior 10/1 (March 1983):48.

27
Officer J.B. of a large urban police department was
interviewed by this writer and provided the following
example of an officer’s frustration (and anger) with an
element of the system over which he has no control:

During an investigation of a domestic violence,
Officer J.B. was "sucker-punched" (no warning) by
a man involved in the dispute. A five minute
wrestling match followed until the officer and
his partner finally subdued the man. He was
arrested and conveyed to the local police
precinct charged with "Assault and Battery -
Police Officer". The precinct detectives
subsequently sought a criminal warrant against
the man for the assault. The next day, when
Officer J.B. went to the Prosecutor’s Office to
sign the warrant as the complainant, he
discovered to his chagrin that an assistant
prosecutor had denied the warrant, in effect
setting the man free. When pressed for a reason
for his decision, the assistant prosecutor
advised J.B. that a police officer getting hit in
the line of duty was simply part of the job -
such things came with the turf. In effect, the
citizen gets one free punch! 50

4. THE MISSION:

An unusual mission is imposed on an officer by the
organization of which he or she is a member. The emphasis
or focus of an organization’s mission is in response to the
community’s mandate or perceived needs as they apply to a
law enforcement/peace keeping need. A foremost mandate by

the community is the 24 hour requirement for Peace Officer

 

50 Officer J.B. is a real person, the incident
described actually happened, and both can be verified by
official police records maintained by the officer’s
department. Actual names are not used here and in
following interviews to protect the anonymity of those
interviewed (many of whom are friends and acquaintances of
the author).

28
service, which is another problem to the officer. Kroes
commented on this, writing, "...daytime sleep in the
controlled laboratory has been found to be qualitatively
different from nighttime sleep and less satisfying"5l.
If an officer’s mission or role had to be summed up in

one word, "service" would not meet with too much argument.

Regoli and Poole declared, "...the manifest purpose of the
police organization is to serve a societal function..."52.
Ready noted:

The man with a gun and a badge is neither a god

nor a devil. He is a man with a special trust

imposed upon him to protect and serve others

(emphasis added).53
Again, enter the contradictions: few other professions
fulfill their missions by saving lives and also taking
lives (the latter, of course, only in well defined and
extreme circumstances) 7 Few other professions serve by
protecting the freedom of the citizen(s), and also taking
away a citizen’s freedom (with probable cause to arrest) ?

The contradictions in a Peace Officer’s job seems to
extend to the length of the officer’s career itself.

Whereas one study found that the most satisfied occupations

are university professors, family physicians, white collar

 

51 William H. Kroes, Society’g VictipL The Policepan:
An_Analzsis_9f_iob.§tress_ln_fiolicina. (Springfield. 111:
Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1976), 32.

52 Robert M. Regoli and Eric D. Poole, "Measurement
of Police Cynicism: A Factor Scaling Approach," Journal of

Qpipihal Justice 7 (January 1979):43.

53 Timothy Ready, "So Your Husband Is A Police
Officer," Police Chief (February 1979):40.

29

supervisors, police (emphasis added), air traffic
controllers at small sites 54, the same study discovered
that the occupations with the shortest service are
assemblers on machine paced lines,...and administrators,
police (emphasis added), accountants, and computer
programmers 55.

The contradictions of the Peace Officers’ mission are
reinforced by the people he/she serves. Reiser addressed
this situation, writing:

The police are accused of being conservative and
of not being agents of social change. At the
same time, we admonish the police to uphold the
letter of the law as it is written and to apply
it equally to all people. The fact that the
written law is usually about 25 years behind
social behavior creates a disparity for which the
police tend to be blamed. Police are basically
governed by statute and yet have to deal with the
variations in practice. So we create the dilemma
of placing the police in the role of keeping the
status quo as it is written in law and then
expecting the police to exercise discretion in
circumventing those statutes considered archaic
or unenforceable. Thus, the police role is by
mandate a conservative law-upholding, maintaining
an outdated status quo function. This places the
policeman in the untenable middle between the
forces pushing for social change and those who
want to severely punish anyone who "steps out of
line".58

What other professional gets called upon at three o’clock

in the morning to save, 12 minutes, what took a battling

 

54 Robert Caplan et a1, Job Demands and Worker

. cos. (Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Social

Research, 1980), 134.
55 Ibid., p. 115.

56 Martin Reiser, Police Psychology, (Los Angeles:
LEHI Publishing Company, 1982), 10.

30

husband and wife years to destroy - namely, their
relationship and home ? Or, as a psychologist commenting
about stresses on policemen wrote, "With minimal
supervision and little opportunity for research or
reflection, he is required to make extremely critical
decisions, to intervene and resolve a variegated spectrum
of human crises"57. As one criminal justice educator
wrote:

All too often, the officer is asked to do the

impossible and solve problems when all other

agents of social control have failed. Police

officers cannot be expected to solve single-

handedly the misery of poverty, the trauma of

domestic discord, the scourge of drugs, the

frustration of unemployment, the chaos of mental

illness. Yet we send them - and they go

willingly and bravely - into situations fraught

with the unknown, out last recourse of control

when all other tactics have failed.58
When an officer attempts to take action in a situation for
which there are no guidelines or rules, only the officer’s
common sense and experience, the citizen’s "thanks“ is
often scorn for what appears to be a bumbling and clumsy

effort. Or, as Bittner wrote, ...the fact that policemen
are required to deal with matters involving subtle human
conflicts and profound legal and moral questions, without
being allowed to give the subtleties and profundities

anywhere near the consideration they deserve, invests their

 

57 Martin Reiser, "Some Organization Stresses on
Policemen," Journal of Police Science and Administration 2
(February 1974):156.

58 Trojanowicz, "Loss A Tragic Reminder," p. 24.

31
activities with the character of crudeness."59 A response
by officers to the spontaneous mission imposed on them by
the public can be seen in a bumper sticker which was
popular among many officers in the early 1970’s which read,
"If you don’t like cops, next time you need help call a

hippie !"

5. THE PERSONNEL POOL:

Like many of the more traditional civilian
occupations, the law enforcement profession is staffed with
a cross section of ordinary citizens of average abilities.

Contrary to the stereotype of the policeman being

unintelligent, sadistic, antisocial and latently

psychopathic, I found that policemen are actually
people...Being human, men in police work have

feelings about their wives and children, about

satisfaction on the job, about being liked or

disliked by the people they are working with, and

also about the future of the society in which

they live.60

A similar discovery was made by a Florida State
University professor who actually joined his local police
force to better study what he taught. He reported, "I went
through a humbling discovery that I, like the men in blue
with whom I worked, was simply a human being with definite

limits to the amount of stress I could endure in a given

period of time"81. However, in police work these same

 

59 Bittner, p. 9.

60 Reiser, Police Psycholpgy, 8.

61 George L. Kirkham, "A Professor’s Street Lessons,"
FBI Law Enforcement Journal 43 (March 1974):21.

32

ordinary people are placed into an extraordinary
combination of work environment and organization mission.

The phenomenon of excessive maladies and afflictions
striking Peace Officers is especially surprising when one
considers the personnel pool from which the officers are
selected. A strong argument can be made for the claim that
the rookie (new) officer is initially an above-average
person, specially selected and trained, and well suited for
the professional challenges ahead. One author noted,
"Among the initial criteria in the selection of police
recruits is that they are generally a sturdier and
healthier type individual than the average civilian of any
given comparable age group"62. Another criminal justice
researcher wrote, "Studies have shown that police officers
are more emotionally stable and intelligent than the norm

in society"63. Another wrote, ...the rigorous evaluation
given the officers at the time of selection undoubtedly is
related to the stability of the men appointed,” and,
"...numerous research studies...conclude that police
populations that are psychologically screened or tested are
above average intellectually and in emotional stabilitY"64.
In a study of police personality Hanewicz commented,

"...psychiatrist Jesse Rubin describes the kind of people

 

62 Bob Healey, "The Aerobic Cop," Police Chief 48
(November 1981):67.

63 John Stratton, ”The Police Professional: Another
Perspective," Law and Order 26 (September 1978):16.

64 Reiser, Police Psychology, p. 171.

33
who enter police work as ‘generally psychologically healthy
and competent young men...’"65. Stratton states, "Research
on law enforcement personnel consistently indicates that
they are better adjusted intellectually and emotionally
than the general population"66.

The preceding position, of course, is highly
contingent on what definition of “above average“ is being
used. The following example should clarify what is meant
by the statement that Peace Officers are considered ”above
average” citizens.

When I applied to become a Peace Officer, the Detroit
Police Department sought suitable personnel by applying a
strict and comprehensive recruitment procedure. Before an
applicant entered the Criminal Justice Institute (the
police academy), he or she had to successfully pass a
written examination, as well as a physical examination and
agility test, and a psychological test and interview. They
then underwent a thorough background investigation, and if
needed took a polygraph examination. They were also
required to participate in an in-home interview to assess
family attitudes, and then they received an oral board

examination in front of department supervisors.

 

65 Jesse G. Rubin, "Police Identity and the Police
Role," Eglice Community: Dimensione of an Occupatiopel
Subculture (Pacific Palisades, California: Palisades
Publishers, 1974), p.124, quoted in Wayne B. Hanewicz,
"Police Personality: Jungian Perspective," Crime and
Delinguency (April 1978):154.

66 John G. Stratton, "Pressures in Law Enforcement
Marriages," Police Chief 42 (November 1975):45.

34

Few other occupations require such a combination of
ability and character indices as a precondition to entering
an organization training school. A police candidate must
then successfully pass through the academy, which has been
described by one author as a crash course on how to be,
"...curbside psychiatrists, marriage counselors, social
workers, and even ministers, and doctors"67. The tasks
just quoted will never be found in a law enforcement
agency’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), but if you
ask any patrol officer, such jobs are part of the mission.

The lengthy application and hiring procedures outlined
above was not unique to the Detroit Police Department. It
appears to be the norm, as was discovered in a longitudinal
examination of job attitudes in another urban police
department:

The police officer selection process in Union

City is similar to that of most other large

police departments in the country. The applicant

must pass progressively the civil service

examination, background investigation, medical

examination, physical strength and agility test,

oral interview and a psychiatric examination.68
In a more recent study of "Police Perceptions of Their Work
wEnvironment", the same author described the recruiting and

application process in yet another city:

First, entrance into the Capital City Police
Department, like virtually all other urban police

 

67 Kirkham, "A Professor’s Street Lessons," p. 22.

68 John Van Maanen, "Police Socialization: A
Longitudinal Examination of Job Attitudes In An Urban

Police Department," Administrative Sciehce Quarterly 20
(1975):209.

35

agencies in the United States, is a highly
ritualized process in which each recruit is
exposed to a very similar set of experiences
including: a lengthy screening program for new
members (producing a rather homogeneous recruit
population in terms of education, age, sex, race,
and socioeconomic background), a standardized
training program for all recruits (the police
academy), (and) a six month probationary period
during which a recruit can be dismissed with
minimal cause and explanation...69

Bahn linked the stringent application process to the
"luster" of becoming an officer when he wrote:

...the individual who has gone to a government

office to get an application, has filled it in,

sat for an examination, taken a medical

examination (often an all day exam with a 50 to

80 percent visible failure rate), psychological

tests, physical skill and capacities qualifying

tests, and has been through an intensive

background investigation, views the notification

of acceptance as an extraordinary achievement in

itself...70
The resultant group of employees consists of people who can
reasonably be considered above average in intelligence,
health, character, and background, as evidenced by
successfully passing the aforementioned comprehensive
selection process.

The law enforcement profession shares these healthy

characteristics with many other professions. A point of

emphasis to be made in this study is the rapid decline of

 

69 John Van Maanen and Ralph Katz, "Police
Perceptions of Their Work Environment: An Exploratory Study
Into Organization Space and Time," Sociology of Work and
Occupations 6 (February 1979):37.

70 Charles Bahn, "Police Socialization in the
Eighties: Strains in the Forging of an Occupational

Identity," J u Po 'c 'e and mi istra i 12
(December 1984):391.

36

positive Peace Officer characteristics ih spite of law
enforcement agency efforts to purposely select and employ
individuals with minds and bodies which are resistant to
certain maladies and afflictions. Webb and Smith
recognized this paradox after noting the rigorous
recruiting and training which resulted in "a police recruit
above average in intelligence, physical ability, and
general health", but:

...they appear to suffer an incidence of health

problems at least as great as the normal

population. It stands to reason that something

about their work as police officers is

debilitating, at least for some. Current

exploratory research suggests that stress may be
the primary debilitating agent.71

 

71 Stephen Webb and David Smith, "Police Stress: A
Conceptual Overview," Journal of Criminal Justice 8 (1980):
256.

37
C. MODEL OF THE PROBLEM:
In an attempt to graphically represent the problem, I

developed the following mode1:72

 

diseases of
adaption)

stimuli reaction)
e.g., shift work,
guns, danger)

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT
VARIABLE
Extended period of Accumulation Deleterious
time in More-stressful-->of STRESSFUL ----- >Personal
assignment(s) experiences “ Problems
: (a.k.a. maladies
: and afflictions)
- 5
(or STRESSORS, (or RESPONSE, : (or SYMPTOMS,
E
E

INTERVENING VARIABLES

( or Coping Mechanisms

e.g., strong family ties,
sports, school,
second job)

Figpre 1.1 — Model pf phe Prgblem

 

72 The model presented here was developed by this
writer for this research project. During the literature
review a similar model was found in Webb and Smith (1980),
page 254. The models were designed independently.

38
III. QEFINITIONS:

A. LOW-STRESS vs HIGH-STRESS ASSIGNMENTS DEFINED:

As a guide to operationalizing the "Low-stress" and
"High-stress“ Peace Officer assignment variables, the
author used his own experiences in both types of
hassignments, and tried to keep in mind two officers who he
knew and worked with. One officer was an undercover
narcotics officer ("High—stress"), and the other was a
precinct commander’s clerk ("Low-stress").

1. High-stress Officer:

Drawing on experience in, and observations of,
various Peace Officers’ jobs, characteristics of “High—
stress" assignments include, but are not limited to:

a. Carrying a weapon is considered essential to
the assignment.

b. Daily tasks are potentially dangerous to health.
0. Regular attendance in court is obligatory.

d. Work hours are changed on a regular basis.

Daytime shifts are infrequently worked.

Ha

Daily tasks are unpredictable.

g. People who are under a great amount of stress and
tension are dealt with daily.

h. Exposure to hostile people is routine.

i. Exposure to the “seamy” undesirable elements of
the local area and population is commonplace.

Opportunities for corruption are not rare.
k. Exposure to tragedy is routine.

1. Assignments require mobility (on foot or in

2.

39
vehicle).
Exposure to stressful situations is routine.

The necessity for split-second decision making and
consequent action is commonplace.

Mistakes can have extreme, even fatal,
consequences.

Severe criticism, discipline, even court action,
may be the consequence of mistakes on the job.

There is little control over the nature of the
daily assignments/tasks.

The assignment allows for extensive use of
discretion.

Meal breaks are strictly controlled, and are
subject to interruption.

Low-stress Officer:

Characteristics of what is meant by the "Low—stress"

Officer assignments include, but are not limited to:

Carrying a weapon is unnecessary to the
assignment.

Daily tasks are not potentially dangerous.
Appearances in court are rare or not necessary.
Work hours are steady and unchanged.

A daytime work schedule is the rule.

Daily tasks can be anticipated.

Contacts with other people are mostly relaxed
and business-like, with little or no stress or
tension present.

There is little or no exposure to hostile people.

There is little or no exposure the "seamy
undesirable elements of the local area or
population.

Opportunities for corruption are rare or non-

40
existent.
k. There is little or no exposure to tragedy.

l. Assignments locations are stationary or primarily
in one place (e.g., at a desk, or in an office).

m. There is little exposure to stressful situations.

n. There is time for leisurely, thought-out decisions
with few or no crises situations requiring quick
decisions and consequent action(s).

0. Mistakes seldom, if ever, have severe
consequences, and are never fatal.

p. Mistakes made while on the job are subject to
criticism mostly from immediate supervisor(s),
with little possibility of court action resulting.

q. There is control over the nature of the individual
tasks within the assignment.

r. The tasks are structured with little input
required of the worker.

8. Meal breaks are leisurely and not subject to

interruption.

The preceding definitions were developed solely from
this researcher’s first hand experiences in both types of
assignments. Their validity comes from two separate
sources: First, my ten years "on the street", and nine
years "behind a desk"; Second, numerous authors and
researchers who have also described the situations listed
above (and many others) as stressful (for a detailed
listing of stressors and the literature review authors who

mentioned them see Appendix 1).

41
B. AEFLICTIONSZMALADIES DEFINED:

The terms "afflictions" and "maladies" are used when
generally describing negative or deleterious Peace Officer
problems. To differentiate, we will rely on Webster, who
defined an "affliction" as:

1. an afflicted condition; pain; suffering. 2.
anything causing pain or distress; calamity.
SYN.-affliction implies pain, suffering, or
distress imposed by illness, loss, misfortune,
etc.73

He defined a "malady" as:

an ailment; disease; illness; sickness: often
used figuratively.74

When applied to Peace Officers, afflictions can include
such problems as social isolation, divorce, and family
problems. Maladies can include such things as drinking
problems, alcoholism, and "premature death". The use of
these terms is not meant to be judgmental. It is not
intended in this study that divorce, for example, should be
considered abnormal or deviant behavior, because we know
that abnormality and deviance is largely a function of
societal labelling in response and reaction to a
phenomenon.

The specific maladies and afflictions mentioned above

and below are intended to identify stress symptom patterns

 

73 Joseph H. Friend and David B. Guralnik, editors,
Webster’g New World_Qiction§ry of the Apericgp Lahgeege
(Cleveland and New York: The World Publishing Company,
1960), 25.

74 Ibid., p. 886.

42
that are indicative of problems which seem to afflict

certain groups of people more than others.

C. INDEPENDENT VARIASLES:

For the purpose of this project, I use what the
literature refers to as stressful or "stressors" as
independent variables. Those are variables which are also
referred to as “causes", stressors, or stimuli, and
include, but not limited to adverse work schedules (i.e.,
shift work); consequences of actions possibly being fatal;
courts; decision making (”split-second"); double-dip
discipline (punishment from more than one source);
discretion; responding to domestic disputes and crisis
intervention; disruption of, hasty, and unbalanced eating
habits; fear and danger; handling drunks; handling guns and
the potential for taking lives; handling stressed persons;
being at homicide scenes; and discovering abused children
("people pain"). A listing of literature review authors
who name these and many others as stressful can be found in

Appendix 1.

D. DEPENDENT VARIABLES:

Operationally, problematic symptom patterns are the
dependant variables. The dependent variables, or the
afflictions and maladies, effects, symptoms of stress
include, but are not limited to drinking problems or

alcoholism; arthritis; heart disease; diabetes; digestive

43
disorders; divorce, marital or family problems; headaches;
high blood pressure; hypertension; isolation from family
and friends; juvenile offspring problems; nervous
conditions; obesity/overweight; and respiratory problems
(NOTE: A listing of the literature review authors who refer
to these and other afflictions and maladies can be found in

Appendix 2).

E. WORK ENVIRONMENT:

The definition of work environment is sufficiently
described by Macy and Mirvis who wrote, "The work
environment includes the employee’s jobs, supervisors and
work groups, and the organizational structure and

technicology"75.

F. BURNOUT:
A comprehensive definition for burnout was given by
Veninga, who wrote:

...burnout refers to a debilitating psychological

condition brought about by unrelieved work

stress, which results in:

1. depleted energy reserves

2. lowered resistance to illness

3. increased dissatisfaction and pessimism

4. increased absenteeism and inefficiency at
work.76

 

75 Barry A. Macy and Philip H. Mirvis, "A Methodology
for Assessment of Quality of Work Life and Organizational
Effectiveness in Behavioral—Economic Terms," Adpihietrepive

Science Qparterly 21 (June 1976):213.

76 Robert L. Veninga and James P. Spradley, The
WokaStress anneetigh (Boston/Toronto: Little, Brown and
Co., 1981), 6-7.

44
Maslach and Jackson gave a definition that can be more
easily associated with Peace Officers when they wrote,
"Burnout refers to a syndrome of emotional exhaustion and
cynicism that frequently occurs among individuals who do
‘people-work’ - who spend considerable time in close
encounters with others under conditions of chronic tension

and stress"77.

IV. EUEEOSE:

This study is an attempt to, (1) identify then
classify the participants in terms of their assignment and
organizational characteristics through the Job Stress Scale
developed for this study, (2) determine the presence or
absence of stress symptom patterns in the participants, and
(3) determine if there is a relationship between the Job
Stress scores and the stress symptom patterns. The
methodological problem of attempting cause and effect
research has been addressed by Schreiber and Seitzinger.
They believed that a researcher’s "ability" to establish
this type of relationship comes from several factors:

1. The increased ability of researchers to

detect and measure the early and subtle effects

of stress.

2. The increased ability to directly link

stressors (life events that can cause stress) to
specific negative symptoms. .

 

77 Maslach and Jackson, p. 59.

45

3. The increased willingness, beginning in the

1970s, to look beyond the “John Wayne Syndrome"

image of policing and recognize the emotional

pressures of law enforcement work.78

Obviously, all the suggested maladies and afflictions
which Peace Officers are subject to endure cannot be
eliminated or reduced in severity by any single study. The
very nature of some of the alleged problems hinders
attempts to solve or reduce them. For example, a problem
may not be controversial enough to warrant sufficient and
reliable study efforts. Cynicism is one such area. If
asked, I would define cynicism in two different ways: (1)
"Sarcasm in situations that are serious to others," and (2)
"Detachment where emotion is normal or expected." Cynicism
can be used to cope with situations that Poole et al
described below:

Officers see fellow citizens in their most

vulnerable and least appealing moments. They see

conventional morality flouted, criminal laws

violated and humans (including themselves)

degraded and ravaged. Doing society’s dirty work

may have its satisfying moments, but it is

unrealistic to expect such moments to outweigh

the misery intrinsic to the work.79
However, researching this alleged problem is not practical

according to Chandler and Jones because, "The subject has

only limited empirical evaluation... which research has

 

78 Schreiber and Seitzinger, p. 40.

79 Eric Poole, Robert Regoli, and Roy Lotz, "Linkages
Between Professionalism, Work Alienation and Cynicism in
Large and Small Police Departments," Social Science
Querperiy 59 (December 1978):532.

46
shown to be statistically invalid and unreliable"80. They
fail to mention that this obstacle may be due to the
previous use of poor research methods.

Another hinderance to research is that the problem may
be too statistically awkward to handle, and thus has few
research takers to address the issue in a meaningful and
accurate manner. Lester wrote about the problem of
addressing police stress, stating, "Accurate information
about stress is very difficult to find, since it is
difficult to quantify such information"81. This study is
an attempt to do just that - quantify stress, then see
what, if any, relationship stress has with certain problems
endured by Peace Officers.

.In this study, the alleged negative personal problems
of Peace Officers will be reduced in number to three broad
categories of stress symptom patterns: (1) sociological,
(2) psychological, and (3) physiological. Selection of
specific symptoms (dependent variables) will be partially a
subjective choice based on my own observations as an active
nineteen year veteran Peace Officer. This experience
suggests the most prevalent social stress symptom pattern
among officers is divorce or marital conflict or family

problems. The most prevalent psychological stress symptom

 

80 Ernest Chandler and Claude Jones, "Cynicism - An
Inevitability of Police Work 7", Journal of Police Science
and Administration 7:1 (February 1979):68.

81 David Lester, "The Policeman’s Lot: A Positive
Viewpoint,” Law and Order (February 1979):58.

47
pattern is alcoholism or excessive drinking (a traditional
view - some would say this is a medical problem, and it
will be discussed later). Finally, no one physiological
stress symptom pattern seems to stand out, but, an

accelerated deterioration of general health is noticeable.

V. RATI NALE;

Interest in, and devotion to, this study is derived
directly from the differences experienced personally, and
the unsolicited comments by family members and friends
about the outward manifestations of those differences. In
addition, contacts with family, friends, and other officers
have supported my observations about the major dimensions
of the two types of police work.

Secondly, many authors have also discovered that what
I experienced as being stressful are not just my locally
derived guesses, but a national Peace Officer problem
phenomenon as evidenced by the listings in Appendix 1.

This study attempted to collect and analyze data which
could provide an answer to some of the questions regarding
the alleged seriousness of Peace Officer problems, while

exploring the hypotheses on the following pages.

48
VI. HYPOTHESES:

A hypothesis of this study is that Peace Officers who
have been in the “High—stress" assignments for an extended
period of time are more susceptible to suffer various
deleterious personal problems ("stress symptom patterns")
than are (1) Peace Officers who are in the "Low-stress"
assignments for any length of time, or, (2) officers in the
High-stress assignments for a short period of time. More
specifically:

A. Peace Officers who are/have been in stressful

assignments for an extended period of time are

more likely to suffer drinking problems than

those officers who have not served extended

periods of time in such positions.

B. Peace Officers who are/have been in stressful

assignments for an extended period of time are

more likely to suffer health problems than those

officers who have not served extended periods of

time in such positions.

C. Peace Officers who are/have been in stressful

assignments for an extended period of time are

more likely to suffer family problems than those

officers who have not served extended periods of

time in such positions.

As previously mentioned (in the paragraphs on positive

49

coping mechanisms, above), not all veteran officers in
High-stress assignments succumb to the stresses and are
stricken with unreasonable rates of the previously
mentioned maladies or afflictions. Intervening variables
can buffer the negative effects of stress. Therefore, a
second hypothesis is:

The maladies and afflictions rates of Peace

Officers who are in or have been in the "High-

stress" assignments for lengthy periods of time

are mitigated by intervening variables such as

participation in sports, school, and a second

job.

Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

 

 

The purpose of the following review of literature on
the topic of personal problems of Peace Officers is to
present a sampling of research studies, personal
experiences, and opinions on whether officers suffer more
or less maladies and afflictions than would be considered
normal for the population in general. What follows is not
a recapitulation of everything ever written on the topic
because there are limited ways one can say a certain group
has or does not have, for example, a drinking problem. To
write over and over again that Peace Officers commit
suicide (another example) and simply change the footnoted
author’s name makes for rather redundant writing and
reading.1

Therefore, the following review will give the reader
an overview of the various, and sometimes contradictory,
points of view regarding the problems faced and endured by
Peace Officers. This review should give the reader an

appreciation of the controversy this study will attempt to

 

1 In Appendix 2, paragraph #1, 52 authors are listed
who address the issue of alcoholism and drinking problems
among officers. Paragraph #38 of the same Appendix
contains the names of 49 authors who address the issue of
suicide as it pertains to the officers.

50

51
shed some light on. Personal biases aside, it is an
objective of this study to see: (1) if a locally derived
perception is accurate; and, (2) if Peace Officers are
resistant to the problems that recruiting process attempted

to screen out.

II. INTRODUCTION:

Adding up numbers of studies and literature references
should not be the primary factor in deciding whether Peace
Officers suffer maladies and afflictions at a higher rate
than most other occupations, or whether the opposite is
true. In the following review, it was found that more
studies, articles, researchers, and authors supported the
legend of high malady and affliction rate in the police
ranks, either through research, or from first hand
observations. However, as evidenced by the other studies
and articles cited in this paper, there are strong
arguments that contest the high rates claims.

Finding supportive literature on a specific problem to
investigate, or in this case the three trouble areas of
health, family, and drinking problems, is not difficult.
Apparently many others perceive Peace Officers as being
noticeably less healthy, less happily married, and less
sober than those in most of other occupations. A review of

current research and literature on which occupational

52
groups suffer more afflictions than others reveals mixed
findings, opinions, and interpretations of research data.
It is the lack of consensus on the severity of Peace
Officer problems which was a factor that stimulated
interest in this research effort.

Studies comparing problem rates between apples and
oranges can be more misleading than a study focusing on
only the apples. Lester used the example of stress in
attempting to demonstrate there is no way to compare
certain variables between occupations. He explained:

The stresses are different in each case, and we

can’t give them sizes. How do we compare the

risk of being injured for a police officer at the

hand of a suspect with the risk of being trapped

underground for a miner? 2

An example of the problems, confusion, and misleading
information that can be generated by doing an ihpep-
occupational comparison can be seen in an exploratory study
that appeared in Beyehpiggieal Reporpe which asked, "Is
Stress Higher In Police Officers ?" The study reached the

conclusion that, ...there appeared to be few differences
between the stress of being a policeman in a small town,
and that of an office worker..."3. This particular study

finding can mislead a reader in several ways:

 

2 David Lester, “Stress In Police Officers," Law and
nge; 29 (September 1979):50.

3 David Lester and Stanley Mink, "Is Stress Higher In
Police Officers ? An Exploratory Study," Psychological
Reports 45 (October 1979):554.

53
1. The title suggests a study of Police Officers.
These authors sampled "a small police department in a
semi—rural town." Many in the law enforcement
profession could justifiably ask, ”Is this a
representative sample of all police?" The answer
should be obvious.
2. The mean age of the officers (all male) was 22.8
years. These sample subjects were hardly more than
rookies still mounted in armor on their white charger
horses, and it’s doubtful that they could be
considered as generalizable representatives of the
named population.
3. The police were compared to factory office workers
(hpph male and female) with a mean age of 30.9 years.
4. The sample consisted of fifteen office workers and
fifteen policemen. The title of this article would
have more accurately described the project as being a
"poll" than a study.
The example of research referenced above was found to be an
exception rather than the rule during the literature
review. It is cited here only to illustrate some of the
problems in making inter-occupational comparisons, and some
of the advantages in using an ihppe-occupational comparison
as was employed in this study.
Serious studies into the problems being addressed were
many, and they fell along a continuum which depicted the

range of Peace Officer problems from being the most

54
afflicted, to average or normal affliction rates,
categorizing officers high in one area and at the same time
low in another traditionally thought of high affliction
area. The following review will attempt to sort out the
conflicting findings and clarify if there is a consensus or
even a majority opinion on the questions of malady and

affliction rates for Peace Officers.

III. LITERATURE WHICH CONTEADICTS THE MANY PROBLEMS LEGEND

In Phillips’ book, Streeei Health, and Psychological
Problems in the Major Professions, a reader would expect to
find a reference to the police maladies and afflictions
problems. On the contrary, Phillips describes stress and
its causes as they afflict the medical profession,
dentists, nursing, allied health professionals,
psychologists, teachers, women (a profession ?), clergy,
university professors and students, lawyers, and
executives 4. Even given the possibility that the author
didn’t have any data on police, a reader of the reference
cited above could still interpret the affliction rates of
stress, health, and psychological problems so low among
Peace Officers as to not even warrant listing.

Another article that suggests there is little evidence

 

4 E. Lakin Phillips, Sppess, Heelth, and

Psycholpgical Eroblems in the Majpr Professions
(Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1982).

55

supporting the disproportionate afflictions legend is "The
Personal Problems of the Police Officer: A Plea for
Action". Personal problem areas discussed are the
workaholic, burnout, divorce, alcoholism, physical
problems, retirement problems, and suicide. Although the
authors support a few of the high incidence categories,
they point out:

...it may be that many of the personal problems

discussed in this paper are simply characteristic

of the population that enters policework. It is

also possible that many of these problems are

related to nonstress aspects of the police

officer’s job.5

A study which attempted to deal directly with
occupational comparisons was Job Demands and Worher Heeith:
Eein Effectg and Occupational Differences 6. This work
examined "occupational differences in psychological
stresses in the job environment and the impact of stress on
affective and physiological strains and on illnesses
reported by the worker"?. Twenty three different
occupations were examined through a questionnaire given to
2,010 men, including 111 policemen. Among other
occupations represented in the study were forklift drivers,

machine tenders, tool and die makers, electronic

technicians, train dispatchers, air traffic controllers,

 

5 Jeffery A. Schwartz and Cynthia B. Schwartz, "The
Personal Problems of the Police Officer: A Plea for
Action," Job Stress and the Police Offieep (Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1975):132.

6 Caplan et al, 341 pages.

7 Ibid., p. abstract.

56
accountants, engineers, professors, administrators, and
physicians. The police were listed along with professors,
family physicians, white collar supervisors, and air
traffic controllers at small sites as being "the most
satisfied occupations"8. One of the findings of this
particular study that contradicts the high afflictions
claim was that policemen were third ioyesp in
cardiovascular disease rates 9. Also, the police were not
included among those occupations labeled as being high in
stress. Those identified as having the highest
occupational stress were assembly line workers, forklift
drivers, and machine tenders 10. In analyzing this study
by Caplan, French wrote, "Compared to the other occupations
the policemen in this study were not an extreme group, but
they were higher than average on some stresses and lower
than average on other stresses"11.

Alcoholism and drinking problems are popular causes
for those who support the high police problems theories.
However, John Stratton, an author with numerous research
efforts and articles directed at problems of police

officers, wrote:

 

8 Ibid., p. 191.
9 Ibid., p. 157.
10 Ibid., p. 201.
11 John French, "A Comparative Look at Stress and

Strain in Policemen," Job Stress and the Poiice Ofigicer

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975):
60.

57

There have been popular treatises in books,

movies, and literature dealing with police and

often implied in these works is the idea that

many police have drinking problems. Although

there are no verifiable statistics, it would

appear that they should be about the same as the

norm.12
Lester echoed Stratton’s conclusion, writing, "Alcoholism
is often claimed to be high in police officers, but there
is no evidence for this"13.

Also supporting the de-emphasis on police drinking
problems, Nordlicht wrote, “...it would be a gross
misunderstanding if we were to attribute the abuse of
alcohol simply to the stresses of police work"14. One
interpretation of Nordlicht’s conclusion is simply, (1)
there is a problem (excessive drinking), and (2) it has
many causes (not just a person’s job).

A survey, whose findings contradict probably the most
traditionally infamous affliction rate, specifically
suicide, was conducted by Dash and Reiser 15. Not only did

this survey refute a high suicide rate among Peace

Officers, it would lead a reader to believe the opposite is

 

12 John Stratton and Brian Wroe, “Alcoholism and the
Policeman," F.B.I. Law Enforcepent Bulletin 48 (March
1979): 22.

13 Lester, "Stress in Police Officers," p. 50.

14 Stephen Nordlicht, "Effects of Stress on the
Police Officer and Family," New York State Journal of
Medicine 79 (March 1979):401.

15 Jerry Dash and Martin Reiser, "Suicide Among
Police in Urban Law Enforcement Agencies," Journ of

Police Scienee and Administrapieh 6 (March 1978):18-21
(also found in Reiser, 1982, p. 171).

58
true by concluding, ”To the contrary, suicide experience on
the Los Angeles Police Department appears to be
significantly below both the Los Angeles County and
national averages"16.

Reiser questions another officer afflictions
allegation - high divorce rate - and writes that his study
indicated just the opposite condition existed as divorce
pertains to officers:

The rumor of high divorce experience among Los

Angeles policemen was not substantiated by this

survey. To the contrary, divorce experience on

the Los Angeles Police Department appears

significantly below both the state and national

averages.17
Interestingly, Reiser speculated that the lower than
average divorce rate may be traced to the "rigorous
evaluation" during the recruiting program. An impetus
behind this study was to try to solve the apparent paradox
of selective screening and high afflictions rates,
including divorce.

Another study which speculated about the rigid recruit
screening was conducted by Fenster and Locke. They
contradicted studies which indicate that policemen may be
neurotic or even psychotic. Their study (sampling New York
City policemen and citizens) indicated "neuroticism is EQE

a major characteristic of the average New York City

policeman", and theorized, "The intensive screening of

 

16 Ibid., p. 20.

17 Reiser, Police Psychology, p. 155.

59
police applicants, advertently or inadvertently, eliminates
many neurotics“18.

A study conducted of police husbands and wives
attending the Traffic Police Administration Training
Program at Northwestern University reported mixed
conclusions. "The notion that divorce and marital conflict
among the law enforcement occupation is higher than most
other occupational groups, although indicated, was not
significantly substantiated due to the limitations of this
study"l9.

Many individual studies and articles could not come to
a definite conclusion regarding overall high maladies and
afflictions rates among Peace Officers. For example,
Lester wrote that alcoholism and divorce rates were no
worse for police than other professions. However, he did
concur with another historically high rate idea when he
wrote, "The only area for which data exist to support a
negative view is suicide"20.

Literature which did not report new research but
reviewed the studies of others refuted the Peace Officer

high afflictions allegations. Malloy and Mays critiqued

 

18 C. Abraham Fenster and Bernard Locke, "Neuroticism
Among Policemen: An Examination of Police Personality,"
Journal of Applied Peyehology 57 (1973): 358, 359.

19 James Durner, Mark Kroeker, Charles Miller, and
William Reynolds, "Divorce - Another Occupational Hazard,"
The Police Chief 42:11 (November 1975):52.

20 Lester, "The Policeman’s Lot: A Positive
Viewpoint", p. 58.

6O
much of the existing literature on whether or not police
work is more stressful than other occupations and
concluded, "Judging from the most well-controlled studies
available (and even these have potentially significant
methodological confounds), the answer is no, yet this
present conclusion remains very tentative"21. Lester wrote
there is no evidence that divorce and alcoholism rates are

especially high among Peace Officers as a profession 22.

IV. EiTERATUEE THAT SUPEQRTS THE MANX_EROBLEMS LEGEED

 

A. NON-STUDY AEEES OF INQUIRY:

Finally, we come to a review of the studies and
articles which support the hypotheses that Peace Officers
have unusually high malady and affliction rates. In
reviewing literature addressing law enforcement officer
problems, a reader continually comes across introductory
statements such as: Police work is..., "a high stress
occupation which affects, shapes, and also scars the

individuals and families involved"23; ...one of the most

hazardous"24; ...by far, the most emotionally dangerous

 

21 Thomas Malloy and Larry Mays, "The Police Stress
Hypothesis: A Critical Evaluation," Criminal Justice ahg
Behavior 11 (June 1984):207.

 

22 Lester, "Stress in Police Officers", p. 50.

23 Reiser, Police Psychology, p.125.

24 Selye, "Stress of Police Work", p. 7.

61
occupation"25; "...one of the most difficult jobs in
America in terms of stress, pressures and personal
emotional impact"26; and, "It is an accepted fact that a
police officer is under stress and pressure unequaled by
any other profession"27.

One of the studies which compared police officers with
other occupations was Silbert’s "Job Stress and Burnout of
New Police Officers". In her research, Silbert compared
267 San Francisco police officers with 724 human service
professionals from around the country and 205 other
professionals from various occupations in the San Francisco
area. Data gathered by a questionnaire revealed that,
"...the police officers were more highly stressed by their
jobs,"28 than the comparison occupations.

Agreeing with Silbert is Sewell who developed a
"Critical Life Events Scale" of law enforcement officers
for his research. He concluded that, "The physical and
psychological evidence of stress within this (law
enforcement) occupation include a particularly high
incidence of Selye’s diseases of adaption and accompanying

circumstances, such as reportedly severe rates of divorce,

 

25 Sewell, "Police Stress," p. 17.

26 John Stratton and Peter Pitchess, "The Police
Professional: Another Perspective," Law and Order 26
(September 1978):18.

27 S.A. Somodevilla, “The Psychologist’s Role In The
Police Department," The Police Chief 45 (April 1978):21.

28 Silbert, p. 18.

62
suicide, and alcohol abuse"29.
Meredith addressed the generally poor mental health of
Peace Officers writing:
”The police culture is a sick culture. We
take healthy people and make them sick," says
one police psychologist who prefers to
remain anonymous. "The institution itself --
the policies and procedures it insists on --
sabotages the mental health of police
officers."30
The topic with most support for a high rate occurring
in Peace Officers is the subject of SUICIDE. Often quoted
criminal justice author, David Lester, in an article
titled, "Suicide In Police Officers”, wrote, "It is clear
that police officers are more likely to kill themselves
than men in other occupations"31. Dr. Lester referenced
three studies 32, which put police suicide rates at 21.7,
22.7, and 47.6 per 100,000 per year, while the rate for all
males in the U.S. during the same periods was 16.7 per
100,000.
Mike Wowk quoted unpublished research by Cass W. Gaska

(who studied the deaths of 4,000 Detroit Police retirees

 

29 Sewell, p. 7.

30 Nikki Meredith, "Attacking the Roots of Police
Violence," Psychology Todey (May 1984):21.

31 David Lester, "Suicide In Police Officers," The

Eclice_9hief (April 1978) 17.

32 P. Friedman, "Suicide Among Police," in E.
Shneidman (ed.), Eseeys In Self-Destructioh (New York:
Science House, 1967).

Niederhoffer (No other footnote information).

S. Labovitz and R. Haredorn, "An Analysis of Suicide
Rates Among Occupational Categories," Sociological Inguipy
41 (1971):67-72.

63

between 1944 and 1978). While citing national averages of
suicides at 33.5 per 100,000 for white men ages 27 to 78
(the age range of Gaska’s sample), and 11.1 per 100,000 for
suicides of all ages, Gaska’s data indicated a suicide rate
of 334.7 per 100,000 for Detroit Police retirees 33. This
figure may seem shocking, but the rate for policemen who
received a disability pension was 2,616 per 100,000 34.

Lastly, Arthur Niederhoffer presented the results of a
fifteen year study of New York City police officers which
revealed their suicide rate at 22.7 per 100,000 population,
while "the suicide rate for males in the general New York

City population is about 15 per 100,000"35.

B. STUDY AREAS OF INQUIRY:
1. DRINKING:

a. Etiology of Alcoholieg:

In reviewing the evidence for an etiology of
alcoholism it was quickly discovered that various authors
assigned "causes" differently due in large part to the
different definitions they applied to ALCOHOLISM. The

review that follows will give the reader an appreciation of

 

33 Mike Wowk, "Ex-Cop Suicides Soar," Police Streee
(July-August 1983):38.

34 Ibid.

35 Arthur Niederhoffer, Eehing the Shielg: The Police
In Urban Society, (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and
Company, 1969), p. 101-102, quoting from "Annual Reports of
the New York City Police Department 1950-1965", and
personal communication from the Chief Medical Examiner’s
Office of New York City, September 20, 1965.

64
the diversity of theories and the lack of consensus on an
alcoholism etiology.

Some authors took this tremendously complex topic and
applied a short and seemingly inadequate definition, such
as, "Alcoholism is a disease and the alcoholic a sick
person requiring skilled rehabilitative assistance"36.

This definition does not even suggest a cause(s), and is
analogous to saying epilepsy is a disease and the epileptic
a sick person. A little more descriptive definition, but
still in the simple category, is Kinney’s, "Alcoholism is a
disease in which the person’s use of alcohol continues
despite problems it causes in any area of life"37.

Stratton and Wroe quoted The American Medical Association
which described alcoholism as "a chronic, progressive
disease which, if left untreated, can cause permanent
damage, physical incapacities, or death"38. Although it
appears that individuals and organizations cannot come
together on wordage, most agree on one thing - alcoholism
is a disease. The American College of Physicians, the
American Psychiatric Association, the World Health

Organization, and other recognized scientific bodies have

 

36 Joseph Dunne, "Counseling Alcoholic Employees in a
Municipal Police Department," Quarterly Jogrnal of Studiee

Qn_Alcohol 34 (1973):425.

37 Jean Kinney, Eposening the Grip: A Handbook of
Alephoi Ihfiormatiph (St. Louis: C.V. Mosby Company, 1978),
p. 44.

38 John Stratton, Brian Wroe, "Alcoholism and the
Policeman," FBI Law Enforcehent Bulletin," 48(1979):20.

65
formally and scientifically recognized alcoholism as a
disease 39. Those that deviated from the term DISEASE did

so only slightly. The next most common link in ALCOHOLISM

definitions is the use of the term ILLNESS, a word closely
associated with disease (1. any departure from health;
illness in general"40.) In Origins of Alcoholigg, the
McCords seem to combine all the concepts the others are
trying to express in their definition of alcoholism, keying
on the term ILLNESS:

Alcoholism is a chronic illness, psychic or

somatic or psychosomatic, which manifests itself
as a disorder of behavior. It is characterized
by the repeated drinking of alcoholic beverages,
to an extent that exceeds customary dietary use
or compliance with the social customs of the

community and that interferes with the drinker’s
health, or his social or economic functioning.41

However, the definition which seems to be the source of
this issue comes from the World Health Organization which
defined alcoholism as:

...any form of drinking which in extent goes
beyond the traditional and customary ‘dietary’
use, or the ordinary compliance with the social
drinking customs of the community concerned,
irrespective of etiological factors leading to
such behavior, and irrespective also of the
extent to which such etiological factors are
dependent upon heredity, constitution, or

 

39 A Joint Union—Manegement Approach to Aleoholieh
Recovery Programs (New York: National Council on

Alcoholism, Inc, 1976), p. 2.

4O Friend and Guralnik, “Webster’s Dictionary,"
p. 418.

41 William and Joan McCord, Origins of Alcoholiep
(Stanford: University Press, 1960), p. 9, from M. Keller

and V. Efron. in "Alcoholism“. Encycloped1a_Americana. I.
348.

66

acquired physio—pathological and metabolic
influences.42

Taken all together, the definitions presented above (and
there are many, many more) alluded to the possible
etiological factors which may be the cause(s) of alcoholism
- medical, genetic, social, or psychological. The

following is a review of the evidence.

(1) That Alcoholism Stems From Medical Factors:

For the purpose of this review, physiological theories
of alcoholism will be considered as evidence of medical
factors. These theories attribute "alcoholism to a
physically based craving for alcohol - a craving caused by
nutritional deficiencies, glandular disorder, innate
metabolic dysfunctions, or an unfortunate inheritance"43.
There are several categories of physiological theories of
the etiology of alcoholism, which include:

(a) Those that focus on metabolic or nutritional
deficiencies as a source. Also listed in this group
is the theory that, "...certain genetic blocks lead
to diminished production of specific enzymes", and
only a steady intake of alcohol can restore the

balance.44

 

42 Kinney, p. 41-42.

43 McCord, Origins of Alcoholism, p. 22.
44 Ibid.

67
(b) Other researchers have discovered a positive
relation between mesomorphy and alcoholism.
(0) An endocrine malfunction has been suggested
as the basic source of the metabolic disorder as a
cause of alcoholism.45
Several other authors supported the physiological theories,
some more forcefully than others. Burgin described
alcoholism as a "physiological problem" along with other
stress-related disorders 46. Alcohol consumption is
"commonly thought to be elevated in conjunction with the
distress and tension that accompany psychological stress“,
according to Conway of the Naval Health Research Center 47.
Royce wrote, "...alcoholism is due in large part to

physiological factors, innate or acquired"48.

(2) That Alcoholism Stems From Genetic Factors:
Genetics is the branch of biology that deals with
heredity. To say something negative (e.g., alcoholism) is
inherited almost seems to be a bigot’s answer to an issue

he cannot solve. That alcoholism stems from genetics

smacks of the "bad-seed" idea. This is the impression this

 

45 Ibid.

46 A. Lad Burgin, "The Management of Stress in
Policing," The Police Chief (April 1978):53.

47 Terry Conway, et al, "Occupational Stress and
Variation in Cigarette, Coffee, and Alcohol Consumption,"
Journal 0: Heelth and Social Behavior 22 (June 1981):155.

48 James E. Royce, Alcohol Problepe and Alcoholiep
(New York: The Free Press, 1981), 148.

68

researcher got when first reviewing the evidence supporting
genetics as a theory of alcoholism causes. Surprisingly,
there are some convincing research data and arguments that
give this school of thought credibility.

Lanier tackled this issue head on in his article,
"Familial Alcoholism". He discussed three research methods
used to separate genetic influences from environmental

factors and reported, ...research provided evidence that
alcoholism does, at least in part, have a genetic basis"49.
It was during these studies that, "...the presence of an
alcoholic biological parent was shown to be the only
consistent predictor of alcoholism; simply living with an
alcoholic parent did not appear to increase the likelihood
that alcoholism would develop in the offspring"50. Lanier
differentiated between "highly heritable" and "milieu-
limited" familial alcoholism. Characteristics of the
former were, (1) early onset of alcoholism, (2) severe
symptoms, (3) absence of other psychopathology, and (4)
family history of alcoholism. Characteristics of the
latter included, (1) milder alcohol abuse in the biological
parents, (2) medical problems occurring later in life, and

(3) usually no history of treatment or inability to

maintain jobs or families 51. Lanier summed up by

 

49 David Lanier, "Familial Alcoholism," Journal of

Egmily_fizeetiee 18 (March 1984):418.
50 Ibid.

51 Ibid., pp. 418-419.

69
presenting a strong argument for the heredity theories of
alcoholism etiology, noting that of all the known risk
factors for alcoholism, "a family history of alcoholism is
by far the strongest"52.

Stabenau also strongly supported the genetic theory of
alcoholism etiology, writing, "Family and adoptee studies
of alcoholism have demonstrated that vulnerability to
alcoholism is genetically transmitted"53. He listed
increased risk factors for becoming an alcoholic as being,
(1) a male, (2) having an antisocial personality, and (3)
having a family history of alcoholism, and that these three
factors had ”genetic determinants"54.

Other authors and researchers addressed this theory
less fervently, noting the research data arguments, but
diluting this theory by tagging it on or adding it to other
theories of the etiology of alcoholism, such as

sociological theories.

(3) That Alcoholism Stems From Social Factors:
Sociological theories of alcoholism take the position
that the rates of alcoholism are significantly related to

the social structure. Included are theories which focus on

 

52 Ibid., p. 421.

53 James Stabenau, "Implications of Family history of
Alcoholism, Antisocial Personality, and Sex Differences in
Alcohol Dependence,“ Aperican Journal of Psychiatry 141
(October 1984):1178.

54 Ibid.

70
ethnic groups, social class, and general attitudes about
alcohol. Ethnic theorists will point out the
stereotypically convivial and inebriated Irishman in
contrast to the traditionally religious and ritualistic Jew
or the family oriented Italian. It should be remembered,
sometimes sadly, that certain stereotypical traits have
tenaciously endured through the years because there is some
truth to them, else why would they still be around ?

The McCords did not single out just one particular
ethnic group. Rather, they generalized, saying,
"...alcoholism will be at its’ highest level in ethnic
groups in which tension is high and drinking habits are not
subjected to consistent social control"55.

Social class theorists maintain there are different
views and degrees of acceptability of drinking between the
various social classes. For example:

Dollard argued that the upper-class holds a

tolerant view of drinking, (and) condones it...

In the lower-upper class...drinking is aggressive

and a necessity in climbing the social ladder.

The upper-middle class, Dollard believes, is

neutral in its attitude, but the lower—middle

class places a strong taboo on drinking (because

of its desire for respectability). In the lower

classes, drinking is rife and relatively

uncontrolled...56
There are few authors who address the issue of etiology of

alcoholism in terms of social class. Many, however,

implied some kind of mystical social pressure as an

 

55 McCord, p. 38.
56 Ibid., p. 40.

71
inducement if not a cause of alcoholism.

In a research article focusing on the effect of
labeling on people’s perceptions of others (labeled
"normative” and "excessive" drinkers), several college
psychologists discovered, "...interpersonal conflict and
social pressure to drink were the two social situations
that most frequently preceded relapse among alcoholics"57.
Bacon studied what he described as a slowly developing
pattern (during five to fifteen years) addiction to
alcohol, and directly related (in part) the change in
drinking practices to "increasing social difficulties"58.
The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
simply points its’ accusatory finger at the American bar
(i.e., pub, inn, tavern. etc.). However, first they point
out that other cultures - Jews, native Indians, Spaniards,
Greeks, Lebanese, and Chinese - all "enjoy the benefits of
alcohol", and sometimes use it heavily, but, "without the
devastating related problems that afflict most
societies"59.

Of course not all nor even a majority of authorities

on the subject will put their backs against the wall for

 

57 Thomas Cash, at al, "When Alcoholics Are Not
Anonymous: Socioperceptual Effects of Labeling and Drinking

Pattern," qupnei of Studies On Alcohol 45 (May 1984):274.

58 Selden D. Bacon, "Process of Addiction to Alcohol:
Social Aspects,” Quarterly Journal of Stugiee on Alcohol 34
(1973):1.

59 U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
The Whole College Catalog About Dpinkihg (Rockville, MD:
Public Health Service, 1977), p. 9.

72
sociological theories. While not rejecting them outright,
many authorities seem to add a disclaimer while commenting
on the efficacy of these theories. For example, Ewing and
Rouse wrote, “At the present moment we have no reason to
believe that social and cultural factors eigpe are
operating, but we can believe that these are significant
powerful influences in the development of alcoholism"60.
Hayman also seemed to be straddling the fence on this issue
when he wrote, "The sociological approach is of more

potential than current value"61.

(4) That Alcoholism Stems From Psychological
Factors:

Psychological theories about the etiology of
alcoholism ask, "Is there anything in a person’s character,
or personality makeup, that makes him likely to become an
alcoholic ?"62. The McCords have categorized these
theories into three main groupings:

(a) "The Freudians“: These theorists and their
supporters believe alcoholism stems from three
unconscious tendencies:

(i) Self-destructive urges

(ii) Oral fixation
(iii) Latent homosexuality

 

60 John Ewing and Beatrice Rouse, Drinking (Chicago,
IL: Nelson-Hall, 1978), 114-115.

61 Max Hayman, Alcoholism: Mechanieps and Mapegemehp
(Springfield: C.C. Thomas Publisher, 1966), 37.

62 Kinney, p. 62.

73

(b) “The Adlerians" (from Alfred Adler): These
support the notion that alcoholism is a result of a
striving for power, or a reaction to a pervasive
feeling of inferiority.

(c) Fromm and the interpersonal psychologists
see the disease as a response to a suppressed
conflict between dependent drives and aggressive

urges 63.

(5) Consensus:

What at first might seem to be a dearth of authors and
researchers who are supportive of one theory or another is
not as bad as it might seem. The reason for this is that
those who attempt to answer the question of the etiology of
alcoholism simply cannot. The consensus seems to be there
is no single cause or answer. If there ie a single reason
it is still in the realm of science fiction, and the
experts in the area only allude to the possibility of ”it"
being out there somewhere. As one source put it:

The informed consensus is that psychological,

physical, social, and cultural conditions all

contribute to alcohol addiction. However, most
authorities do not discount the possibility that

a single underlying cause, sometimes referred to

as the X-factor, may be at the root of the

problem.64

An author who appears to be in the minority is Marty

 

63 McCord, p. 28.

64 Old Mythg and New Fact§ About Alcoholigp, brochure
provided by The National Council On Alcoholism — Greater
Detroit Area, vol. 3, no. 1 (Detroit: NCA-GDA, 1984), p. 3.

74
Mann, former Executive Director of the National Council on
Alcoholism, who wrote, ”...since the causes are not known,
there is no way to prevent it (alcoholism) from happening
to that small percentage of those who drink who are
susceptible to it"65. The only other reviewed source which
came close to supporting Mann’s no-known-cause position was
the book by Ewing and Rouse. They felt that a single cause
for alcoholism may never be found, and answered the
question of the etiology by writing, "Much has been said
and written about the cause or causes of alcoholism and
here it is necessary to say first that it is at present a
condition of unknown etiology"66. They allude to a
combination of factors approach (”causes"), but seem to
reject it in the end.

The majority of authorities believe the cause(s) heye
been identified (with the exception of the X-factor), but
simply cannot agree on which ones, or which combination is
responsible for a person becoming alcoholic. Kinney’s
novel suggestion to this dilemma was the "Slot-Machine
Theory" of the etiology of alcoholism. He combined the
causes this way:

To be alcoholic requires getting three cherries.

An individual may be born with a physiological

cherry. The environment and culture he is raised

in may provide a second, or sociological, cherry.
And his personality makeup, with its unique set

 

65 Marty Mann, hhewere Tg_Your Questions About

Drinking and Alcoholism (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, 1970), 37.

66 Ewing and Reuse, p. 101.

75

of holes, may be the third cherry. Or it may be

some variation: say two—thirds psychological and

one third sociological. But one lone cherry is

not an accurate predictor of who becomes

alcoholic.67
The unfortunate aspect of this explanation to alcoholism
causes is that it sounds so silly and may not be taken
seriously. However, if the "theory" name and its’
metaphorical reference to cherries is ignored, the logic of
this approach closely resembles more serious explanations.

Chafetz and Demone were one of those many authorities
who gave more a serious, and more acceptable, explanation.
They were unable to accept any single-factor explanation of
the etiology of alcoholism. A summation of their approach
is:

We shall consider the etiology of alcoholism from

a general perspective which will include

consideration of prenatal influences,

psychological, physiological, and biochemical

factors of personality development, cultural

influences, and individual and social attitudes

toward alcohol.68
In this single explanation, the authors combined the four
factors which are the focus of this review of the etiology
of alcoholism. However, they later simplified this
etiology by writing, "We consider that alcoholism exists

when alcohol becomes the main focus of a person’s thoughts

and emotions, physiology, and environment"69.

 

67 Kinney, p. 68.

68 Morris Chafetz and Harold Demone, Alcoholism ang
Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962), 17.

69 Ibid., p. 27.

76

Royce further explained the combination of factors
approach, and he included another important variable -
individuality. He wrote, "...we stress that two or more
causes can work together in the same individual, and in
different proportions in different individuals"70. Royce
labeled his approach as a "holistic view" which takes into
account all aspects of the etiology question.

The seemingly impossible task of identifying the
etiology of alcoholism discouraged one author from even
attempting a definition of alcoholism. Hayman wrote,
"Since there is no specific etiology, no specific
definition (of alcoholism) is possible"71. The best he .
could do was to describe it as the loss of the power of

choice.

In summation of the drinking problem etiology issue,
Mann appears to have voiced the majority opinion when he
wrote, "...there is no single cause such as a germ or a
virus or alcohol itself...the causes will be found in all
of the three areas - physiological, psychological, and
social"72. In attempting to determine if there is a cause
for alcoholism one is faced with the same dilemma as when
looking for phe reason for alleged excessive or

disproportionate maladies and afflictions striking Peace

 

70 Royce, p. 141.
71 Hayman, p. 3.

72 Mann, Apswers, p. 67.

 

77
Officers. It is futile to search for hhe germ. Just as
the Peace Officers’ problems are multi-factorial, so to it
appears that alcoholics are the victims of a combination of
factors. Like Peace Officer affliction theories, there
seems to be no universal agreement as to what is the cause

or causes of alcoholism.

b. Peace Officer§_ehd Drinking:

That Peace Officers as a profession suffer from a
"drinking problem" seems to be an indisputable claim - only
the gegpee to which it is a problem is contested.
Authorities who have attempted to address the problem have
put "problem drinkers" at 20% of the profession 73, and
"23.4% alcohol problems" among officers 74. Other
chroniclers have not been so specific, but have instead
referred to the problem in generalities. Panyard wrote,
"...the rates of alcoholism among police officers is higher
than the general public and the number of problem drinkers
is probably higher"75. Others have written that police
"are problem drinkers about twice as often as the general

population"76; have a greater alcoholism problem than most

 

73 Somodevilla, p. 21.

74 R. Michael Buren, "Stress — Talk or Substance,"

Las_end_Qrder (July 1981)=22.

75 Christine Panyard, "Alcohol: A Danger to Health,
Career, Family," Tuebor 44 (March 16, 1981):3.

76 Ronald Constant, ”Not So Obvious Police Stress,“
Dew epd Order 32 (September 1984):65.

78
other professions 77; "...include a disproportionate number
of problem drinkers”78; and prone to developing drinking

problems 79. Another clinical psychologist summed up the

majority opinion that, "...among police officers, there is

little doubt regarding the high rates of..alcoholism"80.

2. HEALTH:

Looking back over my career as a Peace Officer, the
first time I was exposed to the phenomenon of "premature
death" was during my first year on the job. At roll—call
(a formal briefing period before to going on the street),
in addition to the night’s assignments, wanted person
descriptions, special attentions, etc., it is a common
occurrence to read off personnel orders, which include
transfers, promotions, deaths of current and former
members, etc.. I was startled the first time I heard a
very old former police officer’s name read off with the
dates of his service (before some of our birth dates) and
my shift mates applauded ! My first reaction was that this
response was tasteless bordering on cruel. I am now one of
those who applauds an old timer’s passing on, saying (at

least in my own mind), "That-a-boy, you beat them." The

 

77 Charles Unkovic, "The Drunken Cop,” The Police
thfli (April 1978):19.

78 Hitz, p. 496.

79 Bruce Danto, "Police Suicide," Police Streee 1/1
(1978):32.

80 Besner, p. 62.

79
act that seemed cruel in my rookie year is now an act of
admiration for a former officer who beat the odds and
collected his pension for a long time. A discovery of the
Fell-Richard-Wallace study was that, "...police had
significantly high rates of premature death"81.

If the case has been made that police work is
stressful, then studies on stress in other occupations can
give us an insight into certain dependent variables.
Veninga and Spradley studied the relationship between work
and stress. They cited an extensive study in 1979 by the
American Academy of Family Physicians which determined
there was a link between a stressful job and health
problems:

These workers who reported high levels of work

stress had two, three, and even four time the

number of health problems. They Had allergies,

migraines, backaches, nervousness,headaches,

depression, insomnia, and other classic job-

burnout symptoms.82

With regard to physiological problems, the Schwartzes
take the position that, "Police officers exhibit an
uncommonly high incidence of heart disease, back trouble
and hypertension for a group that is initially selected on

stringent physical fitness criteria"83.

Eisenberg wrote, "Current research has implicated

 

81 Donald Fell, Wayne Richard, and William Wallace,
“Psychological Job Stress and the Police Officer,” Journei

pf 20 iiee Seiepee and Adminispreti1ph 8 (June 1980):141.
82 Veninga and Spradley, p. 12.

83 Schwartz and Schwartz, p. 135.

80
psychological stress as an important causal agent in such
health problems as coronary heart disease, gastro-
intestinal malfunction, dermatological problems, severe
nervous conditions, neurosis, and a number of other
physical and mental disorders"84.

A man who is sometimes referred to as "the father of
stress theory", Hans Selye, labels police work as one of
those occupations which, "...are more likely to cause
stress—related maladies (for example, high blood pressure,
cardio-vascular disease, gastric ulcers, mental
disturbances, etc.) than others"85.

An interview with Officer "V.M." supports this
observation by Selye. The officer had such high blood
pressure that it was necessary for him to take medication
for the problem. Then in May 1981 he took a one week
leisurely vacation in Florida. When he returned to work,
his blood pressure was almost normal. He did nothing more
than get away from the stresses of his police job, which in
turn serendipitously corrected (albeit temporarily) a
serious health problem 86. Panyard had a similar
experience with her own spouse:

Panyard’s husband (a police officer) recently
suffered an injury and recuperated at home for

 

84 Terry Eisenberg, "Labor-Management Relations and
Psychological Stress - View From the Bottom," The Poiice
Chief (November 1975):54.

 

85 Selye, p. 7.

86 Once again, as with Officer J.B. referenced
earlier the person and the event are real.

81

six weeks.

During the time he was away from his work, "he

was a much nicer person to live with," she says.

"He was more compassionate, more understanding

and more patient."8?

Fell, Richard, and Wallace conducted a study which
attempted to determine whether psychological job stresses
caused Tennessee police officers health problems at
.abnormally high rates (NOTE: According to the authors, the
Tennessee work force closely approximated national
percentages in each of the major occupational groupings).
The method used was "an epidemiological examination of the
records of death certificates, community health centers,
and medical hospitals to determine the incidence of stress
related disorders for a wide range of occupations"88. Of
the 130 different occupations included in the study, police
ranked third highest in suicides (behind laborers and house
painters), sixteenth in hospital admissions"89. The report
concluded that,"...a relatively high rate of police
officers develop serious disorders that appear to be stress

related"90. Caplan’s study also rated police high in

"visits to the medical dispensary"91.

 

87 Sandra Davis, "Stress: It Goes With the Badge",
Detroit Free Prege, 31 October 1988, sec. C, p. 4C.

88 Fell et al, p. 140.
89 Ibid., p. 141.
90 Ibid., p. 143.

91 Caplan et al, p. 192.

82
3. FAMILY/MARRIAGE:

If there are victims of the alleged police job stress,
they are not limited to just the officers. As Christine
Panyard, a clinical psychologist who has had extensive
experience with police personnel in Detroit and its’
suburbs wrote, "There’s more negative stuff brought home in
police households than in other professions, because their
job changes them in ways other professions don’t"92. Dr.
Panyard is also married to an officer.

What first alerted me to the possibility that Peace
Officers had marital/family problems came one midnight
shift while my partner and I were discussing the latest
divorce among our shift colleagues. As we ticked off the
recent apparent rash of divorces amongst our shift mates, a
startling fact became apparent: of the 36 members of our
shift we could count only fiye that we considered "happily
married". I use the previous quote marks because we
defined a "happily married" officer on our shift as one
who:

a. Was never divorced;

b. Not currently "having trouble" with the
marriage;

0. Not currently ”cheating", nor ever have cheated
on their spouse.

Of course we were guilty of imposing our own values on a

happy marriage definition - that infidelity was a key

 

92 Sandra Davis, "Stress: It Goes With the Badge,"
Detroit Free_Pre§e, October 31, 1988, Section C, p. 1C,
interview with Dr. Panyard.

83
indicator of trouble in a marriage.

Depue wrote, "Police occupational development often
seems to have an adverse impact on familial development"93.
He also addressed the uniqueness mentioned earlier saying,
"Since the police family lifestyle is atypical, it is
probable that there will be more adjustment for family
members and more areas of conflict to resolve"94. Eisenberg
suggests, "...high rates of divorce and marital discord
among law enforcement personnel may be attributable, at
least in part, to occupational stress"95. In Hageman’s
study on occupational stress and marital relationships, she
supports Eisenberg’s suggestion stating it is a fact that a
"high divorce rate among police officers has been
consistent throughout the decades..."96. Nordlicht wrote
that such job related circumstances as social rejection and

shifting schedules can promote, .problems which may
ultimately lead to estrangement and separation between
husband and wife"97.

The study conducted of police husbands and wives

attending the Traffic Police Administration Training

Program at Northwestern University reported in the study’s

 

93 Depue, p. 2.
94 Ibid., p. 6.
95 Eisenberg, p. 54.

96 Mary Hageman, "Occupational Stress and Marital
Relationships," p. 411.

97 Nordlicht, p. 400.

84

Program at Northwestern University reported in the study’s
introduction the divorce rates from the authors’ own
departments: 17% in Baltimore; 27% in Santa Ana; and 33.3%
in Chicago. Compare these figures against their quoted
U.S. Census figures which indicated a divorce rate of, ”
2.4 percent for males in the same age group category"98.

The Schwartzes observed, "Although there is some
contradictory evidence on this point, divorce appears to be

a very high-frequency occurrence for young police

officers"99.

V. LITERATURE EEXIEW SUMEEEX

This review attempted to provide the reader with a
cross section of literature that contradicted the high
maladies and afflictions theories, partially supported and
partially refuted the theories, and supported the theories.

This study will attempt to provide evidence on whether
there is a differential in malady and affliction rates
between officers in high stress assignments as compared to
officers in low stress assignments. If a differential
exists, this study will also attempt to identify probable

"causes" in the form of stressors or stressor clusters.

 

98 Durner et al, p. 52.

99 Schwartz, p. 134.

Chapter 3
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

I. PURPOSE:

To prove whether Peace Officers are victims of certain
problems to a greater or lesser extent than other more
traditional occupations is hep a purpose of this study. A
limited amount of research has already addressed that topic
with conflicting findings, as was reported in the previous
chapter. The general consensus of the studies seems to
endorse the belief that Peace Officers efe
disproportionately high in many of the problems mentioned,
but support for these findings is not universal.

It is the hypothesis of this study that the more
stressful an assignment an officer works in, and the longer
an officer functions in that stressful assignment, the more
likely the officer will suffer afflictions and maladies to
a greater degree than officers in less stressful
assignments, and more than officers with less time in
stressful assignments. Conversely, the less stressful an
assignment is, and the longer an officer serves in that
capacity, the less likely the afflictions and maladies
rates will be as prevalent as those in the high stress
assignments. If the hypothesis is supported by the data
gathered for this study, the rate of differences between
the High-stress assignment and the Low-stress assignment

as

86
respondents will become greater with time and exposure in

their respective categories.

II. POPULATIONZSAMPLING:

The population for this study was Peace Officers in
the State of Michigan, including State Police, county
sheriff’s deputies, municipal and campus police. A random

sample (by agency type and size) was taken of all law

enforcement agencies listed in A_Dipeefepy_ef_Ley
Ehforcement Agencies in Michigan, the 1984-1985 edition 1.

This source contains a listing of 630 law enforcement
agencies in Michigan.

The actual sampling of agencies used the following
guidelines:

A. An agency was randomly drawn from each of the

following classes, for each type of Peace Officer
to be queried (i.e., state, county, local):

Class I - Agencies with over 1,000 sworn officers
Class II - Agencies with 401 to 1,000 sworn
officers

Class III - Agencies with 76 to 400 sworn officers

Class IV Agencies with 15 to 75 sworn officers

Class V Agencies with less than 15 sworn
officers 2

 

1 Michigan Bell Telephone Company, A Directopy of Law
Enforcement Agencies in Michigan (Southfield, MI, 1983): 1-
26.

2 The five classes of law enforcement agencies were
as modeled by Gerald Douglas Gourley in, Effeefi_e

V
Mun1c1pal_Bolice_Qrasnizstion. (Beverly Hills. CA: Glencoe
Press, 1970), 32.

87

B. There is only one Class I agency in the

state, specifically the Detroit Police

Department. In this case, one precinct was

randomly selected as the representative sample of

the entire department. This is a plausible

method because each precinct could be looked upon

as a "mini" department, with the wide variety of

assignments found in the parent department

(street officers, undercover, investigative,

clerical, supervisory) also found at the precinct

level.
When an agency chose to not participate, or neglected to
respond to the letter sent to the head of the agency (see
Appendix 3) asking for their participation, another agency
was randomly selected and solicited from the same class.

Seventeen different Michigan law enforcement agencies
agreed to participate in this study. These included seven
sheriff’s departments, five city police departments, four
Michigan State Police posts, and one college public safety
department. To these agencies were mailed 1118
questionnaires of which 415 were returned (response totals
and breakdown by agency type can be found in Appendix 4).
The participants according to agency size were as follows:

53 from Class I (over 1,000 sworn officers)

146 from Class II (401 to 1,000 sworn officers)

106 from Class III (76 to 400 sworn officers)

68 from Class IV (15 to 75 sworn officers)
39 from Class V (less than 15 sworn officers

Figure 3.1 - Number of Participants by Agency Class

 

Characteristics regarding the individual respondents

included:

88

Sex of P.O.: 365 Males, 45 Females
Race: 328 Whites

71 Blacks

1 Hispanic

1 American Indian

 

Currently Attending School: 45 Yes, 362 No
Currently Working A Second Job: 76 Yes, 323 No
Currently Active in Sports: 221 Yes, 179 No
Characterietic Ayepege Minimum '

Age 37 21 59
Highest Education less Ph. D.
Attained 2 yrs col than HS

Time as P.0. 12.2 yrs 6 Mo.s 36.7 yrs

E' a Z _ 5 J g] ! . !'

The number of respondents by JOB TITLE are listed in
Appendix 5. The specific numbers of respondents belonging

to a certain ASSIGNMENT are detailed in Appendix 6.

III. METHODOLOGY:

A. AN fNTEA-PROFESSEON MEASURE:

This study attempted what is believed to be a rare
intra-profession comparison of the sample subjects. The
need for such an approach was suggested several years after
this project was initiated (and before its’ completion) by
Malloy and Mays who wrote, "Future research on police
stress should focus not only on intergroup (that is,
police-nonpolice) comparisons but on intragroup (that is,
among police officers) which make them more or less

susceptible to the deleterious effects of stress"3. By

 

3 Malloy and Mays, p. 209.

89
doing so, looking at whether Peace Officers are more
divorce-prone than those in other occupations (such as tool
and die makers) is avoided.

This method was used because I believe answers to the
previously mentioned problems can be found not by measuring
or comparing outside the profession (e.g., air traffic
controllers versus Peace Officers), but by measuring within
it. Law enforcement agencies, especially the large ones,
contain many employee positions which can be considered
almost civilian-like. That is, some officers’ routine
duties are similar in function to those of a traditionally
civilian occupation. An example of this situation is a
police precinct clerks’ job. It is not uncommon for sworn
Peace Officers to be responsible primarily for typing,
filing, phone answering, and other typically clerical or
office—type tasks, and have little or no responsibilities
in the traditionally thought of law enforcement/crime
fighting activities usually associated with an officer’s
normal work day. On the other hand, certain officers have
assignments which can be considered uniquely police-like.
In other words, no comparable job can be found among the
traditional civilian occupations. An example of the latter

is that of an undercover narcotics officer.

B. PROCEDUEE:

A random sample was taken of all law enforcement

agencies listed in A Directory of Law Enforcehent Agencies

90
in Michigan, the 1984-1985 edition 4. Once an agency was
selected, a letter (see Appendix 3) was sent to the head of
the agency asking for his/her permission to allow the
questionnaire (Appendix 7) and cover letter (Appendix 8) to
be made available to their members. A self addressed
stamped envelope, a consent form (Appendix 9), and a copy
of the cover letter and questionnaire were attached to the
Chief’s letter for him/her to see exactly what was being
proposed. Once a positive reply was returned to the
author, a package consisting of one questionnaire with
cover letter, and one self addressed stamped envelope for
each member of the agency was delivered to the
participating agency for distribution. After the
participants filled out the questionnaire and mailed the
form back to this researcher, the answers were codified
using a codebook developed for this study (see Appendix
10). The codified data was then analyzed using a computer
statistical program named ”Minitab"5. After final data
analysis and review, a findings summary and cover letter
(see Appendix 13) was mailed to the individual respondents

and agencies who requested feedback.

 

4 Michigan Bell Telephone Company, A_Direetory of Law
ce e on ice ' ichi (Southfield, MI, 1983): 1-
26.

5 "Minitab" Standard Version Data Analysis Software,
Release 5. 1. 3, for IBM PC/XT/AT (Minitab, Inc., 3081
Enterprise Drive, State College, PA).

91
IV. MEASURING DEVICE:

A. THE QUESTIONNAIRE:

The instrument was a written questionnaire (Appendix
7) requesting baseline data, job descriptions and stress
scores (Job Stress Scale), and stress symptom patterns
(i.e., afflictions and maladies).

The questionnaire had different types of questions
depending on the subject matter and the nature of the
responses sought. The questions were grouped into five
parts:

Part A:

1. Background information
2. "Satisfaction" scale (Stress Symptom
Pattern)
Part B - The Job Stress Scale (Stress Symptom Pattern)

Part C - Past and present drinking habits (Stress
Symptom Pattern)

Part D — Past and present health condition (Stress
Symptom Pattern)
Part E - Past and present marriage/family situation

(Stress Symptom Pattern)

B. QUESTION SOURCES:

The various sources for the individual questions were
derived from the following:

1. Questions composed by this writer and
theoretically derived for this study:

a. Based on experience and exposure to the
aforementioned afflictions and maladies over 19 years of
law enforcement service.

b. Interviews (normally about eight hours in
duration) with active veteran “street cops" and "day lords
(In police jargon the civilian-like positions are staffed
by officers sometimes known as "day lords".)

92

c. Obvious census-type data used to describe the
respondents in fundamental terms relevant to most
sociological issues, and to establish bases for comparison.

2. Specific questions on drinking habits/problems and
alcoholism (in addition to those mentioned in 1 above):

a. A "list of manifest behavior patterns and
reported attitudes of feeling tones which are
characteristic of the ...Progressive Pattern in Alcohol
Addiction" came from an article in Quarterly Journal of
Studies on Alcohol 6. -

b. A flyer, "Alcoholism: The Family Illness"7.

c. A flyer, "Before You Drink...Know the Facts About
Alcohol Abuse"8.

d. An article, "Burned-Out Cops and Their
Families"9.

e. An article, "The Drunken Cop"10.

f. This writer’s observations of (and participation
in) colleagues’ drinking habits and problems.

3. Questions regarding specific health problems were
derived from the articles in the literature review (Chapter
2), and were selected based on the frequency a specific
illness was discussed.

4. Questions on marital and family problems (in addition
to those applicable sources mentioned above) came from:

 

6 Bacon, p. 2.

7 Greater Detroit Area National Council on
Alcoholism, Aieoholieh: The Family Illness (Detroit: ), a
flyer.

8 Kenneth Williams, Before You Drink...Know the Facte
About Aicohol Use (Birmingham, MI: Junior League of

Birmingham): a flyer.
9 Maslach and Jackson, p. 59-62.

10 Unkovic and Brown, p. 18-20.

93

a. An article, "Correlates of Dissatisfaction in
Marriage"11.

b. An article, "Burned-Out Cops and Their
Families"12.

c. This writer’s observations of colleagues
family/marital problems.

C. MEASURES
1. THE JOB STRESS SCALE:
a. Discuseion:

The most critical part of the Questionnaire is the Job
Stress Scale (Part B of the questionnaire, Appendix 7). I
realize that the end result of this device is the
respondent’s perceived content of his or her tasks, and as
such the score will have some emotional tone.

Additionally, the Likert-type quality of the measure is not
an exact reading of the respondents position on an issue,
thus caution must be used when attempting inferences from
the data.

The 20 questions contained in the Job Stress Scale do
not address every potentially stressful situation faced by
officers. More than 50 such situations were identified in
the literature review (as evidenced in Appendix 1). While
developing this measure, I was concerned of the length of

the questionnaire, and its negative effect on response

 

11 Karen S. Renne, "Correlates of Dissatisfaction in
Marriage," Journal of Marriege and the Family (February
1970):54-67.

12 Maslach and Jackson, p. 59-62.

94
rate. I limited the measure to 20 items, drawing from
thirteen years (at the time it was designed) experience and
exposure to both ends of the spectrum of High-stress to
Low-stress assignments. The order that the questions

appear on the questionnaire carry no significance.

b. Eetionele for Question Selection:

With regard to the twenty individual questions, it was
(and still is) my perception that constantly changing work
hours (Questionnaire, Part B, question #1) is highly
stressful both psychologically and physically. This also
holds true for working at night (Part B, question 2). On
the other hand, I felt much better when I worked a straight
day shift with regular (usually weekends) days off.
Unsolicited support for this condition came from family and
friends who commented on an improved appearance and
attitude while I was working a "normal" day.

When "on the street" my tasks were unpredictable with
regard to timing (Part B, 3) and the nature of the task
(B,17) for the whole eight hour shift. At any minute the
police radio might send us (my partner and I) off on foot
or in a scout car (B, 10) to a potentially life-threatening
scene (B, 11). Or, we were equally likely to be on
"routine patrol" for the whole eight hours. On the other
hand, when I had a "day lord" assignment I knew before
getting to the station each morning what I was going to be

doing for that day.

95

When on the street, to not carry a gun (B, 4) was fool
hardy. When working in an office assignment the gun
actually got in the way many times.

The street also provided exposure to such things as
tragedy (B, 5), the seamy elements of the city and its
inhabitants (B, 9), corruption (B, 15), and stressful
situations (B, 12). These same stressful exposures were
rare when working in a civilian-like ("day lord")
assignment.

When working the street, the vast majority of contacts
with other people were tense (B, 8), stressed (B, 6), and
hostile (B, 7). When contact was made, the situation
frequently demanded split-second decision making (B, 13)
which could result in extreme and even fatal results (B,
14) with consequent severe punishment (B, 16) as an outcome
of mistakes. When working in the office, such stressful
contacts were not common because by the time an explosive
situation reached the precinct station it had been diffused
considerably (usually by the street cops). On the street
it is happening now and demands action now.

A delayed result of working the street is the
necessity of testifying in court (B, 18) at a later time
and date, where sometimes an officer feels as though he or
she is on trial rather than the defendant. Additionally,
when scheduling court cases, an officer’s work schedule is
given little or no consideration. It is not uncommon for

an officer to get off work at 8:00 A.M., go to the court

96
building for a trial, sit for 8 hours, and then be ordered
to come back again tomorrow morning. Working as a day lord
obviates this requirement or opportunity.

While on the street, the officers’ sometimes mystical
power of discretion (B, 19) is constantly being used and,
of course, being subjected to second-guessing. There is
much less need for this "power" to be exercised while
working in an office job.

Finally, what might seem trivial to others, is the
stress experienced during the meal breaks (B, 20). Breaks
are usually strictly limited in time (e.g., 30 minutes),
taken in fast food restaurants (i.e., less than nutritional
foods), and subject to, "Excuse me officer, I know that you

are eating, but..."!

2. DRINKING MEASURES:
a. Drinking Level Change (DLC):

The first measure of a possible drinking problem was a
simple before-and—after question which attempted to
determine the difference between the officer’s current
drinking level and his/her drinking level when he or she
first became a Peace Officer. On a 1 to 7 scale, a "1“
answer represented not drinking at all, and a "7"
represented a "daily" drinker before becoming a Peace
Officer, and an alcoholic now. The difference, both
positive and negative, between the two scores then became

the respondent’s Drinking Level Change (DLC) score. A

97

positive score indicated an increase in the officer’s
drinking level. A negative score indicated that the
officer’s consumption of liquor was actually reduced
between the time the officer came on the job to the time
he/she filled out the questionnaire. The rationale for the
different wording on the "7" value was that an alcoholic
presumably would not have been accepted as an officer
recruit in the first place if it was known he/she was an
alcoholic. However, no evidenced surfaced during the
literature review precluding the possibility of alcoholic
“rookies". This may be due in part to the notion of
alcoholism being so vague and ambiguous in the first place.

b. Drinking Problem Indicatore (DPI):

The second measure of a possible drinking problem was
a list of eleven drinking problem indicators, and a "YES"
or "NO" answer by the respondents. The specific indicators
can be found in the Questionnaire, Part C, questions 3a

through 3k, Appendix 7).

3. HEALTH MEASURES:
a. Health Level Change (HLC):

Another simple then-and-now report from the officer on
his/her perception of their health when they first became a
Peace Officer, and a later evaluation of how they judge
themselves currently. Both measures asked for their
description of their health based on an EXCELLENT-GOOD-
FAIR-POOR—BAD scale, with "excellent" scored at 4 and "bad"

98
scored at 0. The difference between the two scores, both
positive and negative, became the officer’s “Health Level
Change" (HLC) score. A negative score indicated a
reduction or deterioration in the officer’s health level,
and a positive score indicated an improvement in general
health level from the time of becoming an officer to the
time of answering the Questionnaire.

b. Health Prgblem Indicators (HPI):

Using nine frequently mentioned health problems as

 

determined in the literature review, a “Health Problems
Indicators“ chart was incorporated in the questionnaire.
The past and present status of the following maladies was
asked:

Heart disease

Ulcers

High blood pressure

Chronic headaches

Chronic stomach aches

Diabetes

Lung disease

Arthritis

Hypertension

The participants were first asked to indicate if the

health problem was present when before they became an
officer, and secondly, if they were suffering any of the

maladies at the time of answering the questionnaire.

4. FAMILY/MARRIAGE MEASURES:
a. Family Score (FS):

Eight questions of the questionnaire were grouped into

a "Family Score" by using a Likert-type scale. The

99

specific questions can be found in Part E of the
Questionnaire, questions 5 through 12, Appendix 7. The
officers were asked to respond to each question indicating
"Always", "Often", “Sometimes", "Seldom", or "Never“ as
responses to each question. Each answer was scored 1
through 5 depending on the nature of the question. A high
"Family Score" was indicative of a happy stable family
life. Conversely, a low Family Score was indicative of a
troubled family environment.

b. Marital Happiness Level Change (HC):

The questionnaire contained two questions (spaced
apart in the Questionnaire on separate pages) asking the
officers how they rated their marriage at the time of
answering the Questionnaire (very happy, happy, somewhat
happy, unhappy, very unhappy), and how they rated their
marriage when first became a law enforcement officer.
Subtracting the "now" rating from the "then" rating became
the participants’ Marriage Happiness Level Change score. A
positive score indicated that the officer’s happiness level
in marriage actually went up during his/her tenure as a
Peace Officer, and a negative score indicated the officer’s
marriage was less happy than when he/she first became an

officer.

Chapter 4

DATA ANALYSIS

I. ODU OD;

A paraphrasing of the hypothesis might read, "The
longer Peace Officers are in stressful assignments, the

greater their chances of falling victim to deleterious
personal problems."

The analysis of data accumulated for this study
attempted to determine the validity of the statement above,
but more specifically to answers three questions:

1. Do Peace Officers who have been in stressful
assignments for extended periods of time suffer
from higher rates of drinking problems than
officers who have not served extended periods
of time in such positions ?

2. Do Peace Officers who have been in stressful
assignments for extended periods of time suffer
from higher rates of health problems than

officers who have not served extended periods
of time in such positions ?

3. Do Peace Officers who have been in stressful
assignments for extended periods of time suffer
from higher rates of marital/family problems
than officers who have not served extended
periods of time in such positions ?

As a measure of stressful work experiences, the
questionnaire included a "Job Stress Scale" which was
developed for this study. It used a Likert-type score to
differentiate the work environments of the participants in
this study. The possible Job Stress Score (JSS) had a
range of 20 to 100. The study sample’s range of scores was

100

101
27 through 96, with an average of 67.53. The sample’s

distribution of Job Stress Scores is as shown in Table 4.1

below:
TABLE 4.1 - JOB STRESS SCORES DISTRIBUTION

Midpoint Count N = 413

25 1 >

30 4 xx

35 7 ***>

40 3 *>

45 17 ********>

50 28 *********x****

55 34 *xxxxxxxsxxxxsxxx

60 44 *xxxxxsxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

65 64 ********************************

70 55 *xsxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*xxxxxxx>

75 49 ************************>

80 4B *xxxxxxxsxxxxxxxxxxsxxxs

85 29 **************>

90 22 ***********

95 8 *xxx

Each * represents 2 observations

Hereafter, the participants’ position on the Job Stress
Scale will be referred to as the "Job Stress Score" (JSS),
or the "Stress Score".

Correlations between the individual Job Stress Scale
questions and the total score, and cross tabulations

between the individual questions themselves are presented

in Table 4.2 below:

OGQGUhWNt—e

TABLE 4.2 - JOB STRESS SCALE CROSS TABULATIONS*

Hours
Nights
Tasks #1
Gun
Tragedy
Stress #1
Hostile
Tension
Seamy
Mobile
Danger
Stress #2

. Quick Dec

Misconduct
Corruption
Mistakes
Tasks #2
Court
Discretion
Meals

Stress #2

Misconduct
Corruption
Mistakes
Tasks #2
Court
Discretion
Meals

. Quick Decision

1

2

.20
.05 .
.14 .
.03 .
.06 .
.02 .
.04 .
.22 .
.16 .
.17 .
.25 .
.23 .
.01 .
.16 .
.20 .
.05 .
.13 .
.25 .

12

.61
.54 .
.24 .
.39 .
.32 .
.15 .
.36 .
.33 .

102

3

4

5

6

7

.36
.36
.37

8

.23
.13

9

.18

10

* Any time correlations are given in this study the usual
Pearson product moment correlation coefficient is used.

103

The highest correlation (r = .79) was between a high Job
Stress Score and the potential for danger in an officer’s
assignment. The two lowest correlations were between the
Job Stress Score and changing work hours on a regular basis
(r = .33) and always working a night time shift (r = .34).

Also included in the questionnaire were background
questions, and questions addressing the three areas of
concern (the rationale for these were previously explained

in detail in Chapter 3).

II. SAMPLES AND SUB-SAMPLES:

The sample for this study was drawn from Peace
Officers in the State of Michigan, including State Police,
county sheriff’s deputies, municipal, and local, and campus
police. A random stratified sample by agency type, and
classified by size according to Gourley’s model, was taken
of all law enforcement agencies listed in A Directory ef
Law Enforcement Agencies in Michigan, 1984-1985 edition 1.
This source contains a listing of 630 law enforcement
agencies. These agencies were broken down by size and type

as indicated in Table 4.3 below:

 

1 Michigan Bell Telephone Company, A Directopy of Law
Ehf0fcehent Agencies in Michigan (Southfield, MI, 1983): 1-
26.

104

TABLE 4.3
MICHIGAN LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATION SIZES AND TYPES

 

SIZE OF THE ORGANIZATION
Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V
LlOOO+) (400-1000) (75-3991 L15-74l Lleee 151
AGENCY TYPE:

Police 1 0 22 106 355
Sheriffs 0 1 6 43 33
M.S.P. -O O 0 3O 33
Sub-totals: 1 1 28 179 421
TOTAL LAW EEFORCEEEET AGENCIES IN MICHIGAN ........ 630

 

 

 

For this study sample, the size and type of organization

participating are listed in Table 4.4 below:

TABLE 4.4
STUDY ORGANIZATIONS SIZES AND TYPES

 

SIZE OF THE ORGANIZATION
Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V
1000+ 400-1000 75-329 15-74 leee_l§

AGENCY TYPE:

Police 1 O 1 2 2

(53)* (55) (28) (9)

Sheriffs O 1 1 3 2
(147) (51) (38) (11)

M.S.P. - O 0 O 1 3
(8) (15)

Sub-totals: 1 1 2 6 7
(53) (147) (106) (74) (35)
TOTAL NUMBER OF AGENCIES PARTICIPATING ................... 17
IDEAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS ................ L.415

 

*Numbers in parentheses (n) indicate study respondents

The hypotheses are directed at the officers who have
served in the assignments with the most stress over
extended periods of time. Therefore, operationalizing the

sub-samples is necessary, and they are described below.

105

A. “Low—etreee Officer" ve "High;etree§ Officer":

The sample’s average Job Stress Score was 67.53 (which
is the dividing point for the two comparison groups) with a
range of 27 through 96. For the purpose of the following
data analysis, those respondents who scored 27 through 67
on the Job Stress Scale are defined as having "Low-stress
Officer" assignments, and those who scored 68 through 96
are defined as having "High-stress Officer" assignments.
The use of the terms “low" and "high" stress does not
eliminate those with "some" stress, nor does it imply a
black and white, either-or outlook. As used in this study,
the terms are simply used to differentiate two groups of
study subjects.

To validate this measure, I put myself in the mental
position of two former partners of mine, and filled out the
Job Stress Scale (pages 2 and 3 of the Questionnaire)
answering what I thought they would answer. The results of
applying their respective careers to the Job Stress Scale
can be found in Appendix 11. The majority of "Bob’s"
career was spent as a precinct staff clerk
(administration). ”John", on the other hand, spent a
majority of his career as a narcotics officer (undercover).
Using a Likert-type scale, with a score of 5 for answers in
the extreme left column, with descending scores down to 1
in the extreme right hand column, Bob’s probable score

would have been around 30, and John’s would have been

106
around 91. These scores were then applied to the following
scale:

20-67
68-100

"Low-stress Officer”
"High—stress Officer"

As a result, Bob would be classified as being in a Low-
stress Officer assignment, and John would be in a High-
stress Officer category.

A cursory review of the data obtained during this
research effort reveals similar outcomes. There were 66
different assignment positions described in the returned ‘
questionnaires (See Appendix 6 for assignment titles and
the number of respondents for each). Of these, eight
clusters were formed based on their similar tasks (See
Appendix 12 for Assignment Clusters). Of these officers
who described their assignments as falling in the
"Administrative" category (e.g., Bob’s civilian-like
position), 69% scored in the leyef half of the Job Stress
Scale. On the other hand, 72% of the "Undercover" officers
(e.g., John’s police-like assignment) placed in the highep
half of the scale. Further supporting the high-stress of
street work hypothesis were the officers who classified
themselves in the ”Patrol" cluster, 71% of whom scores in
the high half of the scale. On the other hand, of the
responding officers in the usually tranquil setting of the
court room, 80% scored in the lower half of the scale (see

Table 4.5 below):

107

TABLE 4.5
JOB STRESS SCALE SCORES vs ASSIGNMENTS

 

JOB STRESS SCALE

 

 

 

[27-571 [58—671 [68-77] [78-96] Totel_
ASSIGNMENT:

Administrative: 44 32 21 12 109
% of group 40% 29% 19% 11%
Corrections: 6 15 14 6 41
% of group 15% 37% 34% 15%
Courts: 7 9 3 1 20

% of group 35% 45% 15% 5%
Investigations: 5 10 5 7 27
% of group 19% 37% 19% 26%
Miscellaneous: 1 1 1 2 5
% of group 20% 20% 20% 40%
Patrol: 15 32 47 68 162
% of group 9% 20% 29% 42%
State/Federal: 0

(all these were found in the "Previous Assignment")
Supervision: 14 7 8 6 35
% of group 40% 20% 23% 17%
Undercover: 2 2 5 5 14
% of group 143 14% 36% 36%
N = 413
B. " TE " v " "

The variable of TIME was part of the hypotheses
statements. Simply being a current member of a stressful
assignment group may not make an officer an immediate
victim of the maladies and afflictions previously
suggested. An officer’s physiological, psychological, and
sociological well-being may be eroded over a period of time
in stressful assignments. Therefore, not only must we look
at the differences between the Low-stress Officer and High-
stress Officer groups, but these groups must be further
refined by the variable of time. To that end, the Low-
stress Officer and the High-stress Officer groups were both
further divided according to each officers’ time in

assignment. The average time in an assignment was 62.2

108
months, with a range of 1 month to 300 months. The
distribution of the respondents’ time served in their

current assignments was:

TABLE 4.6
DISTRIBUTION OF TIME (MONTHS) SERVED IN CURRENT ASSIGNMENTS
Midpoint Count N = 412
o 43 ********>
20 114 *xxxxxxxxxxx**xsx**x*xx
40 88 *x***************>
so 31 ******
80 26 *xxsx
100 31 *xxxxx
120 20 *xx*
140 15 ***
160 16 ***
180 2 >
200 9 **
220 8 x)
240 6 x
260 1 >
280 0
300 2 >

Each * represents 5 observations

Both the Low-stress Officer and the High-stress Officer
groups were therefore further divided into "rookie" (1
month to 62 months) and “veteran" (63 months to 300 months)
sub—groups. (Note: These terms are not used to connote
any judgments, rather they are simply handy.)

Would the deleterious effects of police work show up
in any significant numbers in the younger officers no
matter how stressful their current assignments ? A few
areas were tested to explore this question. Some examples
are:

1. With regard to Drinking Problem Indicators (DPI),

there was no significant difference (df = 1, 226; F-score

109
of 2.98 < Critical Value of 3.84 at p < .05) in group
average scores between rookies with the Low-stress Officer
jobs (x = 1.101 DPI) and rookies with High-stress Officer
jobs (x = 1.504 DPI).

2. There was no significant difference (df = 1, 247; F-
score of 2.98 < Critical Value of 3.84 at p < .05) in group
average scores between the Drinking Level Changes (DLC) of
rookies in the Low-stress Officer jobs (x = -O.226 DLC) and
rookies in High-stress Officer jobs (x = 0.080 DLC).

3. Correlations between Rookie stress scores, drinking
level changes, and drinking problem indicators were quite
small. They included:

a. Rookies in Low-stress Officer assignments:

Stress score & drinking level change: r =.O91

Stress score & drinking problem indicators: r =.OO3
b. Rookies in High-stress Officer assignments:

Stress score & drinking level change: r =.004

Stress score & drinking problem indicators: r =.102

4. When measuring Health Problem Indicators (HPI),
there was no significant difference (df = 1, 263; F—score
of 0.01 < the Critical Value of 3.84 at p < .05) in group
average scores between rookies in the Low-stress Officer
group (x = -0.795 HPI) and those in the High—stress Officer
group (x = -0.812 HPI).

5. There was no significant difference (df = 1, 264;
F-score of 0.40 < Critical Value of 3.84 at p < .05) in
group average scores between the Health Level Changes (HLC)
of rookies in the Low-stress Officer assignments (x = -
0.591) and rookies in the High—stress Officer assignments

(x = -0.657).

110
6. Correlations between Rookie stress scores, health
level changes, and health problem indicators were also
small. They included:

a. Rookies in Low-stress Officer assignments:

Stress score & health level change: r = .03
Stress score & health problem indicators: r = .10
b. Rookies in High-stress Officer assignments:
Stress score & health level change: r = .15
Stress score & health problem indicators: r = .01

In summary, the time served in and the type of an
assignment seem to have very little relation to the onset

of maladies and afflictions for feehie officers.

III. ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE AND TYPE CORRELATES OF STRESS:

Before looking at the main issues of interest, the
possibility that the type or the size of the officers’ work
organization more adequately accounts for differences in
the maladies and afflictions rates will be investigated.

The first organization-related question to be explored
is, "Are stressful assignments peculiar to a certain TYPE
(i.e., State, Sheriffs, municipal/local) of law enforcement
agency ? The job stress scores of the different political
types of organizations that participated in the study were
compared as reflected in Table 4.7 below.

As a means to investigate this question, the null
hypothesis that there was no difference in the average Job
Stress Scores of the three types of agencies (municipal or

local police, sheriffs, State Police) was tested. Using

111
one way analysis of variance, a test statistic (F-score)
was computed. Since the computed F-score of 4.03 is
greater than the Critical Value (R) of 3.00, we can reject
the null hypothesis and conclude we have evidence that
there are some significant differences among the various
agency types (df = 2, 410; p < .05).

TABLE 4.7
AVERAGE JOB STRESS SCORE by TYPE OF ORGANIZATION

 

JOB STRESS SCORE
Low-stress High-stress

 

 

[27-67] [68-96] Total
TYPE OF ORGANIZATION:
Municipal/Local Police: 62 82 144
Mean JSS = 69.98 x = 55.6 x = 80.85
Sheriff: 128 118 246
Mean JSS = 66.48 x = 56.86 x = 76.92
State Police: 12 11 23
Meeh JSS = 63.39 x = 52.17 x = 75.64
202 211 413

Looking at the scores of all three types of agencies
we see that the greatest difference in averages is between
the municipal/local police and the State Police (6.59
points). However, the difference is not statistically
significant (df = 1, 165; F-score of 3.73 < Critical Value
of 3.84, p < .05). On the other hand, while the difference
between average scores of the municipal/local police and
the Sheriffs is not as large (only 3.5 points), the
difference between them ie statistically significant (df =
1, 388; F—score of 5.89 > Critical value of 3.84, p < .05).
The difference between the State Police and the Sheriffs
average stress scores (3.09) is not significant (df = 1,

267; F-score of 1.21 < Critical Value of 3.84 at p < .05).

112

In the "High-stress Officer" category (scores of 68
through 96), the difference in average scores between the
Sheriffs and State Police (1.32) are not significantly
different (df = 1, 127; F-score of 0.34 < Critical Value of
3.92, p < .05). The municipal/local police participants’
job stress score average is significantly higher, with
almost 4 and over 5 points higher than both the Sheriffs
and the State Police (df = 1, 198; F-score of 14.44 >
Critical Value of 3.84 at p < .05; and, df = 1, 91; F-score
of 4.89 ) Critical Value of 3.11, p < .05, respectively).

This data would indicate that the municipal/local
police are in a more stressful work environment, or at
least perceive themselves that way.

The second question regarding the organizations’
impact on officers is, “Are stressful assignments peculiar
to a certain SIZE of law enforcement agency ? To
investigate this question, the organizations were divided
according to Gourley’s model as shown in Table 4.8 below.
The only significant job stress score average is the Class
II (from 400 to 1,000 sworn members) organization’s average
score of 63.88, which was the leyeef of the five classes.
This statistic is especially surprising because the Class
II group was drawn from an organization (a large Sheriff’s
department) which covered basically the same geographical
area as the Class I organization (a large municipal police
department) which had the highest job stress score average.

The difference between the two averages is significant (df

113
= 1, 197; F-score of 11.47 > Critical Value of 3.84, p <
.05). This statistic would indicate that high job stress
is more a function of the type or nature of the
organization than a function of organization size OR
geographic location. This assumption supports the findings
in the paragraph on organization TYPE, which concluded
that, "...the local or municipal police are in a more

stressful environment, or at least perceive themselves that

way.

TABLE 4.8
JOB STRESS SCORE by LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATION SIZE

 

JOB STRESS SCORES

 

Low—stress High-stress

[27-671 [68-961

AGENCY SIZE:

Class I (over 1,000)(n=53): n = 22 n = 31
X = 70.91 x = 53.36 x = 83.35

. Class II (400-1,000)(n=146): n = 89 n = 57
X = 63.88 x = 57.25 x = 74.25

Class III (75 - 399)(n=106): n = 42 n = 64
X = 69.3 x = 54.95 x = 78.72

Class IV (15 - 74)(n=68): n = 29 n = 39
X = 69.96 x = 57.52 x = 79.21

Class V (less than 15)(n=39):n = 19 n = 20
A = 67.74 x = 55.05 x = 79.8

 

As a final check on possible effects of organization
TYPE and SIZE on job stress scores, the size and type of
organization were combined to look at the relationship
between the stress scores and, (a) large municipal police
departments, (b) large sheriff departments, (0) medium-to-
small sized police departments, (d) medium-to small sized
sheriffs departments, and (e) State Police posts. Table

4.9 shows the results. The group that seems to jump out

114

from this chart is the city police in the highest job

stress quartile.

Of the 53 big city police who responded

to the questionnaire almost half of them (47%) placed in

the highest quarter of the Job Stress Scale.

Repeating the paradox discovered in the previous

question,

(scores of 78 through 96) shows the large Sheriff

the highest quartile of the job stress scale

department participants scoring significantly lower (df =

1, 38; F-score of 8.32 > Critical Value of 4.10 at p <

than the large city police.

Only 10% of the deputies

.05)

reported the highest stress assignments compared to 47% of

the police officers reporting highest stress assignments.

TABLE 4.9
JOB STRESS SCORE vs LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY TYPE AND SIZE

 

JOB STRESS SCORES

 

[27-57] [58-671 [68-771 [78-961

AGENCY TYPE:
Large City (n=53): n=11 n=11 =6 n=25

% of type = 21% 21% 11% 47%

X = 70.91 x=46.27 x=60.46 =72.33 286.0
Large Sheriff (n=146):n=39 n=50 n=42 n=15

% of type = 27% 34% 29% 10%

X = 63.88 x=49.59 =63.22 x=71.67 =81.5
Medium/Small PD(n=91): n=17 n=23 n=23 n=28

% of type = 19% 25% 25% 31%

X = 69.44 x=47.71 x=63.57 273.3 x=84.3
Medium/Small SD(n=100):n=19 n=19 n=28 n=34

% of type = 19% 19% 28% 34%

X = 70.43 =48.0 x=63.74 x=72.25 285.3
State Police (n=23): n=8 n=4 n=6 n=5

% of type = 35% 17% 26% 22%

A = 63.39 y=47.5 x=61.5 x=70.33 x=82.0

 

Before leaving the question of an organization’s

effect on officer personal problems,

the differences in

maladies and afflictions rates between the large municipal

115
police department and the large sheriff’s department were
investigated.

Of the six indices compared, the less-stressed
sheriffs were generally better off than the more stressed
big city police. By using analysis of variance on the
average Family Scores, it was discovered that there was a
significant difference (df = 1, 122; F-score of 4.43 >
Critical Value of 3.84, p < .05) between the average Family
Scores of the sheriffs (x = 29.97) and the police (x =
27.52).

Looking at other indices, although not statistically
significant, reveals the sheriffs also reported fewer
drinking problem indicators (an average of 1.2 vs an
average of 1.5 for the police), averaged he drinking level
change as opposed to the officers’ average increase of
0.24, and had a lower decline in their average health level
(-0.73) than did their more stressed colleagues in the big
city police (-0.85) department. The sheriffs did report a
slightly higher average health problem indicator score (-
.897) than did the police (-.865), and reported a slightly
lower average marital happiness level change score (—.27)
than did the police whose average did not change (0.00).

In summation of the data on an organization’s type and
size influence on officer problem rates, it appears that an
organization’s size does not have as much effect on a Peace
Officer’s perceived job stress as does the type (nature) of

the organization.

116
IV. IESTING THE HYPOTHESES:

A. DElNKlNG PROBLEMS:
”Do Peace Officers who have been in stressful
assignments for extended periods of time suffer from higher
rates of drinking problems than officers who have not

served extended periods of time in such positions ?"

The first hypothesis suggests that officers with long-
term High-stress assignments are more likely to suffer
"drinking problems" than officers with Low-stress
assignments, or officers with less time in their
assignment. To investigate this contention, two measures

of drinking habits were included in the questionnaire:

1. DRINKING LEVEL CHANGE (DLC):

The distribution on this drinking question was
unimodal and symmetrical (see Table 4.10) with...

115 (30%) reported DECREASED drinking levels,

180 (46%) respondents reported NO CHANGE in

drinking levels, and,
93 (24%) reported INCREASED drinking levels.

The sample’s range for changes in the drinking level was an
increase of five levels (i.e., drinking problem worsened),
to a decrease in drinking of five levels, with an average

change of -0.103, or a slight overall reduction in the

drinking levels of all the study’s participants.

117

TABLE 4.10
DISTRIBUTION OF DRINKING LEVEL CHANGE SCORES

MIDPOINT NUMBER 2 388

-5 1 >

-4 6 xx

—3 17 *xx*

-2 37 ********

—1 54 *****#*****
o 180 xx******************************#***
1 51 ********xxx
2 20 *xx*

3 13 *x*
4 7 *x
5 2 >

Each * represents 5 observations

Comparing the veteran officers in the High-stress
assignments with the veteran officers in Low-stress jobs
revealed that, as hypothesized, the drinking level change
of the veteran officers in the High-stress jobs inereased
(an average of +.101 levels), whereas the veteran officers
in the low stress jobs decreased their drinking levels (an
average of -.393). However, a one-way analysis of variance
does not indicate that there is a statistically significant
difference between the two groups’ drinking level changes
(df = 1, 123; F-score of 2.75 < Critical Value 3.84, p <
.05).

The average difference in drinking level change
between the High-stress veteran officers (+.101) and High-
stress rookie officers (+.066) is also not significant (df
= 1, 173; F-score of 0.02 < Critical Value of 3.84, p <
.05).

Correlations:

Comparing the overall sample’s job stress scores

118
against their drinking level change scores revealed a
correlation of +.108, suggesting that as the level of job
stress went up there was a slight increase in the officers’
average drinking level.

Regression:

In determining if there was any statistically
significant evidence of an association between the overall
sample’s stress scores and its’ drinking level changes, the
hypothesis that the regression weight equalled zero (B = 0)
was tested. The t-value corresponding to 339 degrees of
freedom and a 95% confidence is 1.96. The Job Stress Score
"t-ratio" of 2.24 is significant, giving us evidence that B
is probably not zero. This implies that a high job stress
score is useful as a predictor of an increase in an
officers drinking level.

A breakdown of the respondents by drinking level
changes (down, no change, up) compared against job stress
scores also supported the hypothesis. It revealed 61% of
the respondents who reported an increase in their drinking
levels were also in the High-stress half (scores of 68

through 96) of the Job Stress Scale as shown in Table 4.11.

119

TABLE 4.11
JOB STRESS SCORE vs DRINKING LEVEL CHANGES

 

JOB STRESS SCORES

 

 

[27-67] L68-961 Total
DRINKING LEVEL CHANGE SCORES:
Down: 61/53% 54/47% 115
Expected Counts* (56) (59)
No Change: 91/51% 89/49% 180
Expected Counts* (87) (93)
Up: 36/39% 57/61% 93
Eypected Counts* (45) L48)
188 200 . = 388

df = 2; ChiSqr = 4.82 ) Critical Value of 4.61 (p < .10)
*Expected counts are indicated in parentheses (n) and have
been rounded off to the nearest whole number.

Other Differences and Correlations:

All officers in Low-stress assignments had an average
decrease (—.241) in their drinking levels, and all the
officers in the High-stress positions had the predicted
average increase (+.O80) in their drinking levels. This
difference is significant (df = 1, 339; F-score of 3.97 >
Critical Value of 3.84, p < .05).

Some would suggest that the differences in the average
Drinking Level Change was due in large part to an increase
in age, time on the job, or time in assignment. As Tables
4.12A through 4.12C show below, when time is the
controlling variable there in no significant difference in
the percentages of officers who reported an increase in

their drinking levels and those who reported a decrease.

120

 

 

 

Table 4.12A
AGE vs DRINKING LEVEL CHANGE
AGE Total
20-39 40-59
DLC Down: 77/66% 37/64% 114
(73): (42)
DLC Up: 54/59% 38/41% 92
(59) (34)
131 75 206

df = 1; ChiSqr = 1.72 < C.V. of 3.84 (p < .05)

Table 4.12B
TIME ON THE JOB vs DRINKING LEVEL CHANGE

 

TIME ON THE JOB (in months) Totals

 

 

6-145 146-441
DLC Down: 57/50% 58/50% 115
(54)* (61)
DLC Up: 41/44% 52/56% 93
L44) 149)
98 110 208

df = 1; ChiSqr = 0.62 < C.V. of 3.84 (p < .05)

Table 4.12C
TIME IN ASSIGNMENT vs DRINKING LEVEL CHANGE

 

TIME IN ASSIGNMENT (in months) Totals

 

 

1-62 63-300

DLC Down: 74/65% 40/35% 114
(75)* (32)

DLC Up: 62/67% 31(33%) 93
(61) £32)

136 71 207

df = 1; ChiSqr = 0.07 < C.V. of 3.84 (p < .05)
*Expected counts are indicated in parentheses (n) and have
been rounded off to the nearest whole number
2. DRINKING PROBLEM INDICATORS (DPI):
The distribution of the respondents according to
drinking problem indicators is graphically represented in

Table 4.13 below. The sample had an average of +1.325

drinking problem indicators, or a slight increase in the

121

overall sample’s drinking habits.

TABLE 4.13
DISTRIBUTION OF DRINKING PROBLEM INDICATORS

# of Drinking

Indicators Number = 354
0 169 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1 74 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2 47 xxxxxxxxx
3 20 xxxx
4 17 xxx
5 7 x
6 9 xx
7 8 xx
8 1 >
9 1 >
10 0
11 1 >

Each * represents 5 observations

Comparing the veteran officers in High-stress
assignments with veteran officers in Low-stress jobs
revealed the drinking problem indicators of the High-stress
veterans ihepeeeeg an average of +1.694, whereas the Low-
stress veterans had an increase in their drinking problem
indicators an average of +1.137. While the difference
between the drinking problem indicators was supportive of
the hypothesis, the difference is not statistically
significant (df = 1, 111; F—score of 1.90 < Critical Value
of 3.93, p < .05).

The difference in the average drinking problem
indicators of the High-stress veteran officers (x=1.694)
and High-stress rookie officers (x=1.560) is also not
significant (df = 1, 160; F-score of 0.16 < Critical Value
of 3.84, p < .05).

122

Correlation:

Comparing the Job Stress Scores to the drinking
problem indicator scores revealed a correlation of +.168,
or, as the job stress goes up so do the drinking habits,
but only slightly.

Regression:

In determining if there was any statistically
significant evidence of an association between the Job
Stress Scores and drinking problem indicators, the
hypothesis that the regression weight equalled zero (B = 0)
was tested. The critical value corresponding to 312
degrees of freedom and a 95% confidence is 1.96. The
stress score t—ratio of 3.02 is significant, and implies
that high job stress scores are useful in predicting an

increase in drinking problems.

Job Stress Scores vs DPI:

A breakdown of the respondents by drinking problem
indicators (none, 1,2, 3 or more) and Low/High Job Stress
Scores also supported the hypothesis. It revealed 66% of
the respondents who reported three or more drinking problem
indicators (n = 64) came from the High-stress column
(scores of 68 through 96) of the Job Stress Scale (see
Table 4.14).

123

TABLE 4.14
JOB STRESSSCORES vs DRINKING PROBLEM INDICATORS

 

JOB STRESS SCORES

 

 

[27-67] [68-951 Total
DRINKING PROBLEM
INDICATORS:
0 Indicators : 93/55% 76/45% 169
(80)* (89)
l Indicator 30/41% 44/59% 74
(35) (39)
2 Indicators 23/49% 24/51% 47
(22) (25)
3+ Indicators: 22/34% 42/66% 64
£30) (341
168 186 354

df = 3; ChiSqr = 9.74 > Critical Value of 7.82 (p < .05)
*Expected counts are indicated in parentheses (n) and have
been rounded off to the nearest whole number

Other Differences and Correlations:

(1) The average Drinking Problem Indicator score
for the entire Low-stress Officer group was +1.092. The
average for the High-stress Officer group was slightly more
at +1.611. The difference between the two groups, like the
difference between the two Drinking Level Change scores,
was significant (df = 1, 312; F-score of 5.86 < Critical
Value of 3.84, p < .05).

(2) The average job stress score for those who
reported no drinking problem indicators was 65.4, whereas
the average stress score of those who reported three or
more drinking problem indicators was 71.84. A one-way
analysis of variance gives an F-score of 3.62, which, at
the p < .05 level with 3 and 350 degrees of freedom, is
significant (Critical Value = 2.60).

In determining if there was any statistically

124

significant evidence of an association between drinking
level changes and drinking problem indicators, the
hypothesis that the regression weight equalled zero (B = 0)
was tested. The critical value was 1.645. The drinking
level change “t-ratio" was 6.50, and the drinking problem
indicator "t-ratio" was 13.46, both of which are highly
significant. This implies that high drinking problem
indicators and relatively large drinking level changes are
useful as predictors of one another.

Correlations between the job stress scores and the two
measures of drinking were calculated with the following
results:

Low-stress Officer:

Stress and Drinking Level Change: r = .122
Stress and Drinking Problem Indicators: r = .087
Drinking Level Change and

Drinking Problem Indicators: r = .269

High-stress Officer:

Stress and Drinking Level Change: r =—.028
Stress and Drinking Problem Indicators: r = .117
Drinking Level Change and

Drinking Problem Indicators: r = .354

(3) When correlating job stress scores, drinking level
changes, and drinking problem indicators, the only
consistent area of significant relationship was the one
between drinking level changes and drinking problem
indicators. For the entire study sample the correlation

was +.33.

125
B. EEAETH PROBLEMS:
"Do Peace Officers who have been in stressful
assignments for extended periods of time suffer from higher
rates of health problems than officers who have not served

extended periods of time in such positions ?"

The second hypothesis suggests that officers with long
term High-stress assignments are more likely to suffer
”health problems" than officers with "Low-stress"
assignments, or officers with short tenures in their
assignments, stressful or not. However, when the question
- of health is investigated it is only natural to consider
simply getting older, or age, as a major "cause" for
significant differences in health levels between different
groups. Table 4.15 (below) displays a cross tabulation of
the Low/High Stress groups by age quartile. To determine
if the differences in the count for each cell were more
than could reasonably be due to chance alone, the null
hypothesis that the proportions in the four categories of
job stress are the same for the younger officers as for the
older officers was tested. If the null hypothesis were
true, the expected counts in each cell could reasonably be
assumed to be roughly the same (the ”expected counts" for
each cell are indicated in parentheses below the observed
counts). As the reader can see, over a third of the
officers in the Low-stress assignments were the oldest

officers (in the highest age quartile) in the sample.

126
Application of the chi-square test provides strong evidence
that the distribution of low-stress assignments among the
oldest officers is different from that of the younger
officers.

TABLE 4.15
LOW/HIGH STRESS SCORES vs AGE

 

AGE
(El-31) (32-371 (38-411 (4E-59) Total
JOB STRESS SCORES:
Low-stress: 37/19% 62/31% -33/17% 68/34% = 200

 

(46)* (64) (34) (56)

High-stress: 57/27% 70/33% 37/16% 46/22% = 210
(481 (68) (36) (581

94 132 70 114 = 410

df = 3; ChiSqr = 8.98 > Critical Value of 7.81 (p < .05)
*Expected counts are indicated in parentheses (n) and have
been rounded off to the nearest whole number

Table 4.16 shows a 4 X 4 breakdown (by quartiles) of
Job Stress Scale scores compared to the sample’s age groups
to further pinpoint where the differences occur.

TABLE 4. 16.
JOB STRESS SCORES vs AGE (BY QUARTILE)

 

JOB STRESS SCORES
[27-571 [58—671 [68-771 [78-961 Total
AGE (x = 37.03):

 

21-31 years: 8/9% 29/31% 34/36% 23/24% = 94
(21)* (25) (24) (25)

32-37 years: 26/20% 36/27% 29/22% 41/31% = 132
(30) (34) (33) (34)

38—41 years: 18/26% 15/21% 16/23% 21/30% = 70
(16) (18) (17) (18)

42-59 years: 41/36% 27/24% 24/21% 22/19% = 114
(26) (30) (29) (301

93 107 103 107 = 410

df = 9; p < .05
*Expected counts are indicated in parentheses (n) and have
been rounded off to the nearest whole number

127

There seems to be a relationship amongst the older
officers between age and a lower stress score (r = -.18).
As the veteran officers get older they seem to gravitate to
less stressful assignments. On the other hand, with
younger officers there is almost no relationship between
these two variables (r = -.05), although the trend (as
evidenced by the negative correlation) apparently has
started.

If a lowering of health levels (from excellent, to
good to average, to poor, to bad) were merely a function of
getting older, one would expect to see a significant
increase in numbers from left to right on the following
table. In other words, the older a person gets the more
reports of a worsening health level. No pattern of as-you-
get-older your health level goes down is indicated. To
determine if the differences in the count for each cell
were more than could reasonably be due to chance alone, the
null hypothesis that the proportions in the three
categories of health level changes are the same for the
younger officers as for the older officers was tested. If
the null hypothesis were true, the expected counts in each
cell could reasonably be assumed to be roughly the same
(the "expected counts" for each cell are indicated in
parentheses below the observed counts, and rounded off to
the nearest whole number). Application of the chi-square
test provides strong evidence that the distribution of

health level changes among the oldest officers is hep

128
significantly different from that of the younger officers

even at the p < .10 level.

TABLE 4.17
AGE vs HEALTH LEVEL CHANGES

 

AGE
[21-321 [33-381 [39—431 [44-591 Total
HEALTH LEVEL CHANGES:

Health Level down 1: 35/23% 46/30% 39/26% 31/21% 151

(31)* (47) (34) (39)
Health Level down 2: 10/16% 19/31% 9/15% 24/39% 62

(13) (19) (14) (16)
Health Level down 3+: 2/17% 5/42% 2/17% 3/25% 12

(3) (41 (3) (3)
47/21% 70/31% 50/22% 58/22% 225

df = 6; ChiSqr = 9.95 < C.V. of 10.64 (p < .10)
*Expected counts are indicated in parentheses (n) and have
been rounded off to the nearest whole number

The most obvious pattern of decreases in health levels
came in the age 33 to 38 group where almost a third of the
respondents reported decreases in health levels. This
trend seems to support the suspicion of a gradual erosion
of health that, according to the data above, manifests
itself most in the officers’ second quarter of their
careers.

Also contrary to the simply—getting~old theory is the
"Rookie" officers reporting an average of -0.77 illness
indicators, whereas veteran officers reported an average of
only -0.68 illness indicators. While not statistically
significant (F—score of 0.33 < Critical Value of 3.84, p <
.05) these figures are contrary to a logical assumption
that the veteran officers would report more health problems

than the younger officers.

129

Whereas with the older officers there is some
relationship between higher stress scores and a reported
increase in illness indicators (r = .19), there is almost
no relationship (r = .03) between the same two measures of
the younger officers, possibly indicating that the
hypothesized negative effect of having a high stress
assignment negatively effects the older officers more than

it does the younger officers.

2. Two measures of HEALTH were included in the
questionnaire:
a. health Level Change (HLC):

This is another simple then-and-now report from the
officers on their perceptions of their health status when
they first became Peace Officers, and a later evaluation of
how they judge themselves currently. Both measures asked
for a judgement of their health levels based on an
EXCELLENT-GOOD-FAIR-POOR—BAD scale. The distribution of
the respondents’ health level changes is graphically
represented in Table 4.18 below. The sample’s average
health level change was -0.728, or a slight decrease in

their physiological well-being.

130

TABLE 4.18
DISTRIBUTION OF HEALTH LEVEL CHANGES
3 of Levels
Changed Number = 412
-4 1 >
-3 11 **
-2 63 *************
-1 152 ******************************
O 17 1 *******************#************300!
1 l3 ***
2 1 >

Each * represents 5 observations

Comparing the veteran officers in the High-stress
assignments with their counterparts in the Low-stress jobs
revealed the health level change of veteran officers in
High-stress jobs decreased an average of -0.97, whereas the
Low—stress veteran Officers had an decrease in their health
levels of an average of -0.87. This difference between
their respective health levels, while supportive of the
hypothesis, is not statistically significant (F-score of
0.47 < Critical Value of 3.84, p < .05).

Significant support for the hypothesis of greater
health level changes of veteran officers than Rookie
officers in the same type job, came from the comparison of
the study sample’s data in those categories. As previously
mentioned, the veterans in the High-stress assignments had
an average health level decrease of —.97, but their younger
partners had an average decrease of only —.66, which is
significant at the p < .05 level (F—score of 5.82 >
Critical Value of 3.84, p < .05).

Using the entire sample, the correlation between job

131
stress scores and health level changes was almost non—
.existent at r = -0.009. Similarly, there was a correlation
of only —.04 between the High-stress veteran officers’
health level changes and their job stress scores.

Regression:

In determining if there was any statistically
significant evidence of an association between the job
stress scores and health level changes, the hypothesis that
the regression weight equalled zero (B = 0) was tested.

The critical value is 1.96. The job stress score "t-ratio“
of -0.18, is not significant at the p < .05 level.

Job Stress vs HLC:

As the reader can see in Table 4.19 below, there
appears to be no significant percentages of any certain
group when changes in health levels and job stress scores
are investigated.

TABLE 4.19
JOB STRESS SCORES vs HEALTH LEVEL CHANGES

 

JOB STRESS SCORE
Low—stress High Stress

 

 

[E7-671 [68-961 Ietale__
HEALTH LEVEL:
Minus Scores: 111/49% 116/51% 227
(111)* (116)
No Change Scores: 83/49% 88/51% 171
(84) (87)
Plus Scores: 8/57% 6/43% 14
(7) (7)
202 210 412

df = 2; ChiSqr = 0.39 < Critical Value of 5.99 (p < .05)
Minus Scores indicate a deterioration in health levels
Plus scores indicate an improvement in health levels
*Expected counts are indicated in parentheses (n) and have
been rounded off to the nearest whole number

132
b. Health Prohlem lhdicators (HPI):

Using nine of the most mentioned health problems as
determined in the literature review, a “Health Problems
Indicators" chart was incorporated in the questionnaire.
The participants were first asked to indicate if they had a
certain health problem (e.g., high blood pressure) when
they first became an officer, and secondly, if they were
suffering any of the nine listed problems at the time of
the questionnaire (See Appendix 7, Part D, question 3 for
the specific maladies surveyed). The distribution of
respondents’ health problem indicators is graphically
represented in Table 4.20 below. The sample’s average
health problem indicator score was -0.96, or a slight
increase in the number of health problems.

TABLE 4.20
DISTRIBUTION OF HEALTH PROBLEM INDICATORS
# of Health Number = 411

Problems
-8 1 >
-7 0
-6 2 >
-5 5 x
-4 16 xxx
-3 37 xxxxxxx
-2 53 xxxxxxxxxxxx
—1 7o xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
0 213 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1 8 xx
2 1 >

Each * represents 5 observations

Comparing the veteran officers in the High~stress
assignments with their counterparts in the Low-stress jobs

revealed that the officers in the High—stress jobs reported

.133
an average health problem score of -1.38. The Low-stress
veteran Officers, on the other hand, reported an average
score of -1.13 on the same scale. The difference between
the two groups’ respective health problem indicators is not
statistically significant (df = 1, 143; F-score of 1.05 >
Critical Value of 3.84, p < .05), but it did tend to go in
the direction of the hypothesis in that High-stress veteran
officers did have health problems to a greater degree than
did their Low—stress veteran Officer counterparts.

Supporting the hypothesis of a higher degree of health
problems of veterans than their rookies partners in the
same type job was the comparison of the study Sample’s data
in those categories. Again, the veterans in the High-
stress Officer assignments had an average health problem
indicator score of -1.38, while their younger colleagues
had an average of only -.81. These figures are
statistically significant (df = 1, 207; F-score of 7.12 >
Critical Value of 3.84, p < .05).

There was almost no correlation (r = .015) between the
health problem indicators and the job stress scores.

Regression:

In determining if there was any statistically
significant evidence of an association between the job
stress scores and health problem indicators, the hypothesis
that the regression weight equalled zero (B = 0) was
tested. The job stress score "t—ratio" of 0.30, is not

significant at the p < .05 level in which the Critical

134
Value is 1.96.

Job Stress vs HPI:

Surprisingly, of those who reported an improvement in
health, that is fewer health problems at the time of the
questionnaire than when they first came on the job (n=27),
89% also placed themselves in the high end (68-96) of the
Job Stress Scale (Table 4.21 below):

TABLE 4.21
JOB STRESS SCORES vs HEALTH PROBLEM INDICATORS

 

JOB STRESS SCORES
Low-stress High—stress

 

 

[27-671 [68-961 Totel
HEALTH PROBLEM INDICATORS:
Minus Scores: 95/56% 76/44% 171
(84)* (87)
No Change Scores: 104/49% 109/51% 213
(105) (108)
Plus Scores: 3/11% 24/89% 27
(13) (14)
202 209 411

df = 2; ChiSqr = 18.45 > Critical Value of 5.99 (p < .05)
"Minus scores" are indicative of deterioration in health
"Plus scores" are indicative of an improvement in health
*Expected counts are indicated in parentheses (n) and have
been rounded off to the nearest whole number

This would seem to be contrary to the hypothesis that
implies the higher the job stress, the worse the health. A
closer examination of the officers who reported an
improvement in health in spite of being in a High-stress
assignment reveals other surprises. The officers who
reported an improvement in health did not come from the
younger or "rookie" officer groups as logic would suggest.

The average age of the officers reporting an improvement in

health was 40 years as compared to the sample’s average of

135
37 years. Of the 27 officers who reported an improvement,
only 4 were below the age of 34. The “improved" officers’
average time in their respective stressful assignments was
121 months as opposed to the sample’s average of 62.2
months in their assignments.

Other Differences and Correlations:

(a) When health problem indicators were compared for
all officers in the Low-stress assignments against all
officers in the High—stress jobs, the "uh-stressed officer"
had a score of -0.91 compared to the "stressed officer“ who
had a score of -1.02 problems reported. While not
statistically significant (df = 1, 409; F-score of 0.69 <
Critical Value of 3.84, p < .05), this too shows a trend
toward supportive evidence that the High-stress Officers
report more health problems than their Low-stress Officer
colleagues.

(b) A consistently high correlation was discovered
between the health level change scores and the health

problem indicator scores as summarized below:

For the total sample: r = +.40
For all Low-stress Veterans: r = +.40
For all High-stress respondents r = +.41
For all High—stress rookies r = +.44

C. FAMILYZMARITAL PROBLEMS:

"Do Peace Officers who have been in stressful
assignments for extended periods of time suffer from higher
rates of marital/family problems than officers who have not

served extended periods of time in such positions ?"

136
The third area of interest was marital/family
problems. Table 4.22 below graphically represents the

distribution of the respondents’ marital status.

TABLE 4.22
DISTRIBUTION OF MARITAL STATUS

§IAIQ§ Number = 411
Widowed 1
Widowed and Remarried 3 >
Single, Never Married 48 xxxxx
Divorced and Remarried 78 xxxxxxxx
Divorced 63 xxxxxx
Married 218 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Each * represents 5 observations

To investigate issues in this area, several background
questions were asked, a then~and~now happiness measure, and
several questions were grouped into a “Family score" along

the same Likert-type scale used previously in this paper.

1. FAMILY SCORE (Married/Family Officers):

Eight questions of the questionnaire were grouped into
a "Family Score“ by using a Likert-type scale. The
specific questions can be found in Appendix 7, Part E,
questions 5 through 12. Those officers (n = 293) answering
these questions had a Family Score range of 10 to 39, with
an average score of 29.77. A high Family Score was
indicative of a harmonious family environment. Conversely,
a low family score indicated a troubled family life. The
distribution of the Family Scores is graphically

represented in Table 4.23 below:

137

TABLE 4.23
DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILY SCORES

Midpoint Number = 293

of Score

10 1 *

12 0

14 1 x

16 1 *

18 6 xxxxxx

20 9 xxxxxxxxx

22 12 xxxxxxxxxxxx

24 19 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

26 24 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

28 34 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

30 49 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
32 43 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
34 31 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

36 32 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

33 26 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

4o 5 xxxxx

Each * represents 1 observation

Comparing the veteran officers in the High-stress
assignments with their counterparts in the Low-stress jobs
revealed that the veteran officers in the High-stress jobs
reported an average family score of 29.14. The Low-stress
Officers, on the other hand, reported an average family
score of 31.83. The difference between their two average
scores is statistically significant (df = 1, 97; p , .05;
F-score of 7.23 > Critical Value of 3.87), and supported
the hypothesis that officers in high stress assignments
would tend to have their home lives negatively effected.

The average Family Score of the High-stress veteran
officer was 29.14, and the average family score of the
High-stress rookie officer was 28.61. Although not
statistically significant (df = 1, 125; F-score of 0.27 <

Critical Value of 3.84, p < .05), the scores contradicted

138
the predicted lower family score that the High-stress
veteran officer would have compared to the younger officers
in the same type of assignment.

The correlation between the job stress scores and the
Family Scores of all the participants was -.226, indicating
that as the job stress went up the family harmony went
down.

Regression:

In determining if there was any statistically
significant evidence of an association between the Job
Stress Score and the Family Scores, the hypothesis that the
regression weight equalled zero (B = O) was tested. The
critical value of 1 and 291 degrees of freedom is 1.96.
The job stress score “t-ratio" was -3.96, the difference of
which is significant. This implies that a high job stress
score is useful as a predictor of a potential increase in
an officer’s problems at home.

Job Stress vs Family Score:

When a 2 X 2 Chi Square Test is performed on the
responding officers’ Job Stress and Family Scores the
results are insignificant as demonstrated in Table 4.24

below:

139

TABLE 4.24
FAMILY SCORES vs JOB STRESS SCORES

 

JOB STRESS SCORES

 

 

Low-stress High-stress
L27-671 [BB-96] Totel
FAMILY SCORES:
10-29: 59/45% 73/55% 132
(67)* (65)
30-39: 90/56% 71/44% 161
(821 (791
149 144 293

df = 1; ChiSqr = 3.64 < Critical Value of 3.84 (p , .05)
*Expected counts are indicated in parentheses (n) and have
been rounded off to the nearest whole number

However, when the respondents were distributed by
quartiles significant differences are discovered as is
presented in Table 4.25. The table shows that over a third
(37%) of the officers who had the lowest family scores (10
through 26), indicative of a troubled family environment,
also came from the upper fourth (scores of 77 through 95)
of the Job Stress Scale (indicative of a stressful
assignment). Conversely, 39% of the officers reporting the
highest (happiest) Family Scores also placed themselves in

the lowest quarter of the Job Stress Scores.

TABLE 4.25
JOB STRESS SCORES vs FAMILY SCORES

 

JOB STRESS SCORES

 

 

[27—561 [57—67] [68-76] [77961 Total
FAMILY SCORES:

lst Quartile (0-26) 12/16% 16/22% 18/25% 27/37% 73
(18)* (17) (19) (19)

2nd Quartile (27-29): 12/20% 18/31% 15/25% 14/24% 59
(15) (14) (15) (16)

3rd Quartile (30-33): 17/21% 20/25% 21/26% 23/28% 81
' (20) (19) (21) (21)

4th Quartile (34-39): 31/39% 14/18% 22/28% 13/16% 80
(201 (19) (211 (21)

72 68 76 77 293

df = 9; ChiSqr = 18.63 > Critical Value of 16.92 (p < .05)

*Expected counts are indicated in parentheses (n) and have
been rounded off to the nearest number

Other Differences and Correlations:

(1)

percentages in the fringe groups become more extreme as

By focusing on just the veteran officers, the

Table 4.26 indicates. Of the 42 veteran officers who

reported a low family score (i.e., 14-29), nearly two

thirds (64%) had high Job Stress scores.

TABLE 4.26

VETERAN OFFICER JOB STRESS SCORES VS FAMILY SCORES

 

VETERAN OFFICER JOB STRESS SCORES

 

 

[27-671 [68-93] Totale
VETERAN OFFICER FAMILY SCORES:
Score of 14-29: 15/36% 27/64% 42
(21)* (21)
Score of 30-39: 42/58% 30/42% 72
(36) (36)
57 57 114

df = 1; ChiSqr = 5.43 > Critical Value of 3.84 (p < .05)

*Expected counts are indicated in parentheses (n)

A more detailed look at the same officers gives a better

idea of where exactly the officers are located with respect

141
to the extremes of the groups. As can be seen in Table
4.27 below, of the 26 officers who reported the lowest
family scores (i.e., 14-27) nearly half (46%) scored in the
highest quarter of the Job Stress Scale. Conversely, 41%
of the officers who reported the highest (read happiest)
family scores, came from the lowest quarter (lowest-stress)

of the Job Stress Scale.

TABLE 4.27
QUARTILE VETERAN OFFICER JOB STRESS SCORES VS FAMILY SCORES

 

VETERAN OFFICER JOB STRESS SCORES
[27-56] [57-671 [68-771 [78-931 Total
VETERAN FAMILY SCORES:

 

Score of 14-27: 4/15% 3/12% 7/27% 12/46% 26
(6)* (7) (6) (7)
Score of 28—29: 2/13% 6/38% 5/31% 3/19% 16
(4) (4) (4) (4)
Score of 30-34: 10/23% 12/28% 10/23% 11/26% 43
(11) (11) (11) (11)
Score of 35-39: 12/41% 8/28% 6/21% 3/10% 29
(7) (7) (71 (7)
28 29 28 29 114

df = 9; ChiSqr = 16.08 < Critical Value of 16.9 (p < .05)
*Expected counts are indicated in parentheses (n) and have
been rounded off to the nearest whole number

(2) Also supportive of the hypothesis is the data
showing officers in Low-stress assignments having an
average higher family score (x = 30.64) than do their
counterparts in the High-stress assignments (x = 28.68).
The difference is significant (df = 1, 291; F—score of 8.29
> Critical Value of 3.84, p < .05).

142
2. MARITAL HAPPINESS LEVEL CHANGE:

The range of marital happiness level change scores ran
from an officer’s perceived happiness going down 5 levels
(fortunately only one respondent scored this low), to other
officers reporting a happiness level increase of up to 3
levels as displayed in Table 4.28 below:

TABLE 4.28
DISTRIBUTION OF MARITAL HAPPINESS LEVEL CHANGES

Midpoint Number = 129

-5 1 >
-4 0
—3 0
—2 1 >
-1 14 xxxxxxx
0 70 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1 37 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2 4 xx
1 2 x

Each * represents 2 observations

The average change in marital happiness levels for the
responding officers was +.23, indicating that as the
officers got "seniority“ in their marriages, they actually
became happier!

Comparing the veteran officers in the High-stress
assignments with their counterparts in Low~stress jobs
revealed that the officers in the High-stress jobs reported
an average increase in their marital happiness level of
+.45. The Low-stress Officers, on the other hand, reported
an average marital happiness level increase +.08. This
finding is contrary to the hypothesis that predicted the

High-stress veteran officers would have lower marital

143
happiness level scores than their Low-stress Officer
counterparts. The difference between the two group
averages, however, is not statistically significant (df =
1, 45; F—score of 1.66 < Critical Value of 3.84, p < .05).

The average marital happiness level change score of
the High-stress veteran officer was +.45, and the average
marital happiness level score of the High-stress rookie
officer was +.41. Again, the findings were contrary to the
predicted scores of the High-stress veteran officers having
less happy marriage environment than their High-stress
rookie officer partners. Although not statistically
significant (df = 1, 57; F-score of 0.06 < Critical Value
of 4.01, p < .05), the scores did contradict the hypothesis
once again.

The correlation between the job stress scores and the
Marital Happiness Level Change scores of all the
participants was +.20, indicating that as the job stress
went up the marital happiness level also went up slightly,
contrary to the hypothesis.

Regression:

In determining if there was any statistically
significant evidence of an association between the job
stress scores and the Marital Happiness Level Change
scores, the hypothesis that the regression weight equalled
zero (B = 0) was tested. The critical value is 1.96 at p <
.05 with 1 and 125 degrees of freedom. The job stress

score "t-ratio" was 2.35. The difference is significant.

144

Other Differences and Correlations:

All officers in the High—stress assignments had a
marriage happiness level increase of +.42 levels. On the
other hand, the officers in Low—stress assignments had a
marriage happiness level increase of +.05. The difference
is significant (df = 1, 127; F-score of 5.42 > Critical

Value of 3.84, p < .05), and is contrary to the hypothesis.

3. NUMBER OF FRIENDS:

Another measure of marital bliss (or lack of same) is
the number of close friends one has 2. This indices
includes people that one feels at ease with, can talk to
about private matters, and can call on for help. The
rationale behind asking this question is that few intimate
friends relates to an unsatisfactory/dissatisfied
marriage.3

When reviewing the distribution (Table 4.29 below) of
the married officers’ number of close friends compared to
the Job Stress Scale quartiles, there does not appear to be
any obvious significant patterns that one could draw
conclusions from. In some cases the data even appear
contradictory, such as 60% of the officers with six or more

friends coming from the High-stress group.

 

2 Renne, p. 65.
3 Ibid.

145

TABLE 4.29
JOB STRESS SCORES vs MARRIED OFFICERS’ NUMBER OF FRIENDS

 

JOB STRESS SCORES

 

 

[27-671 [68—961 Total
NUMBER OF FRIENDS:
0-5 Friends: 100/5l% 97/49% 197
(93)* (104)
6+ Friends: 39/40% 59/60% 98
(46) (521
139 156 295

df = 1; ChiSqr = 3.16 < Critical Value of 3.84 (p < .05)
*Expected counts are indicated in parentheses (n) and have
been rounded off to the nearest whole number

Therefore, how many friends an officer has may not be as

efficient a gauge of a good family environment as the

source author suggests.

4. DIVORCE RATE:

For the purpose of analysis, the various marital
status groupings (see Table 4.22) were combined into three
general groups: married, divorced, and single. The married
group included those officers who were either widowed,
widowed and re-married, or currently married (n = 222).
The divorced group included those officers who were
currently divorced and those who were divorced and re—
married (n = 141). The single group included only those
who were currently single and never married (n = 48). The
three groups’ distribution into "Low-stress" and “High—

stress" sub-groupings are presented in Table 4.30 below:

146

TABLE 4.30
MARITAL STATUS vs JOB STRESS SCORES

 

JOB STRESS SCORES

 

 

_ __ Low-stress High-stress Totals
MARITAL STATUS:
Married: 114/51% 108/49% 222
(109)* (113)
Divorced: 63/45% 78/55% 141
(69) (72)
Single: 25/52% 23/48% 48
(24) (24)
202 209 411

df = 2; ChiSqr = 1.72 < Critical Value of 5.99 (p < .05)
*Expected counts are indicated in parentheses (n) and have
been rounded off to the nearest whole number.

As the reader can see, the actual distribution is very
close to the expected distribution, and application of the
Chi Square test reveals there are no significant
differences between the groups’ percentages.

However, when the different groups’ average Job Stress
Scores are analyzed, some interesting and significant
differences are discovered. For example, when the average
Job Stress Score (X = 66.46) for the officers who were
married for the first time (n = 218) is compared to that (X
= 70.52) of the divorced officers (n = 63), the difference
is significant (df = 1, 279; F-score of 4.20 > Critical
Value of 3.84 at p < .05). Yet, when the average Job
Stress Score (X = 68.65) of the officers who were divorced
and re-married (n = 78) is compared to the same married
officers, the difference is hef statistically significant
(df = 1, 294; F-Score of 1.46 < Critical Value of 3.84, p
< .05). Marital status seems to have a mitigating effect

on the officers’ perception of the amount of job stress

147
they are experiencing.

On the other hand, by examining the distribution in
Table 4.31 below, two patterns become evident: (1) In all
three catagories, as the job stress scores go higher, so do
the percentages of divorced officers; and (2), the majority
of officers having experienced divorce come from the High-
stress end of the Job Stress Scale (scores of 68 through
96), especially those who were divorced (60%) at the time
of the survey.

TABLE 4.31
JOB STRESS SCORES vs DIVORCE RATES

 

JOB STRESS SCORES
[27-58] [59-67] [68-781 179-961 Total:
DIVORCED:

Currently Divorced: 11/17% 14/22% 16/25% 22/35% 63

Currently Remarried
e 'vorce: 8 3% 0 % 0 26% 2 26% 78
39/28% 34/24% 36/25% 42/30% 141

5. Hit Spouse:

It is a generally accepted fact that physical violence
between husband and wife is indicative of serious family or
marital problems between the two. To that end, the
questionnaire contained a question asking if the officer
ever struck his or her spouse in anger with their hands or
an object, and if they did how many times did they do so.
The next Table gives an insight into this question.

As the reader can see in Table 4.32, 53 officers (or
18% of the 295 officers who reported being/having been
married and answered the question) admitted to striking

their spouse. Their average Job Stress Score was 69.27,

148
compared to the 66.04 average of officers who reported that
they did not strike their spouse (n = 242). While the
average stress score of the more abusive officers is higher
than the average scores of those who did not report hitting
their spouses, the difference is hef statistically
significant (df = 1, 295; F-Score = 2.41 < Critical Value
of 3.84, p < .05). '

That a person hit their spouse once upon a time is not
shocking. However, of the officers who admitted hitting
their spouse, over a third (38%) reported doing it more
than once. A most revealing statistic found in this data
is that of those officers (21) who admitted to hitting
their spouse more than once, fully two thirds (14) of them
placed in the high half (High-stress assignments) of the
Job Stress Scale.

TABLE 4.32
JOB STRESS SCORES vs HIT SPOUSE

 

HIT SPOUSE ?

 

 

 

NO ONCE MORE THAE ONCE TOTAL
LOW-STRESS OFFICERS: 130 13 7 150

(123)* (16) (11)
HIGH-STRESS OFFICERS: 112 19 14 145

(119) (16) (101

242 32 21 295

df = 2; ChiSqr = 4.71 < Critical Value of 5.99 (p < .05)
*Expected counts are indicated in parentheses (n) and have
been rounded off to the nearest whole number

A large percentage of the Job Stress Scale questions (i.e.,
numbers 4 through 9, 11, 12, and 14) could be considered

related to violence or violent situations. It would seem

from the data above that being exposed to violence on the

149
job promotes violence at home in those officers who are
prone to being physically assaultive in their

relationships.

V. INTERVENING VARIABLES EFFECT:

“The maladies and afflictions rates of Peace Officers
who have been in the ‘High-stress Officer’ assignments for
lengthy periods of time are mitigated by intervening
variables such as participation in sports, school, and a

second job."

Many intervening variables such as a strong family or
marriage, or supportive non-police friends, can blunt the
negative effects of police work. I selected three that,
(1) my subjective opinion felt were influential, and (2)
are easily measurable (by simply answering yes or no) in a
written questionnaire survey such as the one conducted for
this study. The three I elected to investigate were:

(1) Current schooling
(2) Working a second job
(3) Being active in sports
The effect of these variables as they apply to the

participants in this study are discussed below.

150
A. QDEEENT SCHOOLING:
Of those participants who responded to this question,
45 indicated that they were currently in school, 362
indicated that they were not. Analyses of variance was

calculated for the following areas:

1. AS ATTENDANCE IN SCHOOL EFFECTED DRINKING PROBLEMS:
a. Drinking Level Chehge:

All of the study samples’ participants reported an
average drinking level change of -.103, or a slight overall
reduction in the participants’ drinking levels.

The participating officers in school reduced their
drinking level an average of -.37, whereas the officers who
were not in school reduced their drinking levels an average
of -.08. While not statistically significant, the trend is
in the direction the hypothesis suggests (df = 1, 380; F-
score of 1.39 < Critical Value of 3.84, p < .05).

b. Drinking Prehlem Indicators:

All the study samples’ participants reported an
average of drinking problem indicators of +1.33, or a
slight overall increase in the participants’ drinking
habits.

The officers attending school reported fewer drinking
problem indicators than did their non—school colleagues.
The officers who were in school had an average drinking
problem indicator score of +0.97, while the non-school

officers had an average of +1.36 drinking problem

151
indicators. Again, the difference was not statistically
significant, but the trend was in the direction the
hypothesis suggests (df = 1, 347; F-score of 1.34 <
Critical Value of 3.84, p < .05).

2. AS ATTENDANCE IN SCHOOL EFFECTED HEALTH PROBLEMS:
a. Health Level Chehge:

All of the study samples’ participants reported an
average health level change of -0.73, or a slight overall
reduction in the participants’ health levels.

As attending school effected the officers’ health
level change, those officers who were attending school
reported a significantly lower average reduction in their
health levels (-0.49) than did the officers who were not
attending school and had an average reduction of -0.76 (df
= 1, 404, F—score of 3.96 > Critical Value of 3.84, p <
.05).

b. Health Eroblem lhdicat0fs:

All of the study samples’ participants reported an
average of —0.73 health problem indicators, or a slight
overall reduction in the participants’ health problems.

As attending school effected the officers’ health
problem indicators, those officers who were attending
school reported a slightly lower average (-0.69) than did
the officers who were not attending school and had an
average of -0.74 (df = 1, 403; F-score of 0.05 < Critical
Value of 3.84, p < .05).

152

3. AS ATTENDING SCHOOL EFFECTED FAMILY/MARRIAGE
PROBLEMS:

a. Family Score:

All of the study samples’ participants reported an
average family score of 29.77.

As attending school effected the officers’ family
score, those officers who were attending school reported a
higher average (30.8) (read happier) than did the officers
who were not attending school who had an average of 29.7.
Once again, this difference is not statistically
significant (df = 1, 285; F—score of 1.17 < Critical Value
of 3.84, p < .05), but once again the trend was in the same
direction as the hypothesis suggests.

b. Marital Heppineee Level Chehge:

All of the study samples’ participants reported an
average marital happiness level change of +0.23, or a
slight overall increase in the participants’ level of
happiness in his/her marriage.

As attending school effected the officers’ marital
happiness level change score, those officers who were
attending school reported a higher/happier average score
(+0.36) than did the officers who were not attending school
and who had an average of +0.21. However, once again,
although in the right direction, this difference is not
statistically significant (df = 1, 124; F-score of 0.30 <

Critical Value of 3.84, p < .05).

153
B. WORKING A SECOND JOB:
Of those participants who responded to this question,
76 indicated that they were working a second job, and 323
indicated that they were not. Analyses of variance was

calculated for the following areas:

1. AS WORKING A SECOND JOB EFFECTED DRINKING PROBLEMS:
a. Drinking Level Change:

All of the study samples’ participants reported an
average drinking level change of -.103, or a slight overall
reduction in the participants’ drinking levels.

The responding officers who indicated that they worked
second jobs reported their drinking level going down an
average of -.46. Those officers who did not report that
they worked a second job indicated their drinking levels
going down an average of only -.03. The difference between
the two averages is significant (df = 1, 373; F—score of
4.75 > Critical Value of 3.84, p < .05).

b. Dpinking Problem Indicators:

All of the study samples’ participants reported an
average of +1.33 drinking problem indicators, or a slight
overall increase in the participants’ drinking habits.

The officers with second jobs contradicted the
hypothesis and reported an above sample average of 1.47
drinking problem indicators. The officers not working
second jobs reported a lesser average of 1.29 drinking

problem indicators. The difference between the two groups

154
is not statistically significant (df = 1, 341; F-score of

0.43 < Critical Value of 3.84, p < .05).

2. AS WORKING A SECOND JOB EFFECTED HEALTH PROBLEMS:
a. Health Level Chahge:

All of the study’s participants reported an average
health level change of -0.728, or a slight overall
reduction in the participants’ health levels.

As working a second job effected the officers’ health
level change, there was absolutely no difference between
the health level reduction of the officers who worked a
second job and those who didn’t work a second job; both had
an average lowering of health level of -0.72.

b. fleelph_fipobleh Iheicetepez
All of the study’s participants reported an average of -
0.96 health problem indicators, or a slight overall
reduction in the participants’ health problems.

As working a second job effected the officers’ health
problem indicators, those officers who were working a
second job reported an insignificantly higher average (-
0.87) than did the officers who were not working a second
job and had an average of -0.69 (df = 1, 395; F-score of
0.84 < Critical Value of 3.84, p < .05).

155
3. AS WORKING A SECOND JOB EFFECTED FAMILY/MARRIAGE:
a. Family Score:

All of the study samples’ participants reported an
average Family Score of 29.77.

As working a second job effected the officers’ Family
Score, these officers who were working a second job again
contradicted the hypothesis and reported a slightly lower
average family score (29.2) than did the officers who were
not working a second job who had an average of 29.9. This
difference was not statistically significant (df = 1, 279;
F-score of 0.74 < Critical Value of 3.84, p < .05).

b. Marital Happiness Level Change:

All of the study’s participants reported an average
marital happiness level change of +0.23, or a slight
overall increase in the participants’ level of happiness in
his/her marriage.

As working a second job effected the officers’ marital
happiness level change score, the scores of these officers
who were working a second job supported the hypothesis and
reported a slightly higher average (+0.36) level of
happiness than the officers who were not working a second
job and who had an average happiness level of +0.22. Once
again, this difference is not statistically significant (df
= 1, 121; F-score of 0.07 < Critical Value of 3.84, p <
.05).

156
C.’ ACTIVE IN SPORTS:
Of those participants who answered to this question,
221 indicated that they were active in sports, and 179
indicated that they were not. Analyses of variance was

calculated for the following areas:

1. AS BEING ACTIVE IN SPORTS EFFECTED DRINKING
PROBLEMS:

a. Drinking Level Chahge:

All of the study’s participants reported an average
drinking level change of -.103, or a slight overall
reduction in the participants’ drinking levels.

The officers who were not active in sports reported a
larger decline in their drinking levels with an average of
-.27, than did the sports active officers who reported an
average of -.02. The difference between the two averages
is not statistically significant (df = l, 373; F-score of
2.58 < Critical Value of 3.84, p < .05).

b. Drinking Problem lndicetors:

All of the study’s participants reported an average of
+1.33 drinking problem indicators, or a slight overall
increase in the participants’ drinking habits.

The officers who were not active in sports reported an
average of +1.32 increase in their drinking problem
indicators, which was over the average (+1.30) of these
officers who were active in sports. The difference between
the scores was not significant (df = 1, 341; F-score of

0.01 < Critical Value of 3.84, p < .05).

157
2. AS BEING ACTIVE IN SPORTS EFFECTED HEALTH PROBLEMS:
a. Health Level Changee:

All of the study’s participants reported an average
health level change of -O.728, or a slight overall
reduction in the participants’ health levels.

As being active in sports effected the officers’
health level change, those officers who were active in
sports reported a lesser average (-0.65) lowering of health
level than did the officers who were not active in sports
and had a greater average (-0.82) decrease in health
levels. However, these differences were not significant
(df = 1, 397; F-score of 3.83 < Critical Value of 3.84, p <
.05 level).

b. Health Problem Indicators:

(1) All of the study’s participants reported an
average of -0.96 health problem indicators, or a slight
overall reduction in the participants’ health problems.

(2) As being active in sports effected the
officers’ health problem indicators, those officers who
were active in sports supported the hypothesis and reported
fewer health problem indicators (x = -0.64) than did the
officers who were not active in sports and had an average
of -0.83 health problem indicators. The difference,
however, is not statistically significant (df = 1, 396; F-

score of 1.58 < Critical Value of 3.84 at the p < .05).

158
3. AS BEING ACTIVE IN SPORTS EFFECTS FAMILY/MARRIAGE:
a. Family Score:

All of the study’s participants reported an average
Family Score of 29.77.

As being active in sports effected the officers’
Family Score, those officers who were active in sports
reported a slightly higher average family score (30.0) than
did the officers who were not active in sports and who had
an average of 29.5. However, once again, this difference
is not statistically significant (df = 1, 280; F-score of
0.56 < Critical Value of 3.84, p < .05).

b. Marital Happiness Level Change:

All of the study’s participants reported an average
marital happiness level change of +0.23, or a slight
overall increase in the participants’ level of happiness in
his/her marriage.

As being active in sports effected the officers’
marital happiness level change score, those officers who
were active in sports reported a slightly lower average
(+0.20) increase of happiness than did the officers who
were not active in sports and who had an average happiness
level increase of +0.27. However, once again, this
difference is not statistically significant (df = 1, 123;

F-score of 0.19 < Critical Value of 3.84, p < .05).

159
VI. SERENDIPlTOUS ane_SURPRlSINQ FINDINQS:

A surprising finding was the relationship between the
officers’ SATISFACTION score and reported support from the
spouse for the officers chosen profession. The
satisfaction scores were unimodal with a range of 6 through

30, as graphically depicted in Table 4.33 below:

TABLE 4.33
DISTRIBUTION OF JOB SATISFACTION SCORES
Score
Midpoint Count
6 2 x
3 . 2 x
10 15 xxxxxxxx
12 41 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
14 54 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
16 75 **************************************
18 94 ***********************************************
20 64 *************X*********#********
22 39 ********************
24 19 **********
26 3 **
28 - 3 **
30 1 x

Each * represents 2 observations

The spouse support scores were skewed heavily to the
positive spouse support and "tolerates" end of the scale,
with a drastic drop off to the "indifference", wanting the
officer to stop being a P.O., and "I don’t know", as

graphically depicted in Table 4.34 below:

160

TABLE 4.34

DISTRIBUTION OF SPOUSE SUPPORT SCORES
Category Count (n = 296)
"I don’t know" 7 x
"Against it” 14 xxx
"Indifferent" 47 xxxxxxxxx
"Tolerates" 123 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Wants it“ 105 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Each * represents 5 observations

As the reader can see from Table 4.35 below, of the
officers who reported that their spouses supported them
being Peace Officers, 76% also reported being in the upper
half of the Satisfaction Scale. Conversely, of those
officers who reported that their spouses wanted them to
stop being a P.O., 57% scored in the lowest quarter of the
Satisfaction Scale. The correlation between the officers’
career satisfaction scores and the spouse career support
scores is +.334. This data suggests that as support for
the officer’s career choice goes up by his or her spouse,
so does the officer’s job satisfaction.

TABLE 4.35
JOB SATISFACTION SCORES vs SPOUSE SUPPORT

 

SPOUSE SUPPORT
Wante Toleratee Indifferent Step Total
JOB SATISFACTION

 

SCORES:
LOW - 6 thru 16: 25/20% 65/53% 22/18% 10/8% 122
(45)* (52) (20) (10)
HIGH- 17 thru 30: 80/48% 57/34% 25/15% 4/2% 166
(61) (70) (27) (8)
105 122 47 14 288

df = 3; ChiSqr = 25.98 > Critical Value of 7.81 (p < .05)
*Expected values are indicated in parentheses (n) and have
been rounded off to the nearest whole number

161
We therefore have strong evidence that the distribution of
degrees of spouse support among officers who are satisfied
in their jobs is different from that of officers who are
not satisfied in their jobs. This implies that support
from an officer’s spouse may well be useful as a predictor
of an officer’s job satisfaction. This phenomenon could
have a significant impact on recruiting, as will be

discussed in the following chapter.

As the reader can see from Table 4.36 below, few (only
2 of 35) older (67 through 201 months) supervisors were in
the high job stress categories (scores of 68 through 96).
On the other hand, over half (12 of 22) of the younger
supervisors were in the high stress categories. It has
been my experience that when I was promoted on two separate
occasions, the new job and responsibilities initially were
highly stressful. However, as I gained experience in the
new positions, I learned to set priorities on what was
important, and not worry about what didn’t need my
immediate attention and concern.

TABLE 4.36
JOB STRESS SCORES vs TIME IN ASSIGNMENT — SUPERVISION

 

MONTHS IN SUPERVISION ASSIGNMENT

 

 

 

5-66 Mole 67-201 M91§_____Iota1
JOB STRESS SCORES:
Low: 10(13)x 11(8) 21
High: 12(9) 2(5) 14
22 13 35

df = 1; ChiSqr = 5.22 > Critical Value of 3.84 (p < .05)
*Expected counts are indicated in parentheses (n) and have
been rounded off to the nearest whole number

162

Data obtained during this research also supported the
premise that working nights is stressful, and never or
seldom working nights is less stressful. As indicated in
Table 4.37, of the five possible categories given (never,
seldom, half, usually, and always) for the Low-stress
officers, 42% of the respondents never work nights, and
only 12% of the officers who were considered as low-stress
also always worked nights.

TABLE 4.37
JOB STRESS SCALE vs WORKING NIGHTS

 

WORK NIGHTS
Never Seldoh Half Ueually Alwaye TOTAL
JOB STRESS SCORE:

 

Low: 85/42% 50/25% 26/13% 16/8% 25/12% 202
(601* (38) (44) (26) (35)

High: 37/18% 27/13% 64/30% 37/18% 46/22% 211
(62) (391 (46) (27) (36)

122 77 90 53 71 413

df = 4; ChiSqr = 56.16 > Critical Value of 9.49 (p < .05)

*Expected counts are indicated in parentheses (n) and have

been rounded off to the nearest whole number

Therefore, we have strong evidence that the distribution of

working hours among Low-stress officers is different from

that of High-stress officers.

Chapter 5
CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY

I. CONCLUSIONS:

In the beginning, I thought the answers to the
hypotheses or questions were obvious and only needed to be
proven by this research project. Many were hep shown. Had
they been as obvious as I previously thought, (1) there
would not have been the conflict and controversy as
evidenced in the literature review in Chapter Two, and (2)

if the answers were so obvious, someone else would have

 

"proven" them long before my attempt !

It is not clear what this STRESS business is all
about. It is very much a social-psychological issue.
Complicated relationships are working. Underlying factors
such as race, class, politics, and occupational culture,
while not specifically addressed in this study, are
important but are difficult as best to ferret out.1

What follows is a synopsis of the data analysis,
looking at the results from five views:

A. Those issues which the hypotheses predicted and
were statistically significant.

8. Those issues which supported the hypothesis, but were
not statistically significant.

 

1 Interview with Dr. Peter Manning, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, 27 June 1989.

163

164

C. These issues in which the data ran contrary to
the hypotheses.

D. Effects of variables which are useful as predictors.

E. Intervening variable effects.

A. STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS WHICH WEEE
SUPPORTIVE OF THE HYPOTHESES:

1. DRINKING PROBLEMS:

The drinking level averages of all the officers who
were classified as working in “Low-stress Officer“
assignments went down, while their "High-stress Officer“
counterparts reported their average drinking level going
up. The drinking problem indicator averages of all the
officers who were classified as working in "Low-stress"
assignments were less than their "High-stress"
counterparts’ average drinking habits. The officers who

reported he drinking problem indicators averaged 65.4 on

the Job Stress Scale, significantly lower than the officers

who reported three or more drinking problem indicators and

averaged 71.84 on the Job Stress Scale.

2. HEALTH PROBLEMS:

The average health level for the veteran officers in
“High—stress" (a primary focus of this study) assignments
went down significantly more than did the health level of

their rookie colleagues.

165
3. FAMILY/MARITAL PROBLEMS:

Veteran officers in Low-stress assignments had a
higher Family Score (i.e., less conflict at home) than did
their counterparts in High-stress assignments. All
officers in Low-stress assignments had an average Family
Score of 30.64. The officers in the High—stress

assignments had a significantly lower Family Score average

of 28.68.

B. TRENDS SUPPORTIVE OF THE HYPOTHESES BUT NOT
STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT:

There were, of course, several disappointments when
the data indicated support for the hypotheses but the
differences were not statistically significant. What
became apparent as the data analysis continued was that
some of the catagories being analyzed were so small (e.g.,
the family scores of officers attending school, n = 30)
while the comparison group was so large (e.g., family
scores of officers NOT attending school, n = 257), that the
confidence intervals overlapped, in effect clouding

possible significance. The following are some examples:

1. DRINKING PROBLEMS:
The average drinking level of veterans in High-stress
assignments went up, while the average drinking level of

the officers in Low-stress assignments went down. Veteran

166
officers in High—stress assignments reported more bad
drinking habits (DPI) than did the veteran officers in Low-
stress assignments. Of the officers who reported that
their drinking levels went hp, 61% scored in the High-
stress half of the Job Stress Scale. Of the officers who
reported 3 or more drinking problem indicators, 66% scored
in the High-stress half of the Job Stress Scale. The
correlations between the Job Stress Scale and drinking
level changes (r = +.113) and drinking problem indicators
(r = +.150) were both positive, indicating that as the job

stress score went up so did the drinking.

2. HEALTH PROBLEMS:
The average health level of veteran officers in High—
stress assignments decreased further than did the average

health levels of their Low-stress Officer counterparts.

3. FAMILY/MARITAL PROBLEMS:

The correlation between the Job Stress Scale and the
Family Score (r = -.23) indicated that the higher the job
stress score, the lower the family score, or the more
stressful the assignment the more conflict in the family
life. Of the officers who scored in the lowest quartile of
the Family Score, 37% of them also scored in the highest
quartile of the Job Stress Scale. When comparing the job
stress scores with the family scores of vetepan officers,

it was discovered that: (1) of the officers who scored in

167
the lowest quartile of the family score, 46% of them also
scored in the higheef quartile of the Job Stress Scale;
and, (2) of the officers who scored in the higheef quartile
of the Family Scores, 41% of them also scored in the lowest
quartile of the Job Stress Scale. Of the officers who
admitted to hitting their spouse more than once, 66% of

them came from the High-stress Officer group.

C. DATA CONTEADICTING THE HYPOTHESES:

1. HEALTH PROBLEMS:

Veteran officers in High-stress assignments reported a
greater average reduction in health problem indicators than
did their rookie colleagues and their Low—stress Officer
counterparts. All officers in High-stress assignments
reported a greater average reduction in their health
problem indicators than did their Low-stress Officer
counterparts. Speculation is that there is a selection
factor at work here. There are good possibilities that
subjective selection on the part of the organization picks
the fittest of the species. Also, self-selection may play
an important role. It is not likely that an out-of—shape

or sickly officer will apply for the SWAT-Team (nor that he

or she would be selected).

168
2. FAMILY/MARITAL PROBLEMS:

Many of the job stress score comparisons with family
and marriage indices flew in the face of the hypothesis
that a high stress score would result in lower (read less
happy) family and marriage scores. The following are
examples:

a. Veteran officers in High-stress positions scored
higher than did their rookie colleagues in Family Score,
indicating that the vets family life was more harmonious
than was the rookies’.

b. Veteran officers in High-stress assignments had a
greater marital happiness level increase in their marriages
than did the veteran officers in Low-stress assignments.

c. Veteran officers in High-stress assignments had a
greater marital happiness level increase in their marriages
than did the rookie officers in High-stress assignments.

d. The correlation between the marital happiness
level change and the stress scores was +.20, indicating
that as the stress of the job went up, so did the marriage
happiness level.

e. The officers in High-stress assignments had a
significant increase in their marital happiness level over

their Low-stress Officer counterparts.

D. STRESS AS A POSSIBLE PEEDICTOR:
During the calculations of the previous data analysis

the following variables were found (through t-tests) to be

169
correlated with stress.

1. A high job stress score is useful as a predictor
of an increase in officers’ drinking levels (DLC); is
useful as a predictor of an increase in officers’ had
drinking habits (DPI); and is useful as a predictor of
family problems (FS).

2. A high job stress score also turned out to be at
least slightly useful in predicting a positive increase in

a marital happiness level change.

E. INTERVENING VARIABLE EFFECTS:

Contrary to fitness fanatics’ propaganda, the alleged
soothing effect of sports or recreation did not materialize
in the study. The officers who reported being active in
sports also reported a higher average stress score than
their sedate colleagues, with an average score of 69.58,
compared to the less active officers’ average of 65.27.

The difference in their average scores was significant. A
calculated guess on this finding is that sports activity is
not necessarily a stressful activity in itself, but the
sports environment is conducive to alcohol consumption.
“Tail—gate“ parties, for example, are part and parcel of
the college football scene. Bars and taverns are frequent
sponsors for amateur slow-pitch softball teams for another
example.

Similarly, although not statistically significant, the

officers who reported having second jobs or are attending

170
school also reported more stress (averages of 69.68 and
69.07, respectively) than the officers who did not have

second jobs nor were attending school (average scores of

67.14 and 67.39, respectively).

The following intervening variable effects were
supportive of the hypotheses that suggested attending
school, working a second job, or being active in sports
would mitigate the negative effects of having a High—stress

Officer assignment:

1. ATTENDING SCHOOL:

The effects of attending school seem to be mostly
positive. This study’s data indicates that officers
attending school had a significantly lower health level
change (-0.49) than did the officers not in school(-0.76);
had a greater decrease in drinking level than did the non-
school officers; reported fewer drinking problem indicators
than did the non-school officers; reported fewer health
problem indicators than did the non-school officers;
reported a higher Family Score than did the non-school
officers; and reported a higher marriage happiness level

increase than did the non—school officers.

2. WORKING A SECOND JOB:
Officers working a second job had a significantly

reduced drinking level average over the officers who didn’t

171
work a second job, and increased their marriage happiness

level more than the officers who didn’t work a second job.

3. BEING ACTIVE IN SPORTS:

Officers who were active in sports reported fewer
drinking problem indicators than did the officers who were
not active in sports, reported a lower health level change
(~0.65) than did the officers who were not active in sports
(-0.82), and reported a slightly higher Family Score than

did the officers who were not active in sports.

The following intervening variable effects were
contrary to the hypotheses that suggested attending school,
working a second job, or being active in sports would
mitigate the negative effects of having a High-stress

Officer assignment:

1. WORKING A SECOND JOB:

Officers working a second job had more drinking
indicators than did the officers who didn’t work a second
job, had a slightly lower Family Score than did the
officers who didn’t work a second job, and reported a
higher level of stress on the job than did the officers who

didn’t work a second job.

172
2. BEING ACTIVE IN SPORTS:

Officers who were active in sports did 99f lower their
drinking levels as much as did the officers who were not
active in sport, and reported a significantly higher job
stress score than did the officers who were not active in
sports.

Officers who were hep active in sports reported a
greater reduction in health problem indicators than did the
officers who were active in sports, and reported a larger
positive marriage happiness level change than did the

officers who were active in sports.

3. ATTENDING SCHOOL:

Contrary to the hypothesis, officers in school scored
higher on the Job Stress Scale than did the non-school
officers. We can assume that this score does not reflect
the stresses of school itself, because the questions
specifically measured jeh related stress, and-not stress in
general. However, the schooling may have been tied to the
job by, for example, the need to have college credits in
order to get promoted on the job (my own department has
such a requirement). A result of failure in school could
have a negative effect on the officer’s job opportunities

and therefore increase the job stress.

173
DATA SUMMARY:

The introduction of the Literature Review (Chapter
Two) listed objectives to be assesses with data of this
study, including:

1. If a higher personal problem rate among veteran

officers in stressful assignments exists.

2. To determine if Peace Officers are resistant to

maladies and afflictions.
Just as in the Literature Review, evidence in this study
for the high afflictions legend for Peace Officers was not
clear out. There efe problems associated with working in
stressful assignments for Peace Officers. The drinking
level of officers in such assignments tends to go up, and
they report more drinking problem indicators than their
counterparts in Low-stress assignments. Veteran officers
in High-stress assignments had a significantly lower Family
Score than did their Low-stress counterparts, indicating
that the family life of these officers was being negatively
effected. Also, the health levels of the veteran officers
in High—stress assignments went down significantly more
than did their rookie partners.

Conversely, several previous assumptions about the
deleterious effects of the stressful police-like jobs are
now questioned. Veteran officers in High—stress
assignments had fewer health problems than did both their
rookie colleagues and Low-stress counterparts. The same

trend held true when all the High-stress Officers were

contrasted to all the officers in Low-stress assignments.

174
Veteran officers in High-stress positions apparently have a
more harmonious family life do their rookie colleagues.
Veteran officers in High-stress assignments also had a
greater happiness level increase in their marriages than
did both the veteran officers in Low-stress assignments and
the rookie officers in High-stress assignments.

The supposed beneficial effects of several intervening
variables are now under suspicion. For example, officers
in school, having a second job, or active in sports all
scored higher on the Job Stress Scale than did the officers
who were not active in those three variables investigated.
Officers working a second job had more drinking indicators
and a slightly lower Family Score than did the officers who
didn’t work a second job. Officers who were pee active in
sports lowered their drinking levels more, reported a
greater reduction in health problem indicators, and
reported a larger positive marriage happiness level change

than did the officers who were active in sports.

II. EQEICY RECOMMENDATIONS:

If there is evidence that certain assignments are more
conducive to promoting negative personal problems in
officers, then the obvious answer is to set time limits
that an officer can serve in such an assignment, or

establish some kind of measure of stress symptom patterns

175

to make an assignment change before the symptoms manifest
themselves in the forms of maladies or afflictions. Both
of the suggestions above will probably meet with a great
deal of resistance due to such things as: (1)
Organizational resistance - Personnel changes are costly in
terms of training the new officers, and loss of efficiency
during the break-in period, and (2) Individual resistance —

An officer gets "comfortable" in an assignment that he or
she has been in for a long period of time. Close
friendships and working relationships are made. There is a
real feeling or sense of security in knowing the system and
what one can and cannot do within a unit. These "benefits"
take time to learn or assimilate. To voluntarily leave
such a situation because of something negative that highf
happen may be a naive expectation.

The important issue to be considered here is what are
the costs of the two possibilities above compared with an
Officer’s physical and psychological well being.

As evidenced by the finding regarding the spouse
support question, current practices of in-home pre-
employment interviews should be continued. Those
organizations who do not take into consideration the
feelings of the spouse towards an applicant’s desire to be
a Peace Officer are apparently risking future avoidable

stress caused unhappiness and job dissatisfaction.

176
III. FUTURE RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

While analyzing the data I was frustrated about more
specific data I could have used to better explain some of
the findings. Some examples:

A question on number of children in the family could
have been useful to determine if the Family Score was truly
that -— a family related response or simply a response
regarding two people, namely, the husband and the wife.

A separate question on how many years of marriage
would have proven useful. Just as an eroding effect of a
job may not manifest itself in the early years of an
officer’s career, so too it is guessed that evidence of the
negative effects of being a police family will also take
time.

At least two questions could have been added to the
Job Stress Scale which would have been useful in separating
the Low-stress Officers from the High-stress Officers: (1)
Making ARRESTS is a stressful function and not one that is
commonly associated with officers in Low-stress
assignments, and (2) CHASES, both high speed vehicle and
not-so-high speed foot, are stressful situations that are
not uncommon for High-stress Officers, but rare for Low-
stress Officers.

The Job Stress Scale could have been reduced slightly
in the number of questions asked. For example: Question

83 and #17 (both dealing with daily task predictability)

177
could be combined, as they both address similar issues, and
(2) Question #14 and #16 (both dealing with the
consequences of mistakes) could be combined as addressing
similar situations. A reduced form may have provided more
predictive power of the dependent variables than the scale
in its present form.

The question on whether the officer is currently
attending school could be altered to whether or not the
officer has attended school during his or her tenure as a
Peace Officer.

Finally, this was a social-psychological oriented
dissertation. There was data that suggested things such as
the organization, size, and position do have an effect.

All respondent comments were recorded and a large
percentage were critical of the research because of what
they perceived as an ignorance of organizational issues.
Comments included, "I am very displeased to see that
nowhere are you taking into consideration internal stress —
stress placed on road officers by administration...", and,
"I think that the one item that is overlooked when job
dissatisfaction is considered is administrative attitudes."
Future research efforts on police stress could pursue more
organizational features such as rewards, salaries, and

promotions.

178
IV. SUMMARY

A. hIMITS OF THlS STUD!

Possibly the most serious limitation of this study was
the unavoidable absence of any data on the most important
sub-group of Peace Officers effected by the stress of the
profession - those who became its victims, could not handle
it, and dropped out. The hypotheses suggest serious
personal consequences for Peace Officers exposed over an
extended period of time to the deleterious effects of the
unusual combination of stresses of police work. The "drop-
cuts" could provide the best evidence that problems exist,
and could supply invaluable data and insights into possible
causes of their submission. "Officer J.B." (referred to on
page 27 in Chapter 1) is such a victim. He is currently
and permanently on a duty disability retirement for a
drinking problem.

If it were not for another limitation of this study,
the problem in the preceding paragraph could have been
eliminated. A researcher with the necessary access to
official police personnel records, availability of research
facilities and equipment, and generous amounts of time and
money, could interview not only Officer J.B., but others
like him in sufficient numbers to produce meaningful data.
This author found his resources strained to the breaking
point in attempting to be a husband, father, homemaker,

Peace Officer (swinging shifts t), AND researcher all at

179
the same time.

The measuring device itself could certainly be
considered a limitation of this study. Whereas this
study’s questionnaire did lend itself to relatively easy
quantification of data, allow access to a large number of
potential participants, and allow the participants to
answer anonymously sensitive and possibly embarrassing
questions they might not otherwise have answered, it also
contains the inherent questionnaire limitations of
respondent confusion and unanswered questions regarding its
word interpretation, the inability to understand and
properly interpret the meaning of incomplete and unreturned
questionnaires, the inability to answer respondent
questions and follow up on the responses, and the curse of
amateurs of the tendency to collect too much information.

There are those who would question the heterogeneous
nature of the sample and the sample size as limiting
factors. An objection could be raised to using statistical
tests on a heterogeneous sample of police and police
organizations then trying to generalize to the population.
First, the earlier use of the term heterogeneous was to
imply a sampling of several types of Peace Officers - State
Police, Sheriffs, and municipal - in contrast to most
research studies which seem to concentrate on one group
(e.g., big city), and then generalize to all police types.
Secondly, the focus of this research effort was on the

effieep, not the police organization to which he or she is

180
a member. The participating organizations are admittedly
different, but organizational generalizations are not a
consideration here.

Sample size was at times a limiting factor in data
analysis, especially when the number of respondents in a
certain variable (e.g., officers attending school) was
limited. If future attempts at data gathering on the
issues addressed in this study are to be made, I would
increase the sample size to gain smaller confidence
intervals. Thus, if there is truly a difference the "F—
tests" will show a statistical significance. Many of the
articles reviewed prior to this study reported research
findings which described a certain city’s police force
characteristics (e.g., Los Angeles). Results concluded
from such small geographical areas are difficult to
generalize and are sometimes misleading in their
interpretations (e.g., L.A. police are lower in average of
suicides and divorces than the general population). Other
studies combined homogeneous groups of officers, such as
large urban police departments (e.g., Chicago, Baltimore,
Santa Ana, by Durner et al). My study broadened the
geographical base (to state—wide) and attempted to get a
heterogeneous sampling of different Peace Officer types -
large, medium and small agencies, and state, county, and
local agencies. However, I am not satisfied with a state-
wide sampling and would in the future, resources

permitting, attempt a similar study using a nation-wide

181
sampling.

Finally, answers to some of the data "surprises" such
as why do high-stress officers seem to have happier
marriages than the low-stress officers are unavailable at
this time. Personal interviews would best serve the
purpose of gleaning the answers out. Common sense does not
seem accurate with such findings. A possible explanation
of this phenomenon is that those officers who have the
solid, stable, and happy family and marriage environments

can afford, or risk, the high stress type of assignment.

B. QQESEQUENQES
The data in this study, just as the pre-existing

studies and literature dealing with the Peace Officers’
personal problems, does not present a definitive answer to
the question of whether or not the officers have
extraordinary problems. The measures one item at a time,
in and of themselves, do not show a remarkable picture.
But, people have said for years, “There’s something going
on here." It is just extremely difficult to pin it down.
Some of the data presented in this study, such as evidence
of a higher drinking problem average among veteran officers
in stressful assignments, was right on target with regard
to a potentially dangerous and deleterious situation that
can adversely effect an officer’s well-being. Other data
in this study indicated that parts of the hypotheses which

where the result of locally derived guesses and personal

182
experiences do not apply to the state’s law enforcement
population in general. An example of the latter is the
greater average reduction in health problem indicators of
the veteran officers in stressful assignments as compared
to their rookie colleagues and their Low-stress Officer
counterparts.

The important point to be made here is, ”What are the
consequences for being wrong for both positions 7“ If
those who are raising the alarm (let us call them the
"Chicken Littles") by saying Peace Officers efe
experiencing an unacceptable amount (greater than the
national average if you will) of maladies and afflictions
are WRONG, then what are the consequences ? The
consequence of the Chicken Littles being wrong is GOOD news
for the Peace Officer ! They are okay and need not worry
about the false alarm issues. The "cost“ for this group
being wrong is only time, effort, money, and the reader’s
patience with studies such as this one.

On the other hand, if the "Non-believers" are wrong,
the consequences can be FATAL ! This statement is not
intended to be melodramatic, rather it is intended to make
a point about the harmful consequences of a laissez faire
attitude about the personal problems of the Peace Officers
examined in this study. If the Non-believers prevail, and
are WRONG, the well-being of many public servants, as well
as the public the serve, may be placed in jeopardy. Those

same people who are called on at three o’clock in the

183
morning (because nobody else is available at that hour) to

act as doctor, lawyer, minister, or social worker may not

be there to help.
To raise the alarm and be wrong will not have fatal

consequences; to scoff at the alarm, and be wrong, may 1

184
EPILOGUE

It should be stated here that becoming a Peace Officer
is not the fatal decision that parts of this dissertation
imply. The myriad of problems discussed on the previous
pages can be corrected and/or reduced in severity. An
active and concerned administration is of vital necessity
to accomplish a reduction though. However, "According to
the Washington-based Police Foundation, no more than five
percent of the more than 17,000 police departments in the
United States have begun programs that use staff
psychologists, trained officers, or outside consultants to
teach their officers to thwart the debilitating effects of
stress"2.

Through it all the person choosing a career, or even a
lesser amount of time, as a Peace Officer will derive
intangibles. The department I have worked for over 19
years is presently by no stretch of the imagination a
desireable choice (NOTE: It was when I joined). Unlike
prestigious, popular and desireable law enforcement
organizations (e.g., the Michigan State Police or the
Traverse City Police Department), few officers are leaving
other agencies to work for my employer. On the other hand,
many of my department’s officers, especially the younger
ones, leave for the more desireable agencies. When they go

I bid them farewell by giving them all the same message.

 

2 Daviss, p. 10.

185
They have gone through the toughest school they could
possibly find in the United States — the street - and they
have survived. Now they can handle ANY job or situation
unafraid and with confidence. Little will scare them or
intimidate them in the future for they have seen and
handled life at its worse and its best. One of the
previously referenced authors put it more eloquently when
he wrote:

The officer who successfully survives the
multiplex influences from within himself, from
the organization, and from his working
environment benefits from the process. Having
been tested and tempered in some of the most
difficult crisis situations possible, he has
coped, gained maturity, poise, judgement, and
increased self—confidence. Authority has
replaced authoritarianism. At this point the
John Wayne syndrome is no longer predominant
because he is now functioning as a professional.3

Amen.

 

3 Reiser, p. 159.

APPEND IX

186
APPENDIX 1

_lST 0F STRESSORS
SOURCES OF POLICE STRESS: (the INDEPENDENT/CAUSE VARIABLES)

1. References that mentioned abuse (physical and/or
verbal): Kirkham (1974).

 

2. References that mentioned arrests: DeSanto & Fennelly
(1979).

3. References that mentioned bad assignments: Kroes et al
(1974).

4. References that mentioned unfavorable minority and/or
majority attitudes/negative public imege/community
relations: Berg (1984), Besner & Robinson (1984), Eisenberg
(1975), Kroes & Gould (1979), Kroes et al (1974), Meadows
(1981), Stratton (April 1978), Tipps (1984).

5. References that mentioned organizational and public
expectations of police heheyiep beyond reproach both on and
off duty: Burgin (1978), Reiser (1974).

6. References that mentioned boredom: Kroes et al (1974),
Lawrence (1984), Meadows (1981), Panyard (1986), Stratton
(April 1978), Wowk (May 1981).

7. References that mentioned high speed chases: Desanto &
Fennelly (1979).

8. References that mentioned hostile police/community
relations/apathy: Axelberd & Valle ( ), Fell (1980),
Hillgren & Bond (1975), Lawrence (1984), Meadows (1981),
Moore & Donohue (1978), Panyard (1986), Tifft (1974), Wenz
(1979).

9. References that mentioned professional vs military
conflict: Constant (1984), Souryal (1981).

10. References that mentioned coneequencee of
actions/possibly fatal: Banks (1984), Eisenberg (1975),
Haynes (1978), Hillgren & Bond (1975).

11. References that mentioned ineffectiveness of
correcfions system: Eisenberg (1975), Kirkham (1974).

187

12. References that mentioned lenient courts/unfavorable
court decisions/misunderstood judicial procedure: Axelberd
& Valle ( ), Besner & Robinson (1984), Eisenberg (1975),
Fell (1980), Haynes (1978), Hillgren & Bond (1975), Kirkham
(1974), Kroes & Gould (1979), Kroes et al (1974), Lawrence
(1984), Meadows (1981), Moore & Donohue (1978), Panyard
(1986), Stratton (April 1978), Tifft (1974), Violanti
(1982), Wenz (1979).

13. References that mentioned competition and/or
inequities for advancement or promotion: Besner (1984),
Reiser (1974), Schaefer (1983).

14. References that mentioned corruption: DeSanto and
Fennelly (1979).

15. References that mentioned decision making ("split-
second"): Kirkham (1974).

16. References that mentioned absence or lack of career
development opportunities: Eisenberg (1975), Schaefer
(1983), Souryal (1981), Stratton (April 1978).

17. References that mentioned double-dip discipline:
Reiser (1974), Violanti (1982).

18. References that mentioned discretion: Hillgren & Bond
(1975), Muscari (1984).

19. References that mentioned responding to domestic
disputes/crisis intervention: Banks (1984), Besner &
Robinson (1984), Burgin (1978), DeSanto & Fennelly (1979),
Kirkham (1974), Mueller (1983).

20. References that mentioned disruption of, hasty, and
unbalanced gaping habits/"junk food": Brinegar (1981),
Hageman et al (1979), Hillgren & Bond (1975), Kroes et al
(1974), Panyard (1983).

21. References that mentioned poor eguipment/inadequate
resources: Besner (1984), Eisenberg (1975), Fell (1980),
Hillgren & Bond (1975), Kroes & Gould (1979), Kroes et a1
(1974), Lawrence (1984), Meadows (1981), Moore & Donohue
(1978), Panyard (1986), Souryal (1981), Stratton (April
1978).

22. References that mentioned FEAR and/or DANGER: Chandler
(1979), Eisenberg (1975), Hageman (1978), Kirkham (1974),
Pendergrass (1984), Souryal (1981), Stratton (April 1978),
Tifft (1974).

23. References that mentioned handling drunks: Burgin
(1978).

188

24. References that mentioned handling guns/the potential
for taking lives: Nix (1986), Wowk (May 1981).

25. References that mentioned handling stressed persons:
Burgin (1978), Kirkham (1974).

26. References that mentioned being at homicide scenes:
Burgin (1978).

27. References that mentioned on the job
injuries/reactions of other to same: Kroes & Gould (1975),
Lawrence (1984).

28. References that mentioned social isolation: Chandler
(1979), Constant (1984), Hageman (1978), Kroes et a1
(1974), Meadows (1981).

29. References that mentioned juziediepienal isolationism:
Eisenberg (1975).

30. References that mentioned lack of department guidance
in critical areas: Moore & Donohue (1978), Souryal (1981).

31. References that mentioned distorted pedie accounts of
police incidents: Berg (1984), Eisenberg (1975), Meadows
' (1981), Stratton (April 1978).

32. References that mentioned hop-police wopk: Kroes et a1
(1974).

33. References that mentioned police administration
bureaucracy/ internal epganieation/intraorganizational
practices and characteristics: Axelberd & Valle ( ), Berg
et a1 (1984), Besner (1984), Desanto & Fennelly (1979),
Eisenberg (1975), Ellison & Genz (1978), Fell (1980),
Hillgren & Bond (1975), Kroes & Gould (1979), Kroes et al
(1974), Lawrence (1984), Meadows (1981), Nix (1986),
Panyard (1986), Pendergrass (1984), Souryal (1981),
Stratton (April 1978), Tifft (1974), Violanti (1982).

34. References that mentioned other policemen (the bad
ones)/peer—colleague pressure (the blue brotherhood): Kroes
et a1 (1974), Reiser (1974).

35. References that mentioned uncertain evertime: Haynes
(1978), Stratton (April 1978).

36. References that mentioned excessive peperwork: Besner
(1984), Eisenberg (1975), Stratton (April 1978).

37. References that mentioned pey: Besner (1984), Kroes et
al (1974), Moore & Donohue (1978), Panyard (1986), Silbert
(1982), Souryal (1981), Stratton (April 1978), Veninga &
Spradley (1981).

189

38. References that mentioned discovering abused
children/people paip: Burgin (1978), Eisenberg (1975),
Ellison & Genz (1978), Pendergrass (1984), Stratton (April
1978).

39. References that mentioned responsibility for people:
Kroes & Gould (1979), Pendergrass (1979), Panyard (1986),
Stratton (April 1978).

40. References that mentioned inappropriate pepeeppei
policies: Burgin (1978).

41. References that mentioned inadequate reward/punishment
reinforcement system: Eisenberg (1975), Moore & Donohue
(1978), Stratton (April 1978).

42. References that mentioned role conflict/ambiguity/
conflicting demands: Axelberd & Valle ( ), Besner (1984),
Eisenberg (1975), Felkenes (1984), Hageman (1978), Hillgren
& Bond (1975), Lawrence (1984), Panyard (1986), Reese
(1982), Stratton (April 1978).

43. References that mentioned a second job: Panyard
(1986).

44. References that mentioned the need for self-
control/"the John Wayne syndrome“/superman image/image
armor: Chandler (1979), Chamberlain (1978), Haynes (1978),
Reese (1982), Stratton (April 1978), Wowk (May 1981).

45. References that mentioned crisis,racial, extraordinary
eituatione /violence/taking a life in the line of
duty/post-shooting trauma: Besner & Robinson (1984),
Chandler (1979), Constant (1984), Haynes (1978), Hillgren &
Bond (1975), Kroes & Gould (1979), Kroes et a1 (1974),
Meadows (1981), Panyard (1986),Pendergrass (1984), Wenz
(1979).

46. References that mentioned relations with
supervisors/poor supervisory practices: Burgin (1978),
Eisenberg (1975), Kroes et al (1974), Lawrence (1984),
Moore & Donohue (1978), Stratton (April 1978), Veninga &
Spradley (1981).

47. References that mentioned traffic stops: Constant
(1984).

48. References that mentioned inadequate tpaining: Burgin
(1978), Stratton (April 1978).

49. References that mentioned having to be ever vigilant:
Hageman (1978).

190

50. References that mentioned adverse work
scheduligg/shift of the diurnal pattern /SHIFT WORK
/disruption of eieep habits: Axelberd & Valle ( ), Besner
(1984), Bratz (1986), Eisenberg (1975), Fell (1980),
Hageman (1978), Haynes (1978), Hillgren & Bond (1975),
Kroes & Gould (1979), Kroes et a1 (1974), Lawrence (1984),
Meadows (1981), Moore & Donohue (1978), Nordlicht (1979),
Panyard (1983 & 1986), Pendergrass (1984), Stratton (April
1978), Tipps (1984), Wowk (May 1981).

51. References that mentioned "the unknown"/"the startle"
(e.g., man with a gun, disorderly male, see a woman):

Desanto & Fennelly (1979), Eisenberg (1975), Stratton
(April 1978).

191
APPENDIX 2

AFFLICTIONS AND MALADIES

(NOTE: Sources that are CAPITALIZED and in bold print are
research/study references in the respective topics.)

1. Sources that refer to drinking.problepe / alcoholism:
Axelberd & Valle (1980), Besner & Robinson (1984), Beutler
& O’Leary (1980), Bratz (1986), Buren (1981), Burgin
(1978), Constant (1984), Danto (1978), Daviss (1982),
DeSanto & Fennelly (1979), Dunne (1973), Durner et al
(1975), Ellison & Genz (1978), Harvard (1984), Haynes
(1978), Healey (1981), Hill (1981), HITZ (1973), Lester
(Apr, Nov 1979), Malloy & Mays (1984), Martin (1980),
Meadows (1981), Meredith (1984), Mueller (1983), NBC News
(1987), Nordlicht (1979), Panyard (1981, 1982, 1983 &
1986), Ready (1979), Reese (1982), Schreiber & Seitzinger
(1985), Schwartz & Schwartz (1975), SEWELL (1981),
Somodevilla (1978), Souryal (1981), Stratton (1975, Apr
1978), Stratton & Wroe (1979, Sept & Oct 1980), Terry
(1981), Tipps (1984), Unkovic & Brown (1978), Van RAALTE
(1979), Wagner & Brzeczek (1983), Wenz (1979), Wowk (May
1981).

2. Sources that refer to erthripis: Haynes (1978).

3. Sources that refer to authoritarian attitudee /
personality: Fenster & Locke (1973), HAGEMAN (1979),
Hanewicz (1978), Lefkowitz (1975), Niederhoffer (1967),
Reiser (1974), Vastola (1978).

4. Sources that refer to back problems: Axelberd & Valle
(1980), Bonney (1978), Hill (1981), Meadows (1981),
Schreiber & Seitzinger (1985), Schwartz & Schwartz (1975),
SILBERT (1982), Stratton (Apr 1978), Veninga & Spradley
(1981).

5. Sources that refer to burnoep / emotional exhaustion:
Bratz (1986), Burgin (1978), Chamberlain (1978), Daviss
(1982), Ellison & Genz (1978), Kroes & Gould (1979), Lester
(Nov 1979), MASLACH & JACKSON (1979), Moore & Donohue
(1978), Reese (1982), Schwartz & Schwartz (1975), Shaw
(1983), SILBERT (1983), Stratton (Apr 1978), Tipps (1984),
Veninga & Spradley (1981).

6. Sources that refer to circulatory [ heert probleme /
cardiovascular disease / heart disease / heart attack /
coronary problems: Ashworth (1980), Axelberd & Valle
(1980), B. Bennett (1978), Besner & Robinson (1984), Bonney

192

(1978), Brinegar (1981), Burgin (1978), Dash & Reiser
(1978), Daviss (1982), Dorangrichia (1981), Eisenberg
(1975), FELL et al (1980), Gettman (1980), Haynes (1978),
Healey (1981), Hill (1981), Hillgren & Bond (1975), Kroes
et al (1974), Lester (1979), Malloy & Mays (1984), Martin
(1980), Panyard (1983). PENDERGRASS & OSTROVE (1984),
Schaefer (1983), Schreiber & Seitzinger (1985), Schwartz &
Schwartz (1975), Selye (1978), Sewell (1981), Shuman
(1982), Singleton & Teahan (1978), Somodevilla (1978),
Stratton (Apr 1978), Terry (1981), Veninga & Spradley
(1981), Webb & Smith (1980) Wenz (1979).

7. Sources that refer to corpuptiop: DeSanto & Fennelly
(1979), Muscari (1984), O’Brien (1978), Poole et a1 (1978).

8. Sources that refer to cypicism: BERG (1984) Chamberlain
(1978), Chandler & Jones (1979), Davis (1988), DeSanto &
Fennelly (1979), HAGEMAN (1979), Hanewicz (1978), Hill
(1981), Hillgren & Bond (1975), Lefkowitz (1975), Lester
(Nov 1979), LESTER (1984), Meadows (1981), Morgan (1980),
Morris (1981), NIEDERHOFFER (1967), O’Brien (1978),
PENDERGRASS & OSTROVE (1984), POOLE et a1 (1978), Reese
(1982), Reiser (1974), REGOLI & POOLE (1979), Schwartz &
Schwartz (1975), Shaw (1983), Stratton (Apr 1978), TIFFT
(1974), Tipps (1984), Vastola (1978), WILT & BANNON (1976).

 

9. Sources that refer to death epxietz: WENZ (1979).

10. Sources that refer to depressiop: Harvard (1984),
Moore & Donohue (1978), Schreiber & Seitzinger (1985),
Sewell (1981), Shuman (1982), Souryal (1981), Stratton
(1975, Sept 1978), Veninga & Spradley (1981), Webb & Smith
(1980).

11. Sources that refer to derpatologicel problems:
Eisenberg (1975), Kroes et a1 (1974), Schreiber &
Seitzinger (1985).

12. Sources that refer to diabetes: Burgin (1978), Malloy
& Mays (1984), Panyard (1983), Terry (1981).

13. Sources that refer to digestive disordere / ulcere /
colitis / gastro-intestinal malfunction: Ashworth (1980),
Axelberd & Valle (1980), Besner (1984), Brinegar (1981),
Dash & Reiser (1978), Daviss (1982), Dorangrichia (1981),
Eisenberg (1975), Ellison & Genz (1978), FELL et a1 (1980),
Haynes (1978), Hill (1981), Hillgren & Bond (1975), KROES
et a1 (1974), Martin (1980), Meadows (1981), PENDERGRASS &
OSTROVE (1984), Reese (1982), Schaefer (1983), Schreiber &
Seitzinger (1985), Selye (1978), Sewell (1981), Shuman
(1982), SILBERT (1982), Stratton (Apr 1978), Terry (1981),
Webb & Smith (1980), Wenz (1979).

193

14. Sources that refer to divorce / marital and/or family
ppepieme / strain: Ashworth (1980), Axelberd & Valle
(1980), B. Bennett (1978,1979), Beutler & O’Leary (1980),
Bratz (1986), Buren (1981), Burgin (1978), Chandler & Jones
(1979), Constant (1984), Danto (1978), Daviss (1982), DePue
(1981), DeSanto & Fennelly (1979), DURNER et a1 (1975),
Eisenberg (1975), Ellison & Genz (1978), Eyler (1982), Fell
et a1 (1980), HAGEMAN (1978), Hall (1982), Harvard (1984),
Healey (1981), Hill (1981, 1983), Hillgren & Bond (1975),
Korczynski (1979), Kroes et a1 (1974), Lester (Apr, Nov
1979), Malloy & Mays (1984), Martin (1980), MASLACH &
JACKSON (1979), Meadows (1981), Moore & Donohue (1978),
Morris (1981), Mueller (1983), NBC News (February 3, 1987),
Nix (1986), Nordlicht (1979), Panyard (1982, 1983 & 1986),
Ready (1979), Reese (1982), Reiser (1978), Rogers (1984),
Schwartz & Schwartz (1975), SEWELL (1981), SINGLETON &
TEAHAN (1978), Somodevilla (1978), Souryal (1981), Stratton
(1975, Apr 1978), Terry (1981), Tipps (1984), Unkovic &
Brown (1978), Wenz (1979), Wowk (May 1981).

15. Sources that refer to druglsubstance abeee: Bratz
(1986), Buren (1981), Ellison & Genz (1978), Hill (1981),

Malloy & Mays (1984), Meadows (1981), Wagner & Brzeczek
(1983).

16. Sources that refer to emotionel problege, detachment,
withdrawal, instability or repression/blocking or blunting
of feelings: BERG (1984), Burgin (1978), Daviss (1982),
Hageman (1978), Haynes (1978), Hill (1981), Hillgren & Bond
(1975), KROES et a1 (1974), Meredith (1984), Reiser (1974),
Schreiber & Seitzinger (1985), Stratton (Apr 1978), Terry
(1981), Tipps (1984), Webb & Smith (1980).

17. Sources that refer to use of exeessive fepee: Burgin
(1978), Moore & Donohue (1978), Sewell (1981). '

18. Sources that refer to guilt feelings over not feeling
guilty: Hill (1984).

19. Sources that refer to gambling: Reese (1982),
Schreiber & Seitzinger (1985), Souryal (1981).

20. Sources that refer to headaches: Ashworth (1980),
Axelberd & Valle (1980), Fell et al (1980), Haynes (1978),
Hill (1981), Meadows (1981), PENDERGRASS & OSTROVE (1984),
Reese (1982), Schreiber & Seitzinger (1985), Shuman (1982),
SILBERT (1982), Stratton (Apr 1978), Terry (1981), Veninga
& Spradley (1981), Webb & Smith (1980).

21. Sources that refer to hemorrhoids/bowel problems:

Brinegar (1981), Haynes (1978), Schreiber & Seitzinger
(1985).

194

22. Sources that refer to high blood preeeure: Bonney
(1978), Brinegar (1981), Gettman (1979), Haynes (1978),
Healey (1981), PENDERGRASS & OSTROVE (1984), Schreiber &
Seitzinger (1985), Selye (1978), Sewell (1981), Shuman
(1982), Stratton (Apr 1978), Webb & Smith (1980).

23. Sources that refer to hypertensiop: Axelberd & Valle
(1980), B. Bennett (1978), Dash & Reiser (1978), Haynes
(1978), Healey (1981), Hillgren & Bond (1975), Panyard
(1983), Schaefer (1983), Schwartz & Schwartz (1975), Wenz
(1979).

24. Sources that refer to impotence problems: Schreiber &
Seitzinger (1985), Shuman (1982), Souryal (1981).

25. Sources that refer to isolation from/of family,
isolation from friends, community, loss of friends,
alienation from non-cop world: Besner (1984), Chandler 7
Jones (1979), CLARK (1965), Constant (1984), EYLER (1982),
HAQEMAN (1978), HAGEMAN (1979). Korczynski (1979), KROES at
al (1974), Lefkowitz (1975), Meredith (1984), Moore &
Donohue (1978), Morris (1981), Nordlicht (1979), Owens
(1978), PENDERGRASS & OSTROVE (1984), Reiser (1974). Shuman
(1982), Stratton (Apr, Sept 1978), Terry (1981), TIFFT
(1974).

26- Sources that refer to Juxenile.gffsprinz_229h1ems=
Schwartz (1975), Somodevilla (1978), Terry (1981), Tipps
(1984).

27. Sources that refer to peggeee conditions: Eisenberg
(1975), Kroes et al (1974), Shuman (1982), SILBERT (1982),
Stratton (1975, Sept 1978), Veninga & Spradley (1981).

28. Sources that refer to mental dieorderelillneee,
neurosis: Eisenberg (1975), Fell et a1 (1980), FENSTER &
LOCKE (1973), Kroes et al (1974), Malloy & Mays (1984),
Reese (1982), Schreiber & Seitzinger (1985), Selye (1978),
Somodevilla (1978), Stratton (1975, Sept 1978).

29. Sources that refer to obeeityloverweighp: Bonney
(1978), Brinegar (1981), Gettman (1979), Gilbert (1984),
Healey (1981), Panyard (1983), Reese (1982), Shuman (1982),
Stratton (Apr 1978).

30. Sources that refer to functional paranoia, chronic
suspiciousness: Haynes (1978), Kirkham (1974), Morris
(1981), Poole et a1 (1978), Schreiber & Seitzinger (1985),
Sewell (1981), SINGLETON & TEAHAN (1978), Stratton (1975,
Sept 1978), TIFFT (1974), Vastola (1978).

31. Sources that refer to premature natural death: FELL et
al (1980), Haynes (1978), Malloy & Mays (1984), Meredith
(1984), Nix (1986), Stratton (Apr 1978).

195

32. Sources that refer to respiratory problems: CAPLAN
(1980), Terry (1981).

 

33. Sources that refer to retardation of egcial
development: Meredith (1984).

34. Sources that refer to retirement problems: Schwartz &
Schwartz (1975).

35. Sources that refer to eieeping preblems, insomnia,
anxiety in sleep patterns, disruption in
physiologic/circanium rhythm: Dorangrichia (1981),
Eisenberg (1975), Ellison & Genz (1978), Fell et a1 (1980),
Haynes (1978), Hillgren & Bond (1975), Korczynski (1979),
KROES (1976), KROES et al (1974), Meadows (1981), Nix
(1986),“Nordlicht (1979), PENDERGRASS & OSTROVE (1984),
Reese (1982), Schreiber & Seitzinger (1985), Shuman (1982),
SILBERT (1982), Stratton (Apr 1978), Veninga & Spradley
(1981), Webb & Smith (1980).

36. Sources that refer to STRESS: Ashworth (1980),
Axelberd & Valle (1980), Beutler & O’Leary (1980), Bonney
(1978), Bratz (1986), Brinegar (1981), Buren (1981), Burgin
(1978), Constant (1984), Craig (1981), Dash & Reiser
(1978), Davis (1988), Daviss (1982), DePue (1981), DeSanto
& Fennelly (1979), Dorangrichia (1981), Ellison & Genz
(1978), Eisenberg (1975), FELL et a1 (1980), FRENCH (1975),
Gettman (19769), Gilbert (1984), Hanewicz (1978), HAGEMAN
(1978), Hageman et a1 (1979), Hall (1982), Hanewicz (1978),
Harvard (1984), Haynes (1978), Healey (1981), Hill (1981,
1983), Hillgren & Bond (1975), Kirkham (1974), Korczynski
(1979), Kroes & Gould (1979), KROES (1976), KROES et a1
(1974), LAWRENCE (1984), LESTER & MINK (1979), Lester
(1978, Apr, Nov 1979), Ludos & Mijares (1981), Malloy &
Mays (1984), Martin (1980), MASLACH & JACKSON (1979),
Meadows (1981), Meredith (1984), Moore & Donohue (1978),
Morris (1981), Nix (1986), Nordlicht (1979), Panyard (1983
& 1986), PENDERGRASS & OSTROVE (1984), Ready (1979), Reese
(1982), Reiser (1974, 1978), Schaefer (1983), Schreiber &
Seitzinger (1985), Schwartz & Schwartz (1975), Selye
(1978), SEWELL (1981), Shaw (1983), Shuman (1982), SILBERT
(1982), SINGLETON & TEAHAN (1978), Somodevilla (1978),
Souryal (1981), Stratton (1975, Apr & Sept 1978), Symonds
(1970), Terry (1981), Tipps (1984), Van Raalte (1979),
Veninga & Spradley (1981), Violanti (1982), Webb & Smith
(1980) Wenz (1979), Wowk (May 1981).

37. Sources that refer to strokes: B. Bennett (1978),
Schreiber & Seitzinger (1985).

38. Sources that refer to suicide, tendencies toward self-
destruction: Axelberd & Valle (1980), B. Bennett (1979),
Besner (1984), Beutler & O’Leary (1980), Bratz (1986),
Burgin (1978). Constant (1984), DANTO (1978), DASH & REISER

196

(1978), Durner et a1 (1975), Ellison & Genz (1978), FELL et
a1 (1980), Harvard (1984), Haynes (1978), Healey (1981),
Hill (1981), Hillgren & Bond (1975), Lester (1978, Nov
1979), Malloy & Mays (1984), Martin (1980), Meadows (1981),
Meredith (1984), Moore & Donohue (1978), Mueller (1983),
NBC News (February 3, 1987), Niederhoffer (1967), Nix
(1986), Panyard (1983 & 1986), Ready (1979), Reese (1982),
Schreiber & Seitzinger (1985), Schwartz & Schwartz (1975),
Sewell (1981), Singleton & Teahan (1978), Souryal (1981),
Stratton (Apr 1978), Terry (1981), Tipps (1984), Unkovic &
Brown (1978), Wagner & Brzeczek (1983), Wenz (1979), Wowk
(May 1981 & 1982).

39. Sources that refer to susceptibility to "mid—life
crises": Cowley (1984).

40. Sources that refer to gieion problepe: Hill (1981).
41. Sources that refer to frequency of visits to medieai

facilitiee at work or admittance to hospitals: CAPLAN
(1980), FELL et al (1980).

 

42. Sources that refer to geek alienation: BERG (1984),
Chandler & Jones (1979), Lester (Nov 1979), POOLE et a1
(1978).

197
APPENDIX 3

LETTER TO AGENCY HEAD
Dear Chief Smith:

We are all concerned about the problems confronting
our law enforcement officers today, and we realize that
work in law enforcement agencies continues to demand the
best in all of us. Unfortunately, few studies have shown
how the day-to-day activities are met by officers, and what
some of the consequences are for our personal lives.
Identifying and lowering some of the stresses is one of the
most important issues we face today. I know about many of
these problems from sixteen years of personal experience on
a major urban police force, and my studies as a Doctoral
candidate at Michigan State University.

Attached you will find a sample of a cover letter and
questionnaire that I would like to present to the members
of your department. Respondents, of course, will remain
totally anonymous, their individual replies strictly
confidential, and no law enforcement agency or other unit
will ever be identified in any report. It is my hope that
you will allow me to make the questionnaire available to
your members, and lend the prestige of your office to
supporting the worthwhile purpose of this research. A
short response form and stamped return envelope is enclosed
for you to reply on.

If you kindly agree to help in this study, your agency
will receive a packet consisting of a cover letter,
questionnaire, and a return addressed stamped envelope for
each member. Your agency’s only obligation would be to
make the packets readily available to the members. In
return for your assistance, the results of this research
and any conclusions derived therefrom will be made
available to you immediately upon request.

I look forward to hearing from you in the near future,
and I hope you and your agency will agree to participate in
the study. If you have any questions about this research
project, please do not hesitate to contact me at, Law
Enforcement Officer Study, 534 Baker Hall, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824. Thanking you in
advance for any help you may extend, I remain...

Sincerely yours,

Howard Troost

Director

Law Enforcement Officer Study
2 attachments
2 enclosures

198
APPENDIX 4

RESPONSE TOTALS

 

 

nganieation Type # sent 3 returned _§_
Police Departments 365 145 40%
Sheriff Departments 688 247 36%
State Police 65 23 35%

TOTALS: 1118 415 37.1%

199
APPENDIX 5

NUMBER OF RESPONDEETS BY JOB TITLE

Heads of Organizations:
1 Chief

Command Positions:
2 Undersheriff
1 Commander

1 Director (SD)

Middle Management:

Detective Lieutenant

Sergeant (Administrative/Staff)
Detective Corporal (PD)
Investigator - Police Officer (SD)

1 Captain

5 Lieutenant

3 Lieutenant (MSP)

1 Shift Commander (FSC)
8 Lieutenant (SD)
Investigative Ranks:

7 Detective

4 Detective Sergeant
3 Investigator

3

2

4

2

First Line Supervision:

29 Sergeant

5 Sergeant-Road (Sheriff)
8 Sergeant (MSP)

5 Sergeant-Jail (Sheriff)

"Street" Ranks:

64 Police Officer
22 Patrolman

113 Deputy Sheriff
11 Trooper (MSP)

1 Trooper II (MSP)

4 Public Safety Officer (FSC)
60 Police Officer/Patrolman (SD)
4 Police Officer II

1 Deputy Sheriff II

2 Jailer

1 Secretary (civilian)

2 Clerk (SD)

1

Drivers License Examiner (SD)

"Pre-street":
1 Corrections Officer (non—certified)
1 Police Officer I (Non—sworn)

-3.
128

N
m

H H
Ommcn

HHNGQNHGHNCOHQUW

NHNHODQOONOOQ \‘IWHWNNHNHNODHU‘Q

200
APPENDIX #6

HQMEER OF REE ONDENTS BY ASSIGN NT

_.é_iE_SS' nmeat

Patrol (road—uniform)

Jail Division SD (Jailer / Turn-key / Security)
Traffic Enforcement Unit (mobile)
Narcotics (undercover)

Patrol (beat/foot)

Shift Supervisor (Uniform sergeant - road)
Complaints & Traffic (MSP)

Supervision / Shift Commander (FSC)

Vice Officer

Resident Deputy (SD)

Disciplinary Unit / Administrative
Ambulance Service/EMT and Road

Animal Control

Shift Supervisor - Jail (SD)

Community Services - PR - (MSP)

Desk Sergeant (MSP)

Post Commander - Lieutenant (MSP)
Investigator / Detective

Shift Commander (lieutenant)

Operations Lieutenant (PD)

Detectives / Supervisor Detectives / Detective Lt.
(supervisor, O.I.C.)

Corrections / Corrections Officer
Dispatcher

Deputy - car maintenance

Prisoner Transportation (SD)

Deputy — road

Detective (Sheriff)

Juvenile Unit / Officer (SD)

Drivers License Examiner (SD)

Jail Administrator (Sgt - SD)

Sergeant (SD and MSP)

Mounted / Aviation / Marine Unit
Undercover / Plainclothes

Surveillance

Scientific / Laboratory Unit / Crime Scene
Investigator / Evidence Tech / Polygraph Exam
Youth Bureau Unit / Detention Home

Canine (road)

Identification Bureau / ID Officer
Communications

Warrant Officer / Bailiff / Court Officer
Crime Prevention

Booking / Registration Desk

School Officer

Special Services / Special Events

Medical Section Clerk / Clerk / Desk Operations

w
NHCflNbHI—‘CDCON NHNNHNHHHHH

201

Plainclothes investigator (P.O.)

Patrol (road—plainclothes)

Accident Investigator (P.O.)

Public Relations / Community Services / Relations
Operator / Switchboard

Ordinance Officer

Lieutenant PD (uniform/patrol)

Precinct Staff PD (P.O.)

Computer / LEIN Operator

Restricted / Limited Duty / Minor Disability
Special Investigations / Organized Crime
Investigation Unit

Auto Theft Unit

Internal Affairs Unit

Training Unit

Records Unit

Liquor Laws Enforcement

Security / Court Security

Staff / Executive Division

Hospital Security / Airport Security
Field Services (SD)

Process Server

413 Total

202
APPENDIX 7

1. How long have you served as a law enforcement officer 9
years, months.
2. What is your present job title 9

 

 

(e.g. police officer)
3. What is your present assignment 9

 

(e.g. undercover narcotics)
4. How much time have you served in your present
assignment? years, months.
5. List your previous assignments as a law enforcement
officer, and the length of time served in each.

 

 

 

a. , for years.
b. , for years.
c. , for _ years.

6. What is the size of the law enforcement agency you work
for 9 [_ J Over 1, 000 sworn members.

Between 400 and 1,000 members.

Between 75 and 399 members.

Between 15 and 74 members.

Less than 15 sworn members.

7. What is your age 9 ; sex 9 ; race 9

8. What is your educational attainment level 9 (' ‘X" a “box)
[_] Less than a high school diploma.

High school graduate or G.E.D..

Some college (less than two years).

Two years of college and/or Associate degree.

More than 2 years of college/ Associate degree

Bachelor’s degree.

Master’s degree.

Doctorate.

HHHI—‘II
L—JL—JL—JL—JI

HF-Il—‘If-‘lf—IHF'I
L—lL—JL—JL—lt—JL—Jh—l

‘ -119.

I E

9. Are you currently attending school 9
Do you have a second job 9
Are you active in sports 9
10. How satisfied are you with your career as an officer 9
Extrepely Very Satisfied Slightly Not At All
I I I I I
11, flow setisfied are you with your payzealary 9
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
i3. flog sapiefied are yo w't t hou s ou must_gepk 9
I I I I I I
14. How satisfied are you with the duties you are required
to perform as a lay enforcepent effieer 9
I I I I I I
15. How satisfied are you with the recognition you get from

the community for being a law enforcement officer 9
I I I I I I

- -: _-:

 

 

 

203
PART B

Law enforcement officers describe their jobs in different
ways. For each of the following statements, how would you
describe your duties 9 Put an "X" on the bar graph at the
location that best describes your daily work experiences.
For example, if the statement reads...

 

 

My supervisor is My supervisor is
ALWAYS friendly NEEER friendly
I I I I I I

 

...and your supervisor is USUALLY friendly, then you would
mark an “X“ on the bar graph in this manner:

 

 

 

I I X I I I I
Or, if your supervisor is SELDOM or INFREQUENTLY friendly,
then yep weelg meek the he: gpeph in this manner:

I I I I X I I

 

ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS USING THE METHOD DESCRIBED
ABOVE:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. I change work hours I always work a
on a regular basie etraight ehift

I I I I I I
2. I always work a I never work a
pigpptime shift nighttime ehift

I I I I I I
3. My daily tasks are My daily tasks are routine;
unpredictable from hour to I know what I will be
houp, evep pippte to minete geigg eil the time

I I I I I I
4. Carrying a weapon A weapon is not
(eg, gun, night stick) necessary for the

is considered essential accomplishment of my

to py daily job reguiremente daily job requiremente

I I I I I I
5. In my assignment I am My job requirements do
routinely exposed to tragedy not routinely expose
(egl deepgs injured children) pe Lo ppegedy

I I I I I I
6. People that I meet during People I come into contact
my assignment are under a with on my job are not
__§2eat deal of stress under_anx_unusua1_stress
I I I II I I
7. My job routinely exposes People I encounter during
me to hostile people the course of my assignment
ehog no hostility

I I I I I I
8. People I routinely have People I routinely come
contact with are under into contact with are
ver reat teneion under no tension

I I I I I I
9. I am routinely exposed to I do not come into contact
seamy elements of the local with the seamy elements of
...azea_§ndzgr_222u1etion ths_areazppnulatign
I I I I I I

 

204

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10. My assignment requires My assignment does not
me to be very mobile require a great deal of
(egp in car, on foot) mehility (egI desk jeb)

I I I I I I

11. My daily job tasks are My daily job tasks are
potentially daggerous not potentially dangerous

I I I I I I

12. My daily assignment There are no stressful
frequently subjects me situations in my normal
to etreeeidl situatiepe daily assignment

I I I I I I

13. My assignment requires My assignment allows for
split-second decision for unhurried decision

______mak_ain making

I I I I I I

14. Mistakes I am subject to make Consequences of mistakes
on the job can have extreme, I make on the job are
even fatal coneequencee_ not eerioue and never fatal

I I I I I I

15. Exposure to, or the There is no opportunity
opportunity for, corruption for me to be corrupted
(eg, offered a bribe) is while I perform my
commonplace daily aesignmenp

I I I I I I

 

16. Subject to severe criticism, If I make mistakes on the
discipline, and even court job, criticism, discipline,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

action for some of the or correction is not severe
mistakes I megs on the job
I, I I I I I
17. I have little control over The nature of the tasks
the type(s) of task(s) I I perform in my daily
will be performing in the assignment do not change
course of my daily assign- from day to day (eg,
ment (eg, I may make arrests, clerks take reports,
ieeue tickets, render aid,etc) file.typeI etc, each dey
I I I I I I
18. My assignment requires my I never have to go to
attendance in court on a court as a part of my
regular basis daily assigpmepp
I I I I I I
19. My present assignment allows My assignment does not
for extensive use of require me to use a
diecretion daily great apount of diecretion
I I I I I I
20. Meal breaks are strictly My meal breaks are not
limited (eg, no more than subject to interruption
30 minutes allowed) and and are taken leisurely

ere edeject t9 interrdption
I I I I I I

205
PART C

READ AND ANSWER EACH QUESTION AS CANDIDLY AS POSSIBLE:

1.

How would you describe your drinking habits with
regard to alcoholic beverages (i.e., beer, wine,
liquor) at the time you became a law enforcement
office; 9 ("X" a block)

[_] I Drank daily
A regular drinker (several drinks, several
times a week)
Only socially, but sometimes to excess
Only socially, never to excess
Infrequently, on special occasions
Only experimented to see if I would like a
certain drink

I
I—1

l
Huh—ILA

_] I didn’t drink at all -
With egard to alcoholic beverages, how would you
descr'p your drinking habits peg 9

I’m an alcoholic

I drink regularly, several drinks several

times a week

Only socially, but sometimes to excess

Only socially, never to excess
Infrequently, on special occasions

I only experiment to see if I like a certain
drink

I don’t drink at all (IF YOU CHECKED THIS
ANSWER, GO TO PART "D")

For each of the following questions, "X" one line:
YES NO

I l l l l
I—l L—JL—JL—JI—J L—JHQ

r—1 r—ar-wr-tr-a Pat—1H Fir—1 r-fir—Ir—Ir-fi H

a. Do you seek drinking opportunities 9
b. Has a family member or friend ever expressed
concern about you drinking alcoholic beverages
in amounts considered harmful?
Do you drink to make socializing easier 9
Is drinking alcoholic beverages a “must"
for your social functions 9
Do you usually drink alcoholic beverages
alone 9

Have you ever made a decision to "go on
the wagon"?

Do you think drinking alcoholic beverages
has contributed to an unhappy home for you?
Do you think drinking alcoholic beverages
is hurting your health 9

 

 

CLO

 

(D

 

 

9’9“?"

 

Do you lose time from your job because
of drinking 9

Po

 

j. Are you having more accidents (eg, in
vehicles, falling, slipping with tools)
on the job now than when you first became
a law enforcement officer 9

 

k. Do you think drinking has made you a
"different person" from the time you first
became a law enforcement officer 9

 

206
PART 12

1. How would you describe your general physical
condition the day you became a law enforcement
officer 9

[.1 Excellent

[.1 Good

[.1 Average

[.3 Poor

[.1 Bad
2. How much did you weigh (in pounds) the day you

became a law enforcement officer 9 pounds.

3. For each of the following illnesses, indicate

whether or not you had the problem listed when you
first became a law enforcement officer, and whether or
not you have the problem now:

 

Present when
first became
an officer 9

Present

:3

0

£
0

EEQBLEM

 

Z
O

L'- h- n- P- b- h- r- b- k- p- L- -- -- --

YES NO

.5

- r--- -- -- --
P- Ll- h— p- in- p- p- p- +- F.-

. Heept disease

Aprulcer

. fligh blood pressure
Chronic headaches
Chronic stomach aches
Diabetee
1_Lung_disea§e
I Arthritie

: Hypertension

 

-P-

p— in- P- h- P— p- h- F- r- k--- can. —- --

#— )0- L- )I- b- r.- +.- +-- II— P- I.— - O— -—

 

4. Today, you weigh pounds, and are _
feet, inches.

5. How would you describe your general physical
condition today 9

I 3 Excellent
I ] Good
[_] Average
I 1 Poor
[ 3 Bad

207
PART E

1. What ie your current marital status 9

Married for the first time

Divorced

Divorced and remarried time(s)
Single, never married

Widowed and remarried

Widowed (If you put an "X" in this box the
remaining questions do not apply to you, and
you have completed your questionnaire.

Thank you for your help.)

HHf—‘ll—IHI—‘l
L—ulh—Il—JHI—JI—J

2. How many close friends do you have 9 (People that
you feel at ease with, can talk to about private
metters, and can call on for help.)

[_] 0 — 2
[.1 3 - 5
I.) 6 — 9

[_] 10 or more

ANSWER QUESTIONS 3 THROUGH 16 ONLX IF YOU ARE CURRENTLY
MARRIED. IF NOT, GO ON TO QUESTION #17.

3. What was the relationship with your present spouse at
tge time you became a law enforcement officer 9
[_] Married

] Engaged to be married

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[_

[_] Dating

[_] Acquainted

[_] Strangers
4 Hew supportive is your spouse of your present job 9

[_] Wants me to be a law enforcement officer

[_] Tolerates me being a law enforcement officer

[_] Is indifferent to me being a peace officer

[_] Want me to stop being a law enforcement officer

[.1 I don’t know
5. Does your spouse understand the problems and stress of
your job 9

Alwaye Often Sopetidee Seldop Never

I I I I I I
6. Does your spouse show you as much affection as you
would like 9
I, I I I I I
7. Does your spouse give you as much understanding as you
peed?
I I I I I I
8. Do you and your spouse disagree about family

discipline 9 (egi regarding the children)
I I I I I I

208

 

9. Do arguments with your spouse end with you saying,
"Becauee I said so" 9
I I I I I I

 

10. Even happily married couples have problems getting
along with each other. How often does it happep to you 9

 

 

 

I I I I I I
11. How often do you regret your marriege 9
I I I I I I

 

12. How often have you seriously considered separation or

divorce figom your spouse 9
I I I I I I

13. Does your spouse drink alcoholic beverages more now
than when you first became a law enforcement officer 9
[_] Yes
[_] No
[_] This question does not apply to my spouse

14. Have you ever struck your spouse in anger with your
hand(si or an object 9
[,1 Yes, ______ times, in years of marriage
[_] No

15. Since becoming a law enforcement officer, have you
ever hed an extramarital affair 9

 

[_] Yes. _____ time(s) in _ year(s) of marriage
[_] No
16. All in all how happy has your marriage been for you?
[.1 Very happy
[.1 Happy
[_] Somewhat happy
[.1 Unhappy
[.1 Very unhappy

ANSWER QUESTIONS 17 THROUGH 22 ONLY IF YOU’VE EVER BEEN
DIVORCED WHILE YOU WERE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. IF NOT,
GO ON TO QUESTION #23.

17. Did your ex-spouse object to your being a law
enforcement officer 9

[_] Yes

[_] No

[_] I’m not sure

18. Did the unusual job requirements of being an officer
(eg, rotating shifts, working holidays, carrying a gun)
have an adverse effect on your marriage 9

[_] Yes, a damaging one
[_] Yes, but not a serious one
[_] Little or no adverse effects

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

209

Did the unusual environment of being an officer (eg,
social isolation sometimes experienced by police
femilies) have an adverse effect on your marriage 9
[_] Yes, a significant one

[_] Yes, but not a serious one

[_] Little or no effect

Do you feel that certain job circumstances (eg,
getting off duty at midnight and spouse/family
asleep, so you attend "choir practice") contributed
significantly to the failure of your marriage 9

[_] Yes

[_] No

[_] I don’t know

While you were married to your ex-spouse, did you
eyer have an extramarital affair 9

[_] Yes

[.1 No

While you were married, did your ex-spouse ever have
ad extramarital affair 9

[.1 No, not to my knowledge

[_] I think so

[_] Yes, definitely

If you’ve never been married, or while you were
single (if currently married), has someone you may
have married declined to do so because of your
ppofession 9

[_] Yes

[_] No

[_] This question does not apply to me

Is one of the reason(s) you are/were single because
you don’t believe your profession and marriage are
cempatible 9

[.1 Yes

[.1 No

[_] This question does not apply to me

ANSWER QUESTION #25 ONLY IF YOU WERE MARRIED TO YOUR
PRESENT SPOUSE PRIOR TO BECOMING A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER:

25.

How would you rate your marriage when you first
became a law enforcement officer 9

[_] Very happy

As happy as most couples

We were having more problems than most couples
We were unhappy

We were on the verge of separation or divorce

HHF‘IF‘I
HHL—JL—l

210
APPENDIX 8

COVER LETTER TO THE OFFICERS
Dear Fellow Officer:

We are all concerned about the problems that confront
the law enforcement officer today, and we know our work
continues to demand the best in all of us. Unfortunately,
very few studies have shown how officers cope with the day-
to-day job activities, and what are some of the
consequences for our personal lives. As a sixteen year
(and still counting) member of a major urban police
department, I share with you the joys and sorrows that are
inherent in our profession.

The questionnaire attached to this letter is intended
to gather data that will give those of us trying to improve
the law enforcement officer’s environment an accurate
picture of the officer’s experiences, both on and off the
job. The questionnaire will take only a few minutes to
complete, and the information you provide will be
invaluable for understanding the situations that confront
all law enforcement officers. Only those of us who
actually face the daily problems, officers like yourself,
have the knowledge and experiences to provide the insights
needed to address the major issues that confront our
profession.

When you have completed the questionnaire, please
return it in the attached stamped self—addressed envelope.
Your answers to these questions will remain anonymous and
completely confidential. Only I will see the answers
before they are coded for computer analysis. In any
written report, no person, unit, or organization will ever
be identified in any way.

If you would like a summary of the research report,
please send your name and address on a separate card to me
at, Law Enforcement Officer Study, 534 Baker Hall, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 48824, and I will
be happy to mail you a copy when the study is completed.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation and help with
this important survey of law enforcement officers and their
work.

Sincerely,

Howard Troost

Director

Law Enforcement Officer Study
2 attachments

211
APPENDIX 9

CONSENT FORM FROM THE CHIEFS

Date:

 

Mr. Howard Troost:

The Police Department
cannot participate in your research project.

YES, this department will assist you in your
research project. Please provide

 

copies (number of personnel in the agency) to:

 

 

(Name of contact member) (Rank)

 

 

(Address) (Phone #)

«3:00.21
nmmczo

(DC!) \10) 01A CDNH

212
APPENDIX 10

QQ__BDE 99E

Respondent Code Number

I.

Years as a Peace Officer

Months as a Peace Officer
Present job title

JOB TITLE CODES
(Question Numbers 2 & 5)

Heads of Organizations:

(00-09)

00 ..... Chief

01 ..... Sheriff

02 ..... Colonel

03 .....

O4 .....

O5 .....

O6 .....

O7 .....

08 .....

09 ..... Other Title (e.g., Captain)
Command Positions:

(10-19)

10 ..... Deputy Chief

11 ..... Undersheriff

12 ..... Commander

13 ..... Deputy Director of Emergency Services

14 ..... Post Commander (MSP)

15 ..... Director (SD)

16 .....

17 .....

18 .....

19 .....

213

Middle Management:
(20-29)
20 ..... Inspector
21 .....

30 ..... Captain

31 ..... Lieutenant

32 ..... Lieutenant (Administrative)
33 ..... Lieutenant (MSP)

34 ..... Shift Commander (FSC)

35 ..... Lieutenant (SD)

36 .....

Investigative Ranks:
(40-49)
40 ..... Detective
41 ..... Detective Sergeant
42 ..... Investigator
43 ..... Detective Lieutenant
44 ..... Sergeant (Administrative/Staff)
45 ..... Detective Corporal (PD)
46 ..... Investigator — Police Officer (SD)
47 .....
48 .....
49 .....

First Line Supervision:
(50-59)
50 ..... Sergeant
51 ..... Corporal
52 ..... Staff Sergeant
53 ..... Sergeant-Road (Sheriff)
54 ..... Sergeant (MSP)
55 ..... Sergeant-Jail (Sheriff)
56 .....

10.
11.

3.

214

66 .....

67 .....

68 .....

69 .....
“Street" Ranks:

(70-79)

70 ..... Police Officer

71 ..... Patrolman

72 ..... Deputy Sheriff

73 ..... Trooper (MSP)

74 ..... Trooper II (MSP)

75 ..... Public Safety Officer (FSC)

76 ..... Campus Police

77 ..... Police Officer/Patrolman (SD)

78 ..... Village Officer

79 ..... Police Officer II

(80—89)

80 ..... Dispatcher

81 ..... Crime Prevention

82 ..... Dive Team

83 ..... Deputy Sheriff II

84 ..... Jailer

85 ..... Secretary (civilian)

86 ..... Clerk (SD)

87 ..... Drivers License Examiner (SD)

88 ..... Special Deputy Sheriff

89 ..... Railroad Police Officer
"Pre-street":

(90—99)

90 ..... Cadet, Police

91 ..... Community Service Officer

92 ..... Patrolman Cadet

93 ..... Probation Officer

94 ..... Corrections Officer (non-certified)

95 ..... EMT/Rescue Squad

96 ..... Reserve Police Officer

97 ..... Police Officer I (Non-sworn)

98 ..... Military Police

99 ..... use for "not applicable"

Present assignment

WE
(Alphabetically)

65 2 Accident Investigator (P.O.)
13 2 Administrative / Disciplinary Unit*
95 = Airport Security / Hospital Security*
14 = Ambulance Service/EMT and Road
15 = Animal Control
99 2 Armed Services Police (i.e., M.P., A.P., S.P.
84 = Auto Theft Unit

)

215

Aviation / Marine / Mounted Unit*

Bailiff / Court Officer / Warrant Officer*
Booking / Registration Desk

Cadet / Reserve Officer*

Campus Police / Public Safety Officer*
Canine (road)

Census Officer / IRS Agent*

Chief of Police

Clerk / Desk Operations*

Communications

Community Services - PR - (MSP)

Community Services/Relations/Public Relations*
Complaints & Traffic (MSP)

Computer / LEIN Operator

Corporal

Corrections / Corrections Officer

Court Officer / Bailiff / Warrant Officer*
Court Security / Security*

Crime Complaints / Reports*

Crime Prevention

Crime Scene Investigator / Evidence Tech /
Scientific / Lab / Polygraph Exam Unit(s)*
Customs Inspector

Deputy - car maintenance

Deputy - road

Desk Sergeant (MSP)

Detective (MSP)

Detective (police)*

Detective.(Sheriff)

Detective Lieutenant (supervisor, O.I.C.)*
Detective Sergeant (PD)

Disciplinary Unit / Administrative*
Dispatcher

Doorman / turn-key / jailer (PD)

Drivers License Examiner (SD)

Drug Enforcement Agency (Federal)

Evidence Tech / Crime Scene Investigator /
Lab / Scientific / Polygraph Exam Unit*
Federal Police

Field Services (SD)

Fish and Wildlife Officer (Federal)
F/Lieutenant - Management (MSP)

Hospital Security / Airport Security*
Identification Bureau / ID Officer
Instructor

Internal Affairs Unit

Investigator / Detective*

IRS Revenue Agent / Census Officer*

Jail Administrator (Sgt - SD)

Jail Division SD (Jailer/Turn-key/Security)
Juvenile Unit / Officer (SD)

Lieutenant PD (uniform/patrol)

Lieutenant SD (uniform)

Liquor Laws Enforcement

216

Marine / Aviation / Mounted Unit*

Medical Section Clerk*

Motorcycle Officer (Traffic)

Mounted / Aviation / Marine Unit*
Narcotics (undercover)

O.I.C. Detectives / Supervisor Detectives
Operator / Switchboard

Operations Lieutenant (MSP)

Operations Lieutenant (PD)

Ordinance Officer

Organized Crime Investigation Unit / Special
Investigations*

Park Ranger

Patrol (beat/foot)

Patrol (road-plainclothes)

Patrol (road-uniform)

Patrolman / Police Officer (PD)

Patrolman / Police Officer (SD)
Plainclothes investigator (P.O.)
Plainclothes / Undercover Officer*

Police Officer

Polygraph Examiner / Crime Scene Investigator /
Evidence Tech / Scientific / Lab Unit*
Post Commander - Lieutenant (MSP)

Precinct Staff PD (P.O.)

Prisoner Processing

Prisoner Transportation (SD)

Process Server

Public Relations/Community Services/Relations*
Public Safety Officer / Campus Police*
Railroad Police

Records Unit

Reports / Crime Complaints*

Reserve Officer / Cadet*

Resident Deputy (SD)

Restricted / Limited Duty / Minor Disability
School Officer

Scientific / Laboratory Unit / Crime Scene
Investigator / Evidence Tech / Polygraph Exam*
Scooter Patrol

Security / Court Security*

Sergeant (MSP and SD)*

Sergeant (PD)

Sergeant (SD and MSP)*

Shift Commander (FSC) / Supervision*

Shift Commander (lieutenant)

Shift Supervisor - Jail (SD)

Shift Supervisor (Uniform sergeant - road)
Special Events / Special Services*

Special Investigations / Organized Crime
Investigation Unit*

Special Services / Special Events*

Staff / Executive Division

Stationary Traffic

H
(D
II II II II II II II II II II II II II

217

Supervision / Shift Commander (FSC)
Surveillance

S. W. A. T. Team

Tactical Unit / Riot Control Unit
Traffic Enforcement Unit (mobile)
Training Unit

Trooper - Road (MSP)

Undercover / Plainclothes*

Vice Officer

Village Officer

Warrant Officer / Bailiff / Court Officer*
Woman’s Division

Youth Bureau Unit / Detention Home

* = Number used more than once

12.
13.

14.
15.

16.
17.

18.
19.

20.
21.

22.
23.

24.
25.

26.
27.

28.

29.
30.

4.

6.

Years in present assignment

1 - 98 = number of years in present assignment
99 = no answer

Months in present assignment

1-12
99

number of months in present assignment
no answer

a. Previous assignment title

a. Years in previous assignment

b. Previous assignment title

b. Years in previous assignment

0. Previous assignment title

0. Years in previous assignment

3
(D
D
0
‘4

Age

size:

Over 1,000 sworn members
Between 400 and 1,000 members
Between 75 and 399 members
Between 15 and 74 members
Less than 15 sworn members

HNw-AU!
II II II II II

218

31. Sex:
1 2 male
2 = female
32. Race:
1 2 white
2 = black
3 = hispanic
4 = oriental
5 = arab
6 = American Indian
7 = Latino
8 = other
9 = no answer

33. 8. Educational attainment level:

0 = less than high school
1 = high school diploma
2 = some college (less than 2 years)
3 2 Associate Degree/two years of college
4 = " " " " " " plus
5 = Bachelor’s Degree
6 = Master’s Degree
7 = Master’s Degree plus
8 = Doctorate
9 = no answer
34. 9. Attending school 9
1 = Yes
0 = No
35. Second job 9
1 = Yes
0 = No
36. Active in sports 9
1 = Yes
0 = No
SATISFACTION SCALE
37. 10. Career satisfaction:
Emgaelx Yin fiatigfied Slightly Hgmamall
38. 11. Salary satisfaction:
Extrgpelx Efrx Satigfied Slightly flot.at_all
1

39. 12. Supervision satisfaction:

Estrgmelx 23:2 Satigfiad Slightly H9t_at_all

219

 

40. 13. Work hours satisfaction:
metreme 1! Yam Satisfied Slightly W11

5 4 3 2 1
41. 14. Duties satisfaction:
Extrepely Very Satisfied Slightly th_at_all

5 4 3 2 1
42. 15. Recognition satisfaction:
measly Yen! Satisfied Slightly NW1].

5 4 3 2 1

PRESENT JOB/ASSIGNMENT CHARACTERISTICS
(Job Stress Scale)

43. Change hours regularly Straight Shift
(1) 5 4 3 2 1
44. Always work nights Never work nights
(2) 5 4 3 2 1
45. Unpredictable tasks Tasks are routine
(3) 5 4 3 2 1
46. Weapon necessary Weapon not necessary
(4) 5 4 3 2 1
47. Tragedy exposure routine No tragedy exposure
(5) 5 4 3 2 1
48. People under stress People not under stress
(6) 5 4 3 2 1
49. Exposure to hostile peopleNo exposure to hostile people
(7) 5 4 3 2 1
50. People under tension People not under tension
(8) 5 4 3 2 1
51. Exposure to “seamy" No exposure to "seamy"
(9) 5 4 3 2 1
52. Mobility needed Mobility not necessary
(10) 5 4 3 2 1
53. Tasks potentially dangerous Tasks not dangerous
(11) 5 4 3 2 1
54. Stressful situations No stressful situations
(12) 5 4 3 2 1
55. Quick decision making Unhurried decision making

(13) 5 4 3 2 1

220

56. Mistakes extreme consequences No extreme consequences

(14) 5 4 3 _ 2 1
57. Corruption possibilities No corruption possibilities
(15) 5 4 3 2 1
58. Mistakes severely criticized No severe criticism
(16) 5 4 3 2 1
59. Tasks unpredictable Tasks are predictable
(17) 5 4 3 2 1
60. Regular court attendance No court required
(18) 5 4 3 2 1
61. Extensive use of discretion No discretion
(19) 5 4 3 2 1
62. Meal time limited Unlimited meal time
(20) 5 4 3 2 1

(Job Stress Scale Scores)

20-67 = “Low-stress Officer"
68-100 2 "High-stress Officer"
Berti
(Drinking Codes)
63. 1. Drinking habits when became Peace Officer:

6 = Drank daily

5 = Regular drinker

4 = Sometimes to excess

3 = Socially

2 = Infrequently

1 = Experimented

O = Didn’t drink at all

64. 2. Current drinking habits:

6 = Alcoholic
5 = Regular drinker
4 = Sometimes to excess
3 = Socially
2 = Infrequently
1 = Experiment
0 = Not at all
65. 3a. Seek drinking opportunities 9
1 = Yes
0 = No
9 = N/A

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

3b.

30.

3d.

3e.

3f.

3g.

3h.

31.

3j.

3k.

Family/friend concern for your drinking 9

Drinking made you a different person 9

1 = Yes
0 = No
9 = N/A
Drink to socialize 9
1 = Yes
0 = No
9 = N/A
Drinking a "must" socially 9
1 = Yes
0 = No
9 = N/A
Drink alone 9
1 = Yes
0 = No
9 = N/A
Decide to "go on the wagon" 9
1 = Yes
0 = No
9 = N/A
Drinking = unhappy home 9
1 = Yes
0 = No
9 = N/A
Alcohol hurting your health 9
1 = Yes
0 = No
9 = N/A
Lose time from job 9
1 = Yes
0 = No
9 = N/A
More accidents now 9
1 = Yes
0 = No
9 = N/A
1 = Yes
0 = No
9 = N/A

221

76.

77.
79.
80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

3a.

3b.

30.

3d.

3e.

3f.

3g.

3h.

222

PART D
(Health/Medical History and Status)

General physical condition when became P.O.:

4 = Excellent

3 = Good

2 = Average

1 = Poor

0 2 Bad
Weight then:

Heart disease:

0 = Yes to No answer (health improved)

1 = Yes to Yes, or No to No (health unchanged)

2 = No to Yes answer (deterioration in health)
An ulcer:

0 = Yes to No answer (health improved)

1 = Yes to Yes, or No to No (health unchanged)

2 = No to Yes answer (deterioration in health)
High blood pressure:

0 = Yes to No answer (health improved)

1 = Yes to Yes, or No to No (health unchanged)

2 = No to Yes answer (deterioration in health)

Chronic headaches:

0 = Yes to No answer (health improved)
1 = Yes to Yes, or No to No (health unchanged)
2 = No to Yes answer (deterioration in health)

Chronic stomach aches:

O = Yes to No answer (health improved)

1 = Yes to Yes, or No to No (health unchanged)

2 = No to Yes answer (deterioration in health)
Diabetes:

0 = Yes to No answer (health improved)

1 = Yes to Yes, or No to No (health unchanged)

2 = No to Yes answer (deterioration in health)
Lung disease:

0 = Yes to No answer (health improved)

1 = Yes to Yes, or No to No (health unchanged)

2 = No to Yes answer (deterioration in health)
Arthritis:

0 = Yes to No answer (health improved)

1 = Yes to Yes, or No to No (health unchanged)

2 = No to Yes answer (deterioration in health)

88.

89.
91.
92.
94.
95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

31.

223

Hypertension:
0 Yes to No answer (health improved)
1 Yes to Yes, or No to No (health unchanged)
2 No to Yes answer (deterioration in health)

Weight today:

Height in feet and...
Height in inches

General physical condition today:

4 = Excellent
3 = Good
2 = Average
1 = Poor
0 2 Bad
EAELE
(Marriage/family)

Current marital status:
Married for the first time

5:
4 = Divorced, times
3 = Divorced and remarried, times
2 = Single, never married
1 = Widowed and remarried
O = Widowed
How many friends:
0 = 0 - 2
1 = 3 - 5
2 = 6 - 9
3 = 10 or more
Relationship with spouse when became P.O.:
4 = Married
3 = Engaged to be married
2 = Dating
1 = Acquainted
O = Strangers

Spouse’s support for present job:
Wants me to be a P.O.
Tolerates me being a P.O.
Indifferent

Wants me to stop being a P.O.
I don’t know

09-9ka
II II II II II

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

110.

111.
112.

224

5. Spouse understands job problems/stress:

 

 

Alweye Oftem Sometimes Seldom
5 4 3 2
6. Spouse show affection 9
Alweys Often Sometimee Seldem
5 4 3 2
7. Spouse give understanding 9
Alwaye Often Sometimes Seldom
5 4 3 2
8. Disagree about discipline 9
Aiweys Often Sometimes Seldom
1 2 3 4
9. Arguments end, "Because..."9
Alweys Often Sometimes Seldom
1 2 3 4
10. Problems getting along with one another 9
klweys Often Sometimee Seldom
1 2 3 4
11. Regret your marriage 9
Alweys Often §ometime§ Seldom
1 2 3 4
12. Considered separation/divorce 9
Alwaye Often Sometimes Seldom
2 3 4

Family Classifications: (Questions 5 thru 12)
Low score = unsatisfactory family life
(Possible maximum score of 40)

13. Spouse drink more now than then 9

1 = Yes

0 = No

8 = N/A

14. Struck spouse 9

O = No

1 = Yes

1-7 = Numbers of times struck:
8 = Struck eight or more times
9 = N/A

Years of marriage:

Eager

Nevep

Never

Beyer
5

225

113. 15. Affair since becoming a P.O. 9

O = No
1 = Yes
114. 1-7 = Number of affairs:
8 2 Eight or more affairs
9 = N/A
115. Years of marriage:
116. " " “
117. 16. How happy has marriage been:
4 2 Very happy
3 = Happy
2 = Somewhat happy
1 = Unhappy
O = Very unhappy
118. 17. Ex-spouse object to your being a P.O.9
1 = Yes
0 = No
8 = Not sure

119. 18. Job requirements have adverse effect 9
= Yes, a damaging one
2 = Yes, but not serious

= Little or no effect

120. 19. Job environment have an adverse effect 9
3 = Yes, a significant one
2 = Yes, but not serious
1 = Little or no effect
121. 20. Circumstances contribute to marriage failure 9
1 = Yes
0 = No
8 = I have no way of knowing
122. 21. Extramarital affair?
1 = Yes
0 = No
123. 22. Spouse have affair 9
O = No
1 = I think so
2 = Yes, definitely
124. 23. Declined marriage because of profession 9
1 = Yes
0 = No
8 = N/A
9 = No answer

226

125. 24. Marriage and profession incompatible 9

1 = Yes

0 = No

8 = N/A

9 = No answer

126. 25. Rate marriage when first became P.O.:
Very happy

As happy as most

More problems than most
Unhappy

Verge of separation/divorce
N/A

No answer

(DCDOHNODk
II II II II M II II

227

APPENDIX 11

Law enforcement officers describe their jobs in different

ways.
describe your duties 9

For each of the following statements,
Put an "X" on the bar graph at the

how would you

location that best describes your daily work experiences.

For example,

My supervisor is
ALWAYS friendly
I I I

...and your supervisor is USUALLY friendly,

if the statement reads...

My supervisor is
NEXER friendly
I I I
then you would

mark_en "X" on the bar graph in this manner:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I X I I I I
Or, if your supervisor is SELDOM or INFREQUENTLY friendly,
then you would mepk the bar gpaph in_this manner:

I I X I I
ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS USING THE METHOD DESCRIBED
ABOVE:

1. I change work hours I always work a
on e regular baeie etraight ehift
I J I I I I B I
2. I always work a , I never work a

nighttime shift

I J I
My daily tasks are
unpredictable from hour to
hour; even minute to minute
I J I I
4. Carrying a weapon
(eg, gun, night stick)
is considered essential
to my daily job requirements
I J I I
5. In my assignment I am
routinely exposed to tragedy
L_g. deathe. injured children)
I I J I
6. People that I meet during
my assignment are under a
great deal of strees
I J I I
7. My job routinely exposes
me to hostile people

03H

I J I I
8. People I routinely have
contact with are under

very great teneion

I J I I

nighttime shiit
I I B I

My daily tasks are routine;
I know what I will be
doing all the time

I B I I

A weapon is not

necessary for the
accomplishment of my

daily job requirement;

I I B I

My job requirements do

not routinely expose

me to tragedy

I I B I
People I come into contact
with on my job are not

undeangmnusuaLstresE

People I encounter during
the course of my assignment
show no hostility

I I B I
People I routinely come

into contact with are

mnder no teneion

I B I I

228

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. I am routinely exposed to I do not come into contact
seamy elements of the local with the seamy elements of
area andlor population thg azgglgggulgtign
I J I I I I B I
10. My assignment requires My assignment does not
me to be very mobile require a great deal of
Legp in car, on foot) mobility (egp desk job)
I J I I I I B I
11. My daily job tasks are My daily job tasks are
potentially dangerous not potentially dangereue
I J I I I I B I
12. My daily assignment There are no stressful
frequently subjects me situations in my normal
to etreeeful eituatione daily assignment
I J I I I B I I
13. My assignment requires My assignment allows for
split-second decision for unhurried decision
making making
I I J I I I B I
14. Mistakes I’m subject to make Consequences of mistakes
on the job can have extreme, I make on the job are
even fatal coneequencee not eerious and never fatal
I J I I I I B I
15. Exposure to, or the There is no opportunity
opportunity for, corruption for me to be corrupted
(eg, offered a bribe) is while I perform my
commonplace daily assignment
I I J I I I B I
16. I’m subject to criticism If I make mistakes on the
discipline, and even court job, criticism, discipline,
action for some of the or correction is not severe
mistakes I make on the job

I J I I I B I I
17. I have little control over The nature of the tasks
the type(s) of task(s) I I perform in my daily
will be performing in the assignment do not change
course of my daily assign— from day to day (eg,
ment (eg, I may make arrests, clerks take reports, file,
issue ticketsi render aidI etc) typeI ete, each dey

I I J I I B I I
18. My assignment requires my I never have to go to
attendance in court on a court as a part of my
regular heeie daily aeeighmeht
I J I I I I B I
19. My present assignment allows My assignment does not
for extensive use of require me to use a
diecretion daily great amount of diecretion
I J I I I B I I
20. Meal breaks are strictly My meal breaks are not
limited (eg, no more than subject to interruption
30 minutes allowed) and and are taken leisurely

are eubject to interruption
I I B I I I J I

229
APPENDIX 12

ASSIGNMENT CODES - CLUSTERED

Numbers in parentheses (N) represent the number of
respondents in each category

A. Adminietrative (N = 109):
Complaints & Traffic (MSP) (3)
Disciplinary Unit / Administrative (13)
Community Services - PR - (MSP) (1)
Dispatcher (5)
Deputy - vehicle maintenance (1)
Juvenile Unit / Officer (SD) (2)
Drivers License Examiner (SD) (1)
Scientific / Laboratory Unit / Crime Scene
Investigator / Evidence Tech / Polygraph Exam (7)
Youth Bureau Unit / Detention Home (7)
Identification Bureau / ID Officer (2)
Communications (3)
Crime Prevention (3)
Booking / Registration Desk (1)
Medical Section Clerk / Clerk / Desk Operations (2)
Public Relations / Community Services / Relations (1)
Operator / Switchboard (1)
Ordinance Officer (2)
Precinct Staff PD (P.O.) (2)
Computer / LEIN Operator (2)
Training Unit (8)
Records Unit (1)
Security / Court Security (34)
Staff / Executive Division (2)
Hospital Security / Airport Security (5)

B. Correctione (N = 41):
Jail Division SD (Jailer / Turn-key / Security) (28)
Corrections / Corrections Officer (7)
Prisoner Transportation (SD) (6)

C. Courts (N = 20):
Warrant Officer / Bailiff / Court Officer (18)
Process Server (2)

D. Investigations (N = 27):
Investigator / Detective (18)
Detective (Sheriff) (1)
Plainclothes investigator (P.O.) (1)
Special Investigations / Organized Crime Investigation
Unit (2)
Auto Theft Unit (2)
Internal Affairs Unit (3)

230

E. Miecellaneous (N = 5):
Ambulance Service/EMT and Road (2)
Animal Control (1)
Restricted / Limited Duty / Minor Disability (1)
Liquor Laws Enforcement (1)

F- EQEEQI (N = 162):
Patrol (road-uniform) (128)
Traffic Enforcement Unit (mobile) (15)
Patrol (beat/foot) (5)
Resident Deputy (SD) (1)
Deputy - road (2)
Mounted / Aviation / Marine Unit (3)
Canine (road) (3)
School Officer (2)
Special Services / Special Events (1)
Accident Investigator (P.O.) (1)
Field Services (SD) (1)

G. Supervieion (N = 35):

Shift Supervisor (Uniform sergeant - road) (10)

Supervision / Shift Commander (FSC) (3)

Shift Supervisor - Jail (SD) (8)

Desk Sergeant (MSP) (2)

Post Commander - Lieutenant (MSP) (3)

Shift Commander (lieutenant) (2)

Operations Lieutenant (PD) (1)

Detectives / Supervisor Detectives / Detective
Lieutenant (supervisor, O.I.C.) (1)

Jail Administrator (sergeant SD) (2)

Sergeant (SD and MSP) (2)

Lieutenant PD (uniform/patrol) (1)

H. Emdercover (N = 14):
Narcotics (undercover) (6)
Vice Officer (3)
Undercover / Plainclothes (1)
Surveillance (3)
Patrol (road-plainclothes) (1)
Total = 413

231
APPENDIX 13

FINDINGS SUMMARY LETTER TO THE PARTICIPAEIS

Dear

Thank you for your invaluable assistance in the Law
Enforcement Officer Study recently conducted at Michigan
State University. Attached you will find a summary of the
findings derived from your questionnaire responses, and
those of hundreds of other law enforcement officers in the
state of Michigan.

The information provided by our colleagues and the
conclusions derived therefrom is the most valid data we can
hope for because its source is the people of whom the study
is directed, and not hypotheses and guesses possibly made
by an author looking only to publish. This is em; data,
and hopefully it will lead to changes by the various law
enforcement agency administrations to change for the better
the environment of the law enforcement officer.

Thank you again for your help and interest in this
research project.

Yours truly,

Howard Troost

Director

Law Enforcement Officer Study
1 attachment

232

DATA SUMEQRY:

Seventeen different Michigan law enforcement agencies
participated in this study. These included seven sheriff’s
departments, five police departments, four Michigan State
Police posts, and one college public safety department.
Four hundred fifteen officers responded. Characteristics
of the individual participants included:

Sex: 365 Males, 45 Females.
Race: 328 White, 71 Black, 1 Hispanic, 1 American Indian

Currently Attending School: 45 Yes, 362 No.

Currently Working A Second Job: 76 Yes, 323 No.

Currently Active in Sports: 221 Yes, 179 No.

 

Characteristic Axaraaa Minimum Maximum

Age 37 21 59
Highest Education 2 yrs col less Ph. D.
Attained than HS

Time as Officer 12.2 yrs 6 Mo.s 36.7 yrs

Yes, there does seem to be some problems associated with
working in stressful assignments. For one thing, the
drinking level of officers in stressful jobs tends to go
up, and they report more drinking problem indicators than
their counterparts in less stressful assignments.

Veteran officers in stressful jobs had significantly
lower family harmony than did their counterparts in less
stressful jobs, indicating that the family life of these
officers was being negatively effected by a stressful job.

The health levels of the veteran officers in stressful
jobs went down significantly more than did their rookie or
younger partners.

Conversely, several previous assumptions about the
deleterious effects of the stressful jobs are now
questioned. Veteran officers in stressful jobs had fewer
health problems than did both their rookie colleagues and
less stressed counterparts. The same trend held true when
all the officers in stressful jobs were contrasted to all
the officers in less stressful jobs. Veteran officers in
stressful positions apparently have a more harmonious
family life do their rookie colleagues. Veteran officers
in stressful jobs also had a greater happiness level
increase in their marriages than did both the veteran
officers in less stressful jobs and the rookie officers in
stressful assignments.

The supposed beneficial effects of several intervening
variables are now under suspicion. For example, officers
in school, having a second job, and/or active in sports all
reported higher job stress than did the officers who were
not active in those three variables. Officers working a
second job reported more drinking indicators and slightly
lower family harmony than did the officers who didn’t work
a second job. Officers who were met active in sports
lowered their drinking levels more, reported a greater
reduction in health problem indicators, and reported a
larger positive marriage happiness level change than did
the officers who were active in sports.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Joint Union—Menagement Approach to Alcoholiem Recovery
Epegrame. New York: National Council on Alcoholism,
Inc, 1976.

Angell, John E. "Toward An Alternative to the Classic
Police Organizational Arrangements: A Democratic
Model." Criminology 9 (August-November 1971): 185-206.

 

Ashworth, J.S.. "Is Stress A Factor That Is Considered When
Officers Are Posted Within the Police Service." Ihe
Police Joupnei 53:4(October-December 1980): 340-352.

Axelberd, Mark, and Valle, Jose. "South Florida’s Approach
to Police Stress Management." Bolice Stpess (March
1980): 13-14.

Bacon, Selden. "Process of Addiction to Alcohol: Social
Aspects." Quarterly Journal of Studiee on Alcohol
34(1973): 1-27.

Bahn, Charles. "Police Socialization in the Eighties:
Strains in the Forging of an Occupational Identity."
Journal of Police Science and Administration
12:4(December 1984): 390-394.

Bennett, Barbara. "The Police Mystique." The Police Chief
(April 1978): 46-49.

Bennett, Barbara. "Motivational Hang-ups of the Police
Mystique." Ihe Eoiiee thef (February 1979): 36-37.

BENNETT, Richard R. "Becoming Blue: A Longitudinal Study
of Police Recruit Occupational Socialization".
Journal of Police Science and Administration 12:1
(March 1984): 47-58.

BERG, Bruce; True, Edmond; and Gertz, Marc. "Police, Riots,

and Alienation." demtpei_o£ Boliee Seience ehd
Administration 12(June 1984): 186-190.

Besner, Hilda F; and Robinson, Sandra. "Police Wives - The
Untapped Resource". Ihe Police thef (August 1984):
62-64.

233

234

Bittner, Egon. The Functione of Police in Modern Society
Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health,
1972.

Bratz, Lloyd. "Combating Police Stress". FBI_heg
Ehfiorcement Journal (January 1986):2-7.

 

 

Police

Brinegar, Jerry. "Nutritional Stress In Policing.
Chiefi 48(December 1981): 28-29.

Buren, R. Michael. "Stress - Talk Or Substance." haw ehd
Order (July 1981): 22, 24.

Burgin, A. Lad. "The Management of Stress In Policing.”
Police Chief (April 1978): 53—54.

CAPLAN, Robert et al. Jeb Demands ehd Worker Health: Main

Effect§_and Qccmpationai Differences. Ann Arbor:
Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan,

1980.

Cash, Thomas; Briddell, Dan; Gillen, Barry; and MacKinnon.
"When Alcoholics Are Not Anonymous: Socioperceptual
Effects of Labeling and Drinking Pattern.” Journal of

Studies On Alcohol 45:3(May 1984): 272-275.

Chafetz, Morris E.; and Demone, Harold W. Jr. Alcoholiem
and Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 1962.

Chamberlain, Charles. “Anomie, Burnout, and the Wyatt Earp
Syndrome." Law and Ordep (March 1978): 20-21.

Chandler, Ernest, and Jones, Claude. "Cynicism - An
Inevitability of Police Work 9“ Journal of Police
Science and Administration 7:1(March 1979): 65-68.

Cherniss, Gary. Staff Burnout (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications, 1980).

CLARK, John P. "Isolation of the Police: A Comparison of
the British and American Situations." Journal of

Crimina1_Lari_Qriminplgax1.and_faliea_Spieces 56/3
(1965): 307-319.

Constant, Ronald. "Not So Obvious Police Stress." Lew and
deep 32(September 1984): 65-68.

CONWAY, Terry; et al. "Occupational Stress and Variation in
Cigarette, Coffee, and Alcohol Consumption". Journal

 

of Heeith and Sociei Eehaviep 22/2(June 1981): 155-
165.

Cowley, Bruce. ”Male Mid-life Blues." Law and Order
32:13 (March 1984): 9, 72.

235

Crosby, Andrew. "The Psychological Examination in Police
Selection." Journal of Police Science and
Admihistratioh 7(June 1979): 215-229.

 

DANTO, Bruce L. "Police Suicide". Police Streee 1/1(1980):
32-36, 38, 40.

DASH, Jerry, and Reiser, Martin. "Suicide Among Police In
Urban Law Enforcement Agencies." Journal of Police
Science and Administration (March 1978): 18—21.

Davis, Sandra. "Stress: It Goes With the Badge." Detroit
Epee Epess, 31 October 1988, sec. C, pp. 1C, 4C.

Daviss, Ben. "Burn Out", Police Megeeihe (May 1982): 9—11,
14-18.

DePue, Roger. "The Police Family.“ EEI_Lem Ehfiepeemeht
Bulletin (August 1981): 1—7.

Detroit Police Department Mandel

DeSanto, Joseph, and Fennelly, Lawrence. "Stress and the
Police." Law and Order 27(February 1979): 54-57,66.

Dorangrichia, Anthony J. ”Police Stress and the
Nutritional Factor." Police Stress Spring (1981): 13-
16.

Dunne, Joseph A. "Counseling Alcoholic Employees in a
Municipal Police Department". Qdarterly Journal 0:
Studiee on Alcohol 34(1973): 423—434.

DURNER, James; Kroeker, Mark; Miller, Charles; and
Reynolds, William. "Divorce - Another Occupational
Hazard." Police Chief 42(November 1975): 48-53.

Eisenberg, Terry. "Labor-Management Relations and
Psychological Stress - View From the Bottom.” Ihe
Eelice_§hiefi (November 1975): 54—58.

Ellison, Katherine, and Genz, John. ”The Police Officer As
Burned—Out Samaritan." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
(March 1978): 1-7.

Ewing, John A.; and Rouse, Beatrice A. Dpihkihg. Chicago,
ILzNelson-Hall, 1978.

EYLER, Gordon M. "Stress and the Police Family." Belice
Stress (July-August 1982): 32.

 

Felkenes, George T. "Attitudes of Police Officers Towards
Their Professional Ethics". Journal of Criminal
Justice 12:3(1984): 211-220.

236

FELL, Donald; Richard, Wayne; and Wallace, William.
"Psychological Job Stress and the Police Officer."
Journal of Police Science and Administration 8(June
1980): 139-144.

FENSTER, C. Abraham, and LOCKE, Bernard. "Neuroticism Among
Policemen: Examination of Police Personality." dedpnal
of Applied Psychology 57(1973): 358-359.

FRENCH, John. "A Comparative Look At Stress and Strain In
Policemen." Job Stress and the Police Officer.

Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1975.

Friend, Joseph, and Guralnik, David (eds.). Webeter’e New

World Dictionary ef the American Languege. Cleveland
and New York: The World Publishing Company, 1960.

Gettman, Larry R. "Aerobics and Police Fitness." Poliee
Stress (1979): 22—24.

Gilbert, Earl. "Physical Fitness for Law Enforcement." he!
and Order 32(August 1984): 43-45.

Gourley, Gerald, Effective Municipal Police Organizatioh.
Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press, 1970.

Greater Detroit Area National Council on Alcoholism.
Alcoholiem; The Family Illneee. Detroit: GDANCA, a
flyer.

HAGEMAN, Mary. "Occupational Stress and Marital
Relationships". Journal of Police Science and
Administretioh 6:4(December 1978): 402-412.

Hageman, Mary; Kennedy, Robert; and Price, Norman. "Coping
With Stress." The Police Chief (February 1979): 27-28.

HAGEMAN, Mary J. "Who Joins the Force for What Reasons: An
Argument For the ‘New Breed’". Journal of Police

Eciepce and Admihietration 7/2(1979): 206-210.

Hanewicz, Wayne. "Police Personality: A Jungian
Perspective. "Crime and Delinguency (April 1978): 152-
172.

Hall, Barbara G. "Prescription for Police Stress: Talk to
Your Wife." Police Streee (February 1982): 34-35.

Harvard, Beverly. "Psychological Screening of Police
Recruit Applicants." Lew and Order 32(May 1984): 38-
39.

237

Hayman, Max. Alcoholiem: Mechanisme and Management.
Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas Publishers, 1966.

HAYNES, William. Streee and Related Dieordere In Policemeh.
San Francisco: R&E Research Associates, 1978.

Healy, Bob. "Aerobic Cop." The Police Chief 48(November
1981): 67-70.

HITZ, Danielle. "Drunken Sailors and Others: Drinking
Problems in Specific Occupations." Quarterly Journal

ef Stmdies on Alcohol 34(1973): 496-505.

Hill, Wayne. "Post Killing Trauma, When Police Officers Are
the Victims." Ley_end Ordep 32(October 1984): 68-72.

Hill, Wayne. "Stress, Police Officers, and Survival."
Police Streee (Spring 1981): 35-36.

Hillgren, James, and Bond, Rebekah. "Stress In Law
Enforcement: Psychophysiological Correlates and Legal
Implications. "dedpnal ef Forensic_Psychology (1975):
25-32.

 

 

HOCHSTEDLER, Ellen, and DUNNING, Christine M.
"Communication and Motivation in a Police Department".
Criminal Juetice and Behavior 10 (March 1983): 47-69.

James, Pet. "The Police Family - A Wife’s Eye View." EDl
Lew Ehfopeement Jouphel 44/11(November 1975): 12-15.

Kinney, Jean. Loosening the Grip: A Handbook of Alcohol
Ihfermation. St. Louis: Mosby, 1978.

Kirkham, George. "A Professor’s Street Lessons." FBI Leg
Enfopcement Bulletin 43(March 1974): 14-22.

Korczynski, James. "The Midnight Menace of Mobile Patrol."
Law and Order (November 1979): 48, 50.

KROES, William, and Gould, Sam. "Job Stress In Policemen:
An Empirical Study." Police Streee 1(February 1979):
9-10,44,46.

KROES, William. Society’e Vietim, The Policemah: Am
enalysis of Job Stress in Policing. Springfield:
Charles C. Thomas Publishing Company, 1976, 1979.

KROES, William; Margolis, Bruce; and Hurrell, Joseph. "Job
Stress In Policemen." Journal of Police Science and
Administration 2(February 1974): 145-155.

Lanier, David C. "Familial Alcoholism". Journal of Family
Practice 18/3(March 1984): 417-422

238

Lawrence, Richard. "Police Stress and Personality Factors:
A Conceptual Model." Journal of Criminal Justice
12(March 1984): 247-263.

Lefkowitz, Joel. "Psychological Attitudes of Policemen: A

Review of Research and Opinion." Journal of Social
ieedee 31/1(1975): 3—36.

Lester, David. "Suicide In Police Officers." The Police
Chief (April 1978): 17.

Lester, David. ”Stress In Police Officers.“ Law and Order
27(September 1979): 50-51.

Lester, David. "The Policeman’s Lot: A Positive Viewpoint."
Law and Order (November 1979): 58, 71.

 

LESTER, David, and Mink, Stanley. "Is Stress Higher In
Police Officers 9" Psychological Reports 45:2(October
1979): 554.

Lester, David. "Cynicism of Police and Job Satisfaction."
Psycholegical Reporte 54/2(1984): 558.

Ludos, Phillip, and Mijares, Thomas. "Coping With Stress."
Police Streee (Spring 1981): 10-12.

Macy, Barry, and Mirvis, Philip. "A Methodology for
Assessment of Quality of Work Life and Organizational
Effectiveness in Behavioral-Economic Terms."
edministrative Science Quarterly 21(June 1976): 212-
226.

Malloy, Thomas, and Mays, Larry. "The Police Stress
Hypothesis: A Critical Evaluation.” Criminal Justice
and Dehaviep 11(June 1984): 197-224.

Manning, Peter. Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan, 6 March 1987, 27 June 1989.

Mann, Marty. Answe 5 Your uestions About Dr'n in and
Alcoholism. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,
1970.

Martin, Carol Ann. The Police Crisee of Streeez A Selected
Bibliography. Monticello: Vance Bibliographies, 1980.

Maslach, Christina, and Jackson, Susan. "Burned-Out Cops
and Their Families." Psychology Today (May 1979): 59-
62.

McCord, William; and McCord, Joan. Origine of Alcoholiem.
Stanford: University Press, 1960.

239

McNamara, John H.. "Uncertainties of Police work: The
Relevance of Police Recruits’ Background and
Training." The Police: Six Sociological Esseys New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967.

Meadows, Robert. "Officer Distress." The Police Chief
48(January 1981): 26-27,56.

Meredith, Nikki. "Attacking the Roots of Police Violence."
Psyehology Todey (May 1984): 21-26.

Moore, Larry, and Donohue, John. “The Patrol Officer:
Special Problems, Special Cures." The Police Chief
45(November 1978): 41-43.

Morgan, James P. "The Use of Age by Law Enforcement Police
Makers As A Predictor of Performance." Journal of
Police Science and Admihistpetiom 8/2 (June 1980):
166-172.

Muscari, Paul G. “Police Corruption and Organizational
Structures: An Ethicist’s View", dournal of Crimihel
dustice 12(May—June 1984): 235-245.

 

NBC, Television Nightly News Special Segment, 6:30 PM,
Tuesday, February 3, 1987, "Police Suicide”, Jack
Reynolds.

Nix, Crystal. "Police Suicide: Answers Are Elusive", Ihe
Neg_Xe;k_Iimee, 15 September 1986, sec. Y, p. 14.

Niederhoffer, Arthur. Behind the Shield: The Police in
Dmheh_§eeiety. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and
Company, 1969.

Nordlicht, Stephen. "Effects of Stress On the Police
Officer and Family." New York State Journal of
Medicine 79(March 1979): 400-401.

O’Brien, John T. "Public Attitudes Towards Police." deurnal

:——-———

310.

Old Mythe and New Facte About Alcoholism. Detroit, MI:

National Council on Alcoholism - Greater Detroit Area,
1984.

Owens, D.G. "Law Enforcement Communities are Closed
Societies.” Police Chief (April 1978): 63—66.

Panyard, Christine. "High Tension." Law Enfiorcement Journal
(Summer 1986): 45,49.

240

Panyard, Christine. "How You Chow Up Can Help You Avoid A
Breakdown.” Tuebor 46(March 1983): 3.

Panyard, Christine. "Changes In Lifestyle May Cause
Stress." Tuebor 44(February 1981): 3.

Panyard, Christine. "Alcohol: A Danger to Health, Career,
Family". Tuebor 44(March 1981): 3, 5.

PENDERGRASS, Virginia, and Ostrove, Nancy. "A Survey of
Stress in Women in Policing." Journal of Police

Science ehd Administratieh 12(September 1984): 303—
309.

 

Phillips, E. Lakin. StressI HealthI and Psycholegieel
Problems in the Major Professiohs. Washington D.C.:
University Press of America, 1982.

POOLE, Eric; Regoli, Robert; and Lotz, Roy. "Linkages
Between Professionalism, Work Alienation, and Cynicism
in Large and Small Police Departments." Social Science

Quarterly 59(December 1978): 525-534.

Ready, Timothy. "So Your Husband is a Police Officer."
Police Chief (February 1979):40—41.

Reese, James. "Life In the High—Speed Lane: Managing Police
Burnout." The Police Chief (June 1982): 49-53.

REGOLI, Robert M., and POOLE, Eric D. "Measurement of
Police Cynicism: A Factor Scaling Approach", Journel
of Qriminal Justice 7(January 1979): 37-51.

Reiser, Martin. Police Psychology. Los Angeles: LEHI
Publishing Company, 1982.

Reiser, Martin. "The Problems of Police Officer’s Wives.’
Police Chief (April 1978): 38-42.

Reiser, Martin. "Some Organizational Stresses on
Policemen." Journal of Police Science and

Adminietnetigm 2(February 1974): 156-159.

RENNE, Karen. "Correlates of Dissatisfaction in Marriage.”
Journal of Marriage and the Family (February 1970):
54-67.

 

 

Rogers, Donald W. "Police Marriages Need Special Handling."
Law and Order 32/6 (June 1984): 8, 57.

Royce, James E. Alcohol Problems and Alcoholism. New York:
The Free Press, 1981.

241

Schaefer, Robert. "The Stress of Police Promotion." EDl_Dem

Enforcemeht Emiletie (May 1983): 3-6.

Schreiber, F. Barry, and Seitzinger, Jack. "The Stress
Pressure Cooker: A Comprehensive Model of Stress

Management." Ihe Eolice thef 52(February 1985): 40,
45—49.

Schwartz, Jeffery, and Schwartz, Cynthia. "The Personal
Problems of the Police Officer: A Plea for Action."
Job Streee and the Police Officer. Washington D.C.: US
Government Printing Office, 1975.

Selye, Hans. "Stress of Police Work." The Police Chief
1(January 1978): 7—8.

SEWELL, James. "Police Stress." FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin (April 1981): 7-11.

Shaw, Robert A. ”Stress As It Really Exists In A Small
Agency." Law and Order 31/3 (March 1983): 50-53.

Shuman, I. Gayle. "Stress: An Overview." Crimina Justice
Career Digest 2(November 1982): 14.

SILBERT, Mimi. ”Job Stress and Burnout of New Police
Officers." Ihe Police Chiefi (June 1982): 46-48.

SINGLETON, Gary, and TEAHAN, John. "Effects of Job Related
Stress On the Physical and Psychological Adjustments
of Police Officers." Journal of Police Science and
Administratiom 6(March 1978): 355-361.

Somodevilla, S.A.. "The Psychologist’s Role in the Police
Department." The Poliee Chief 45(April 1978): 21-23.

Souryal, Sam. "The Kojack Syndrome: Meeting the Problem of
Police Dissatisfaction Through Job Enrichment." The

Belice thei 48(June 1981): 60-64.

Stabenau, James R. "Implications of Family History of
Alcoholism, Antisocial Personality, and Sex
Differences in Alcohol Dependence". American Jourhel
of Psychiatry 141/10(October 1984): 1178-1182.

Stratton, John. "Pressures In Law Enforcement Marriages."
The Police Chief 42(November 1975): 44-47.

 

 

Stratton, John. "Police Stress: An Overview." The Police
thef (April 1978): 58-62.

Stratton, John. "The Police Professional: Another
Perspective.“ Law and Order 26(September 1978): 20-
23,79.

242

Stratton, John, and Pitchess, Peter. "The Police
Professional: Another Perspective." Law and Ordem
26(September 1978): 16-18, 20-23, 79. '

Stratton, John, and Wroe, Brian. "Alcohol: A Dilemma for
Some, Part I." Law and Order (September 1980): 76-79.

Stratton, John. ”Alcoholism Programs for Police: Part II."
Law and Order (October 1980): 18, 20.

Stratton, John; and Wroe, Brian. "Alcoholism and the
Policeman". FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 48(1979): 20—

23.

Symonds, Martin. "Emotional Hazards of Police Work."
Ameriaan_dgnrnal_gf_fisyshaanalysis 30(February 1970):
155-160.

Terry, W. Clinton. "Police Stress: The Empirical Evidence."
Journal of Police Science and Administration 9(March
1981): 61-75.

TIFFT, Larry L. "The ‘Cops Personality’ Reconsidered.”
Jourhal of Eelice Science and Administretieh 2/3
(1974): 266-278.

 

Tipps, David. "Behind Every Good Cop." Law and Order 32/11
(November 1984): 54-60.

Trojanowicz, Robert. "Loss A Tragic Reminder of Police

Risks.” Michigeh Eolice Chiefe Newslettep (May 1988):
24.

Unkovic, Charles, and Brown, William. "The Drunken Cop."
The Police Chief (April 1978): 18-20.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Ihe
Whole College Catalog About Drinking. Rockville, MD:

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,
1977.

Van Maanen, John. "Police Socialization: A Longitudinal
Examination of Job Attitudes in an Urban Police
Department." edminietrative Science Quarterly
20(1975): 207-228.

VAN MAANEN, John, and KATZ, Ralph. "Police Perceptions of
Their Work Environment: An Exploratory Study Into
Organization Space and Time." Sociology of Work and
Occmpations 6(February 1979): 31—58.

VAN RAALTE, Ronald. "Alcohol As A Problem Among Officers."
The Police Chief (February 1979): 38-39.

.243

Vastola, Anthony. "The Police Personality: An Alternative
Explanatory Model." Police Chief (April 1978): 50-52.

Veninga, Robert 1., and Spradley, James P. The Work/Stress

Connection Boston/Toronto: Little, Brown and Company,
1981.

Violanti, John. ”Police Stress: A Conceptual Model.” Eeliee
Streee (February 1982): 26-27.

Wagner, Marcia, and Brzeczek, Richard. "Alcoholism and
Suicide: A Fatal Connection.“ FBI Law Enforeemeht
Belletin (August 1983): 8—15.

Webb, Stephen, and Smith, David. "Police Stress: A
Conceptual Overview." Journal of Criminal Justice
8(1980): 251—257.

WENZ, Friedrich. ”Death Anxiety Among Law Enforcement
Officers.“ Journal of Police Science and
Administratioh 7:2(June 1979): 230-235.

Williams, Kenneth. Before You Drink...Khow the Fects_ehemt

Alcohol Uee. Birmingham, MI: Junior League of
Birmingham, a flyer.

WILT, G. Marie, and BANNON, James D. "Cynicism or Realism:
A Critique of Niederhoffer’s Research into Police
Attitudes." demrnal of Police Science and
Adminietration 4 (1976): 38-45.

Wowk, Mike. "EX‘COP Suicides Soar." Police Stress (July—
August 1982): 38-39.

Wowk, Mike. "The Street Cop: 99 Percent Boredom, One
Percent Terror." The Detroit News, 31 May 1981, sec.
E: P. 1E, 6E.

HICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
mWI“HIIWIHNIWNWWW”WIN”HI
31293007883683