Crisis Theory and Critical Incident Stress Debriefing in Law Enforcement

Law enforcement officers are exposed to far more traumatic events than the general population, including horrific accidents, shootings, homicides, suicides, and natural disasters. After critical incidents, and in departments, a professional is brought in to work with law enforcement to debrief from the traumatic event. Social workers who work with law enforcement officers should not limit themselves only to one intervention. Crisis theory is essential for social workers that support law enforcement in debriefing from a critical incident. This paper begins by first defining crisis theory, and then explores the use of Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) with law enforcement. It then describes some complicating factors with CISD as an evidenced based practice. Lastly, it examines the interventions’ strengths and weaknesses across different physical, social, and economic environments, including a discussion of the intervention’s inability to adequately engage diverse populations.

A crisis is defined in terms of experiencing and perceiving a traumatic event. Many years ago, a crisis was understood as something that happened to an individual when they experienced a traumatic event, rather than they handled the traumatic event (Ballou & Litwack, 1998). The start of Crisis Theory traces back to The Coconut Grove nightclub fire of 1942. Eric Lindemann, Alexandra Alder, and Gerald Caplan are psychiatrists that counseled and studied survivors and their families. Caplan’s research work results in the conceptualization of crisis, and the model of crisis intervention (Parikh & Morris, 2011). Crisis Theory seeks to describe what an individual experiences when they are in a crisis. This theory applies to the etiology and process of one specific event; the assumptions of the theory are compatible and similar to theories used in counseling and psychology. After a triggering event, individuals experience disequilibrium. Those who are in crisis experience feelings of hopelessness, confusion, anxiety, and reduction of functioning at home, work, and in their interpersonal lives. With the reduction of functioning, this may impact an individual’s previous coping mechanisms, resulting in a breakdown of coping (Parikh & Morris, 2011).

George Everly and Jeffrey Mitchell created Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) or formally known as the Mitchell Model, which has become the most well-known intervention for first responders who have been exposed to a critical event (Miller, 2006). Crisis Theory is the basis of the evidence based CISD intervention. It’s important to remember that critical incident is the actual event, but a crisis response is the presentation of an individual whose coping skills are overwhelmed and there is some form of impairment (Malcom, Perera, Sheehan, & Van Hasselt, 2005). Law enforcement may face an event that is above the range of ordinary stress that comes with the job, also known as a critical incident. There are many different types of critical incidents such as a death in the line of duty, serious injury to an officer, suicide of a police officer, traumatic death of children, a victim who is a family member or well known to the police officer, and a multiple casualty incident (Miller, 2006).

CISD is a highly structured group crisis intervention strategy that is typically done 2-14 days after a critical incident. The intervention consists of seven phases which include introduction, fact, thought, reaction, symptom, teaching, and re-entry (Burque, Baker, Van Hasselt, & Couwels, 2015). A team usually consists of peer first responders and mental health professionals. After a critical incident, a debriefing meeting occurs, which is typically three hours. The introduction phase focuses on confidentiality, what debriefing entails, and how this will not affect an individual’s job status. The fact phase allows participants to identify their roles during the traumatic event. The thought phase then follows, which allows the first responders to discuss their initial reactions to the incident. The reactions phases has participants share their current emotions and reactions to the incident. The symptoms phase gives the first responders an opportunity for any behavioral, physical, and emotional symptoms that occurred at the scene after the incident. Sixth, the teaching phase, the group leaders reassure the participants that the reactions they are experiencing are normal. During this phase, the participants are provided with the content on various stress management techniques. The seventh and last phase, re-entry, consists of a summary of the process and appropriate referral information for counseling services (Spitzer & Neely, 1993).

There are mixed conclusions about whether the Critical Incident Stress Debriefing is evidenced based. Some critics of CISD assert its meaning can be interpreted in various ways. The lack of clarity in the definition of debriefing also causes some confusion. An example of such is the use of debriefing as a therapy method rather than intervention during a critical event. Evidenced based researchers reviewed the methods of existing studies with CISD; they found several deficiencies, which include, small sample sizes, the studies are retrospective rather perspective and control groups are absent. Often, there are misunderstandings between CISD and Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM). CISM is a model, while CISD is an intervention within that model, so often times, this gets misinterpreted. Social workers are qualified on a multitude of levels to initiate, create, negotiate systems, and collaboratively work in creating a multidisciplinary service of crisis intervention to the law enforcement community. Social worker’s involvement in crisis intervention and employee assistance programs is common, but their collaboration with the law enforcement profession for intervention is less notable. With the law enforcement community becoming identified as a high-risk population, that may have to do with the lack of service programs. Including social workers that are trained in therapeutic intervention familiar with working with law enforcement is a great need with this population (Spitzer & Nelly, 1993).

Critical Incident Stress Debriefing minimally addresses cultural and social factors, but fails to address economic and environmental factors. Although there is not much research if CSID would work well across different cultures, Pasciak and Kelley (2003) pointed out that law enforcement in Western policing are typically pressured to conform to a masculine identity with characteristics of self-control, stoicism, and composure during and after critical incidents. These males that are socialized in Western society fail to prepare law enforcement to support their peers emotionally. There is a form of culture within the actual law enforcement field, which is characterized by pride and perfectionism, rigidity, the bond between officers, use of language (dispatch codes), and the focus of safety at work and home. With the implementation of CSID with law enforcement and such a closed culture, the intervention can often times be seen negatively, if not approached appropriately (Malcom et al., 2005). Further beneficial information would be useful when looking at CSID and its use with different cultures. Analyzing its effectiveness with different parts of areas such as culture in urban and rural areas along with studying the impact of midwestern culture versus the east or west coast. The lack of research on family history in law enforcement, and how effective CSID is with an officer that has multiple family members in law enforcement compared to an officer that is the first individual in law enforcement in their family would be helpful.

Young (2012), completed research on the effectiveness of stress debriefings and found that environmental factors between different law enforcement division such as patrol and investigator impacted the response at the debriefings. Due to investigations working with the most stressful units such as homicide and juveniles compared to patrol that work with less stressful incidents such as property crime could impact the effectiveness of the intervention. It would be beneficial to research more closely as to how CISD is applied to different environments such as witnessing a critical incident in a wealthy neighborhood versus a neighborhood that is in inner-city Chicago. Further beneficial information could be provided such as physical and economic factors. Interventions such as CISD meet the economic needs of police organizations, due to its overwhelming use with many police departments around the world (Pasciak & Kelley, 2013). Critical Incident Stress Debriefing often fails to consider the diversity of law enforcement officers. It would be beneficial to further discuss the impact CISD has on its use on law enforcement with diverse backgrounds. It would be useful to find out if this intervention would work well with officers with diverse backgrounds within the department. Currently, there is not much research on how CSID’s effectiveness relates to a law enforcement officers' ethnicity, religion, gender, race, physical abilities, or political beliefs. An individual’s ethnicity where they work, such as an African American man working in a predominantly Caucasian neighborhood would also be beneficial on studying diversity and CISD. Although there is some research briefly discussing male gender norms, there are no studies on females or gender orientation and how that impacts the effectiveness of CSID.

Crisis theory focuses on an individual’s experience during a crisis and how this crisis may cause some disequilibrium in their lives. Incorporating crisis theory and specifically Critical Incident Stress Debriefing into the law enforcement system helps the social worker understand the psychology behind the crisis and assisting in appropriate debriefing. This paper effectively defined crisis theory, and explored the use of Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) with law enforcement after a critical incident has occurred. It then described some complicating factors with CISD as an evidence-based practice. Lastly, it analyzed the interventions’ strengths and weaknesses across different physical, social, and economic environments, including a discussion of the intervention’s inability to adequately engage diverse populations. 

In conclusion, this paper has provided an in-depth exploration of crisis theory and its application in the context of Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) for law enforcement officers. By tracing the origins of crisis theory and examining the structure and implementation of CISD, we have gained insight into how this intervention aims to address the psychological impact of critical incidents on first responders. Additionally, the discussion of complicating factors and the lack of research on the effectiveness of CISD with diverse populations highlights the need for further examination and refinement of this intervention. Despite its shortcomings, incorporating crisis theory and CISD into law enforcement systems can provide valuable support to officers in processing traumatic events. Moving forward, it is essential to continue studying and adapting crisis interventions to better meet the diverse needs of law enforcement personnel.