Trauma-Informed Policing and Building Trust

Crisis intervention is commonly defined as “emergency first aid for mental health.”⁸ One explanation of crisis intervention invokes two Chinese characters to help illustrate the tension between the critical or dangerous events as they unfold and the simultaneous opportunity for change.⁹

Trauma is defined by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) as “an event, series of events, or set of circumstances that is experienced by an individual as physically or emotionally harmful or life threatening and that has lasting adverse effects on the individual’s functioning and mental, physical, social, emotional, or spiritual well-being.”¹⁰

Trauma informed, as recognized by SAMHSA, implies a program, organization, or system that “realizes the widespread impact of trauma and understands potential paths for recovery; recognizes the signs and symptoms of trauma in clients, families, staff, and others involved with the system; and responds by fully integrating knowledge about trauma into policies, procedures, and practices, and seeks to actively resist retraumatization.”¹¹

Trauma-informed leadership is the convergence of trauma-informed concepts with commonly recognized leadership skills and philosophies to produce a more effective and enduring result than before. Succinctly, the framework involves coping with childhood, dealing with crisis, and leading with conviction.

Framework

Defining the Challenge: Coping with Childhood

“If you accept the expectations of others, especially negative ones, then you never will change the outcome.”

—–Michael Jordan¹²

Knowledge of ACEs

The first leg of the trauma-informed policing framework begins with understanding the lifelong challenges associated with adverse childhood experiences.

In 1998, medical doctors found widespread exposure to 10 commonly reported ACEs had a high correlation with disease, quality of life, and mortality risk factors.¹³ As the CDC later confirmed through its research, an average of 1 in 6 adults reported having 4 or more of the original 10 ACEs. The percentages are even higher for children living in nonparental care or under the care of a child welfare system.¹⁴

Since then, researchers have demonstrated that toxic stress compounds ACEs and leads to impaired decision-making, a lack of impulse control, the adoption of risky behaviors, and an “early onset of disease, disability, and death.”¹⁵ Not surprisingly, behaviors leading to the commission of crimes, particularly violent crimes, are directly related to the childhood trauma and ACEs too many children face regularly.

Researchers found that “90% of juvenile offenders in the United States [have experienced] some sort of traumatic event in childhood, and up to 30% of justice-involved American youth … meet the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder due to trauma experienced during childhood.”¹⁶ Too often, once individuals enter the criminal justice system, the probability they continue to encounter the system increases.

In January 2016, a study was conducted that focused on the precursors of crime in Jackson, Mississippi. It sought to explain or provide insight into an increase of crime, specifically homicides committed by juveniles, not seen since the mid-1990s.¹⁷

The study found adolescents “who acted criminally had heavy exposure to poverty, to violence and other crime (as victims and witnesses), and ‘street justice.’” In addition, “an individual arrested as an adult in Hinds County or Jackson is 240% more likely to have dropped out of school at some point, 160% more likely to have been involved in the juvenile justice system, and 67% more likely to have been chronically absent while enrolled in school.”¹⁸

These findings demonstrate the increased challenges society faces as a result of ACEs.

Potential Among Law Enforcement

On average, the CDC reports 1 in 7 children will suffer abuse or neglect,¹⁹ and 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men will experience sexual abuse during childhood.²⁰ These statistics do not exclude law enforcement officers.

Agencies must understand and expect that a similar percentage of their officers have experienced the same or similar ACEs as other individuals. That means they are equally at risk for impaired decision-making, a lack of impulse control, the adoption of risky behaviors, and an “early onset of disease, disability, and death.”²¹ In short, they are in a state of crisis.

Likewise, that means law enforcement officers potentially experience mental health challenges at the same percentage as those in the ACE studies. Consequently, when agencies speak of the need for trauma-informed leadership to build trust, often the individuals needing that help and trust are within a department’s ranks.

What often impedes effective reforms and intervention programs are the historical models of and responses to trauma on all sides of the equation. From the perspective of the officers, those who understand their own experiences and challenges with ACEs can more easily move from asking the typical questions of “What did you do?” or “What’s wrong with you?” during the fact-gathering stage to questions such as “What happened to you?” or “What is (or was) your childhood like?”

This shift in approach can provide insights that will make a difference in successfully resolving the service call if the officers are open to listening to the answers provided.

Developing the Process: Dealing with Crises

“You cannot shame or belittle people into changing their behaviors.”

—Brené Brown²²

The second leg of trauma-informed policing involves developing simple processes and procedures for dealing with a person in crisis.

Since the deinstitutionalization of state mental health hospitals in the 1970s, police have reported increased interaction with individuals experiencing mental health illnesses. Often, these challenges are exacerbated by homelessness, poverty, and unemployment.²³

To address these challenges, the first Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) was created in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1998. Consequently, crisis intervention is typically associated with assisting individuals who have a diagnosed or undiagnosed mental illness. The CIT model places heavy emphasis on developing partnerships, providing training, and reviewing law enforcement’s policies and procedures.²⁴

While the CIT model has proven an effective tool, not every officer is CIT trained, nor is there always time to request a CIT response during a potential crisis. Further, most officers are not trained as social workers or equipped with extensive de-escalation training.

Instead, officers are required to deal with and resolve the potential crisis based on their inherent skills or basic academy training. Ironically, every encounter or service call provides the opportunity for a crisis in which the officer must intervene.

If law enforcement desires to have good relations with the community (i.e., build trust) and implement violence-intervention alternatives (i.e., be trauma informed), then three challenges must be considered: 1) amount of time required for crisis-related calls, 2) officers’ attitudes toward individuals exhibiting mental health-related behaviors, and 3) prevalence of ACEs in both subjects and officers.

Time Needed for Calls

Research has confirmed that mental illness-related calls where the person is demonstrating schizophrenia or other disorders, such as bipolar, depressive, anxiety, cognitive, and substance abuse, are time intensive for police.²⁵ Due to the time commitment, the potential for violence, and the pressure to respond to the next call, these interactions often result in higher levels of force, especially by untrained or inexperienced officers.²⁶

The use of force should not be a surprise given the inherent increased stress. Research has shown “subjects with mental illnesses were more likely to possess a weapon than subjects without apparent mental illnesses (42.9% v. 4.9%).”²⁷

Successful resolution requires officers to effectively listen to what is being said or not said, gather as much information as quickly as possible, and find an equitable solution to resolve the crisis.²⁸ However, as noted, the presence and history of ACEs can lead to impaired decision making, a lack of impulse control, and the adoption of risky behaviors by both subject and officer, which also heightens the stress and can limit an officer’s options.

Typically, an officer’s options during a call involving an individual with a potential mental health issue are arrest, referral to a mental health facility, transport for an involuntary psychiatric evaluation, or an informal (mutually agreeable) resolution.²⁹ If the interaction between the subject and officer devolves to physical or verbal resistance by the subject, then the potential for force by the officer increases 20- or 4-fold, respectively.³⁰

Finding the best solution that involves the right de-escalation techniques, avoids the use of excessive force, and results in transportation to a mental health facility instead of incarceration is a challenge, especially for individuals officers encounter regularly, often due to a lack of mental health resources.³¹

Attitudes of Officers

The intersection of mental health challenges and police officer attitudes is best demonstrated when dealing with people under the age of 18. Researchers found nearly 20% of adolescents involved with the juvenile justice system have a mental health problem, approximately twice the rate found in the general youth population.³² Given that ACEs, which include mental health issues, can result in displaying antisocial or high-risk behaviors, the cycle between youths and police officers seems unabated and destined to continue from generation to generation.³³

ACEs in Subjects and Officers

How does understanding ACEs help achieve a successful resolution to a crisis? The answer can be found by examining research results pertaining to CIT-trained officers. One study found that approximately 80% of CIT officers reported they knew at least two people with mental illness, and over 90% said they knew a person who recovered from mental illness. Further, 16% of CIT-trained officers self-disclosed they had received mental health assistance.³⁴ In other words, they had firsthand experience with ACEs and the potential for problems.

Not surprisingly, officers personally familiar with individuals dealing with mental health issues had a more positive attitude toward persons they encountered with mental illness.³⁵ Consequently, officers who were CIT trained were more likely than their non-CIT-trained counterparts to make referrals, follow up with a doctor or caseworker, or provide information about available community resources. In addition, reports of the use of force were fewer among CIT-trained officers than non-CIT-trained officers, and CIT-trained officers were more likely to use de-escalation and active listening techniques to resolve a crisis.³⁶

In summary, these findings regarding crisis intervention principles demonstrate a willingness to 1) communicate a different set of expectations in dealing with individuals suffering from mental health illnesses and ACE-related behaviors and 2) embrace the inherent vulnerability associated with seeking a different, less certain outcome focusing on treatment rather than resulting in arrest.

CIT-trained officers exemplify the paradigm shift from asking questions such as “What’s wrong with you?” to asking questions like “What happened to you?” All officers willing to explore the connection between ACEs and crisis intervention training can increase their tools for an effective and satisfying resolution and be on track for becoming trauma-informed leaders.

Discovering the Difference: Leading with Conviction

“Leadership is not a position or a title; it is action and example.”

—Senator Cory Booker³⁷

The framework for trauma-informed policing is complete with the principle of leading with conviction.

Leading with conviction means understanding that people are shaped and conditioned by their past experiences and that their decisions are not made in a vacuum. It means leaders engage people where they are, not where they wish they were.

Leading with conviction means understanding people’s expectations of themselves and others is influenced by early childhood relationships and affects their ability to be resilient during times of crisis.

Leading with conviction means understanding past paradigms and methods must change with the acquisition of new information, especially when it better ensures the building of trust and the elevating of people, regardless of their circumstances or status in life.

Law enforcement officers, by nature of their profession, frequently see people at their worst. Too often, these interactions occur during a crisis or require a crisis intervention. Applying the knowledge of ACEs and the positive results obtained by CITs, all officers, regardless of rank, can lead with conviction if they communicate expectations and embrace vulnerability.³⁸

Benefits of a New Paradigm

If, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, CITs can reduce: 1) officer injuries by up to 80%, 2) the number of service calls for mental health issues, and 3) a community’s costs by over 60%, then such a model should benefit everyone when CIT trauma-informed principles are applied during crises.³⁹

The antithesis of trauma-informed leadership is toxic leadership.

Toxic leaders shame, humiliate, or coerce their employees to take actions or stop taking actions because the leader has created a hostile and threatening environment. Instead of working in harmony and promoting the success of others, employees who are scared stop speaking up out of fear or the need for self-preservation, belittle other people’s ideas, or spread rumors and misinformation to gain an advantage. Predictably, in such an environment, toxic leaders stop rewarding exceptional performance and instead highlight average performance or promote their lackeys.⁴⁰

A trauma-informed approach to leadership can remove the barriers often created by shame, humiliation, or coercion.

Journey Toward a Better Approach

In 1990, the Harvard Business Review (HBR) published an article by John Kotter that was instrumental in the revitalization of the leadership movement. In essence, he was the first to claim leadership is teachable, can be learned, and is not reserved for just a few people with special skills.⁴¹ A 1996 HBR article by Daniel Goleman started the emotional intelligence movement. Goleman stressed that “people who want to become leaders have to be motivated to want to take on hard and difficult work.”⁴² Both articles confirm that the principles supporting trauma-informed leadership are teachable by leaders motivated to put in the effort.

Interestingly, although trauma-informed leadership appears new or different, the foundations of this movement have been hiding in plain sight among the traditional leadership philosophies. One author surveyed the history and state of leadership and found there were five primary attributes widely understood as constituting effective leadership: “modesty, authenticity, truthfulness, trustworthiness, and concern for the welfare of others.”⁴³

While critical of “leaders” who sell inspirational and comfortable promises and stories without any substance or evidence that their ideas work,⁴⁴ the author inadvertently demonstrates that these five common leadership traits are only truly effective when seen through a trauma-informed lens. Trauma-informed leadership requires seeing people with fresh eyes and in a fresh light without prejudice or bias.

Trauma-informed leadership is, in many ways, an extension of three widely understood, if imperfectly practiced, leadership styles: transformational, ethical, and servant.

Transformational leadership is “characterized by inspirational leaders who motivate employees through the achievement of group or organizational goals.” Leaders who practice this style are usually inspirational in their message and motivate people through a shared vision. Such leaders value creativity that promotes intellectual challenges and discussions. They strive to develop their followers through engaging them regularly by exploring personal and professional interests.⁴⁵

Ethical leadership is “characterized by leaders influencing followers by demonstrating moral and ethical behavior.” Being an ethical leader does not imply perfection, but these individuals’ motives are usually altruistic and not self-serving. How results are obtained is more important than doing whatever it takes to acquire them. Such leaders are honest, treat people fairly, and tend to motivate employees by working hard and demonstrating loyalty to a company or cause.⁴⁶

Servant leadership is “a holistic leadership approach that engages followers in multiple dimensions (e.g., relational, ethical, emotional, spiritual), such that they are empowered to grow into what they are capable of becoming.” Servant leaders also seek to develop followers with altruistic and ethical motives. They emphasize the importance of being authentic and true to oneself and others and are driven by a higher calling based on a strong desire to serve other people.⁴⁷

Challenges

During a time of great crisis, people desire great leadership. Some say that the two are inextricably linked and that a crisis provides an opportunity for great leadership to be displayed.⁴⁸ Similar to a lump of coal put under extreme pressure to transform it into a diamond, so goes the argument that stress molds a person into a great leader.

If stress is the precursor to great leadership, then every officer can become a great leader. In the law enforcement profession, each service call can be one bad decision away from a potential crisis. Implementing a trauma-informed paradigm requires the public, politicians, and senior officers to appreciate that rank-and-file officers are most likely dealing with 1) their own historical trauma stemming from ACEs, 2) vicarious trauma resulting from their interactions with volatile events or horrific violence, or 3) compassion fatigue from witnessing years of trauma that robbed them of empathy toward others.⁴⁹

Law enforcement officers could also have higher levels of stress because of the threats and challenges they may encounter within their own organization. As reported by the NIJ, when officers are adamant they will not seek mental health treatment out of fear of retaliation or demotion, they are experiencing an additional source of stress instead of support. Without the proper support, these officers are dealing with their personal crisis alone and may need a trauma-informed intervention themselves.

Because of the role law enforcement plays in society, many people believe there is no room for mistakes on the part of officers. They are expected to have an exemplary reputation that is considered necessary to build trust. This unrealistic expectation can be a significant source of stress and drain a person’s psychological resources, leading to emotional exhaustion and poor performance over time.⁵⁰

Bridging the Gap

Whether one practices a positive model, such as transformational-, ethical-, or servant-based leadership, or any of the other positive models, all leaders must be both ethical and effective.

During a crisis or the need for crisis intervention, law enforcement leaders should understand that the events leading to the crisis are often based on a complete life history, not the heat of the moment. How officers respond during those critical moments is influenced, if not defined, by the policies, procedures, and practices written, implemented, and enforced by senior leaders.

Bridging the gap between the traditional leadership models and trauma-informed leadership means the whole system of how things have been done may need to change. This means that policies, procedures, and practices must conform to SAMSHA’s guidance.

A program, organization, or system that is trauma-informed realizes the widespread impact of trauma and understands potential paths for recovery; recognizes the signs and symptoms of trauma in clients, families, staff, and others involved with the system; responds by fully integrating knowledge about trauma into policies, procedures, and practices; and seeks to actively resist re-traumatization.⁵¹

Conclusion

“We see the world, not as it is, but as we are — or, as we are conditioned to see it.”⁵² Regardless of who we are, our background, or our best intentions, we have all been conditioned to see the world and its problems a certain way. Changing that paradigm to see the world as it really is can be hard, but change is necessary.

In today’s environment where an officer’s split-second decisions can be broadcast around the world and result in protests and riots, implementing a trauma-informed approach to policing will help build relationships, resilience, and trust within departments and communities.

A trauma-informed approach to leadership is a step in the right direction for successful policing in the 21st century.