7

Possible Future Directions

The conclusion of this workshop identified reflections and key takeaways from the two days of presentations and discussions. Perspectives were offered by members of the planning committee; leaders representing law enforcement and correctional practitioners (see Chapter 6); and Kevin Scott, who serves as principal deputy director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the sponsoring agency of this workshop. Themes below for future directions emerged from the workshop’s presentations and discussions.

COMMITTEE REFLECTIONS

Each member of the planning committee moderated a session and/or made a presentation. The committee also participation in the discussion after each session. Their reflections below are summarized by themes that emerged in the final session of the workshop.

Stigma and Reporting Bias

Natasha Frost (Northeastern University) described extensive discussions among the planning committee when prioritizing topics for the workshop about whether the denial of benefits incentivizes not reporting an officer death by suicide, especially in an occupation where brotherhood is very strong and taking care of a decedent’s family is paramount. She elaborated that the denial of death benefits to a family exacerbates stigma and suffering. Frost reiterated her contention, “We would not be here [to discuss

new collections] if we did not think officer suicide was a distinct form of suicide and the regular predictors pertained.” She observed that the discussions over the past two days indicate that there may be additional factors that explain officer suicide.

Brandon del Pozo (Brown University) concurred with Frost about the impact of stigma once an officer has died by suicide. For example, post-traumatic stress disorder is still being considered as to whether it constitutes cause for a line-of-duty death. But if a law enforcement officer has a heart attack at home after a traumatic incident at work or accumulation of stress, this is considered a line-of-duty death. Another tension del Pozo identified in the workshop is that, while researchers want and need measurement to be rigorous, practitioners want “enough to go on” and to take action today.

Role of Lived Experiences

Jennifer Rineer (RTI International) echoed an earlier discussion by Ojmarrh Mitchell (University of California, Irvine) about work and personal factors; she suggested more examination of resources and strategies that reduce work and personal stress. Specifically, what organizational solutions improve coping mechanisms that can reduce these stressors? She also emphasized the importance of trust for both practitioners and researchers moving forward. Rineer also questioned how to incorporate the voices and perspectives of those most impacted and how to get their full participation in planning these approaches to measuring law enforcement suicide.

Janice Iwama (American University) echoed that lived experience is important for providing context when understanding law enforcement suicide. She noted that, while researchers seek to identify risk factors, it is important to not lose sight of and to remain respectful of the narratives and humans behind these horrific incidents.

John Violanti (University at Buffalo) explained that storytelling is powerful for conveying how someone moved from a normal mental health existence to thinking about suicide. He shared a vignette from public health scholar William Foege, who asked workers building a cathedral what they were doing. They responded:

Violanti cautioned that researchers should never lose sight of the fact that, although they are brick and mortar builders, the goal is to prevent law enforcement suicide. He stated that it is important to “always remember that families and friends who lose someone to suicide are not concerned

about ‘epidemiology or surveillance.’” These databases are akin to the building blocks to help prevent this problem.

Frost emphasized not losing sight of lived experience by sharing a statement from a sister of a correctional officer who died by suicide, whom she interviewed in her research: “That’s what really bothered me when I thought about it. I remember that day thinking ‘we need to do something and probably need to admit him,’ but this is the truth, and I’m just being honest, ‘we can’t—his job, his job’...” [this was on the day he died by suicide]. Frost explained, “Even when family members recognize their loved one needs help, they are worried about the officer’s job and career loss associated with seeking help.”

Conflicting Disciplines

Vickie M. Mays (University of California, Los Angeles) remarked that she felt a tension between public health and criminology during the workshop. She is worried that suicide is understood and studied under the auspices of one group, it is being measured by another group, and what happens about it is in another group. She observed that it seems as though public health is concerned about interventions; whereas statistical agencies are concerned about counting suicide accurately, but do not have a “direct foot into the intervention side.” In closed systems such as the military, Mays contended, research can turn into action more quickly.

Congress should also have a requirement to measure but also address, change, and impact the problem of suicide. Mays argued that the current resources and culture do not support this feedback loop. She observed that there was discussion about how to get “perfect data” as opposed to the “best data for change.” She referenced the compelling vision Groves articulated for a data infrastructure that makes her question, “How do we move this from a culture of documentation into a culture of change?”

Joel Greenhouse (Carnegie Mellon University) explained that he also saw these conflicting disciplines. As the committee began its work and he (as a biostatistician) was learning about measurement of law enforcement suicide, he observed a lack of integration of effort across the different agencies and data collections, and what appeared to be a lack of coordination among the various relevant congressional authorizations. Reflecting positively on this workshop, Greenhouse noted how it “brought all of the stakeholders together—perhaps for the first time—to learn from each other about what is being done and how to advance the field in a coordinated way.”

SPONSOR AGENCY REFLECTIONS

Kevin Scott (BJS) thanked the planning committee for its double duty of not only planning the workshop but also contributing substantively. He explained that, from the first day he approached the Committee on National Statistics, the goal was to understand the current state of and opportunities for improvement in measuring both suicide itself—for law enforcement officers, correctional officers, and dispatchers—and its correlates. He acknowledged that there is a human element “to what is considered to be a suicide and whether it is associated with work pressures or personal pressures, which are intertwined.”

Scott referenced a point raised earlier by Frauke Kreuter (Joint Program in Survey Methodology) that the focus should be on things that can be solved. The problems immediately before BJS are (a) the measurement of suicide and its correlates; and (b) what can be done to improve the data in those two areas. Although the bureau is just getting started, Scott stated, these are core issues for BJS and the field of criminal justice. He speculated, “There are some places where BJS can contribute directly and other places where perhaps other entities such as [the National Institute of Justice] can fund research.”

There are also unique features to the cultures and communities of law enforcement and the personal factors of people who occupy these professions. Scott emphasized the importance of being mindful of these cultures and personal factors when we think about measurement and what levers can be adjusted (e.g., policies and employment/work–life balance) to improve working conditions for those who serve. Scott stated, “I hope this is the first event of BJS’s sustained involvement in not just measuring suicide but also the stress that adheres to working in the criminal justice system, for which suicide is obviously a significant manifestation.” This is an important reminder that suicide prevention is not only a system-level issue, but also a microlevel issue related to understanding patterns for reducing work stress and suicide. Scott concluded by stating that the collateral consequences of suicide are significant.

ADJOURNMENT

Co-chair Mays observed that this workshop illustrated the opportunities for partnership in many of the areas related to suicide measurement that currently operate in silos. Co-chair Greenhouse agreed and noted that the workshop served as a pivotal opportunity to engage stakeholders, break down silos, and learn about approaches for improving the measurement of law enforcement suicide.