Chief’s counsel: Using an early intervention system to promote officer wellness

Reprinted from Police Chief, Vol. 92, No. 4, pages 16‐18, 2025. Copyright held by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc., 44 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 200, Alexandria, VA 22314. Further reproduction without express permission from IACP is strictly
prohibited.

By Ann C. Maskaleris

Recent surveys and studies indicate a notable percentage of police officers experience and are affected by job-related stress and anxiety, in addition to stress stemming from personal matters.[1] These stressors can affect officer wellness — both physical and mental health — and, in turn, contribute to problematic job-related conduct and performance.[2] Those issues complicate an agency’s ability to promote effective and accountable policing and improve officers’ performance.

An issue for chief executives, then, is how agency leaders can proactively identify officers’ potential future at-risk behavior and its cause(s) and then collaboratively intervene to help them before risky conduct escalates. One solution is utilizing a digital performance management and reporting tool that contains an early intervention system (EIS) or early warning system component.

An EIS is a data-driven tracking and alert system.[3] When properly implemented and used, it detects trends and spikes in an officer’s professional conduct and behavior over a specified time period and helps predict the risk of future adverse conduct. The system then alerts agency supervisors, who can identify issues with an officer and address the root cause(s) of those issues to help reduce future at-risk behavior.[4] A digital EIS tool efficiently centralizes, consolidates, and tracks performance data for analysis and alerts leadership in a way a paper-based system cannot.[5]

An EIS operates by monitoring officer-specific data entered by agency personnel into the platform for selected data points (performance indicators). Measurable data points may include internal affairs complaints, use-of-force incidents, vehicle pursuits, field stops, vehicle accidents, damage to department property, highly emotional events (job-related and personal), lawsuits and investigations, search warrants served, average hours worked and sick time used.[6] The EIS tracks those statistical data points over a selected time period.[7] It flags trends and spikes on those data points, as a whole, for the time period for each officer and then triggers an electronic notification to a selected supervisor. That supervisor can then review and evaluate the reported behavioral patterns, address an officer’s performance issues and their root causes, and form a going-forward remediation plan.[8]

|RELATED: Wellness program offers two-week sabbatical to allow officers to access professional counseling

Different varieties of EIS systems exist.[9] For example, one type generates a notification based on the frequency or number of events that occur. A different system accounts for the frequency and seriousness of events based on the data points and formulates a risk score, which generates a notification to the supervisor once a customized threshold is met.

Significantly, an EIS is not punitive.[10] Rather, it helps agency leaders identify problematic officer conduct based on patterns to proactively support officers through remedial measures, not discipline.[11] Root causes of concerning officer performance will vary and require case-by-case solutions, and follow-up support may include training, policy compliance, accountability and/or wellness resources. But “[a]n EIS is only as effective as the specific support that it is intended to deliver.”[12]

EISs are not new tools. During the 1980s, paper-based systems were referenced in case law and recommended by a federal commission.[13] Using an EIS was first required of an agency by a 1997 consent decree.[14]

Recently, state lawmakers have recognized the various benefits of EISs to officers, agencies and the public. As of January 2025, five states — Maryland, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina and Utah — have laws requiring agencies to implement and use an EIS.[15] Kentucky agencies, at their discretion, may include an EIS as part of a wellness program to support members’ “mental health and well-being.”[16] A New Jersey Attorney General Directive requires agencies to use an EIS.[17] Notably, a New Jersey officer’s prior or current employing agency must notify a subsequent employing agency of the officer’s EIS review history and outcomes.[18] In 2023, Georgia introduced legislation requiring that agencies adopt an EIS.[19] In addition, several states’ accreditation authorities enacted standards regarding agencies’ use of EISs.[20]

One driver for the Utah law, supported by the state police chiefs’ association, was officer mental health wellness.[21] Indeed, EISs have been described by a state legislator as a “best practice” and by a Florida agency as an “essential component of a well-managed” agency.[22]

All told, agencies should proactively evaluate implementing a digital performance management tool with an EIS component before it’s required by law or accreditation standards to mitigate an agency’s risk and increase support to officers. Risk pools and agency associations may be helpful in securing available grants or other funding for an EIS.[23] Ultimately, recognizing the need for these systems and realizing the rewards of early intervention — holistic officer and agency wellness, accountability to the public and performance excellence in policing — are accomplished at the agency level.[24]

Command Staff - Chiefs / Sheriffs

Early intervention systems offer the power to identify struggling officers as well as high performers

By mining their own data, departments can pinpoint issues, save careers and better serve communities

May 02, 2022 02:04 PM

Read next

Notes

1. Zoe Russek and Dylan Fitzpatrick, Early Intervention Systems, Science in Service of Cities (UChicago Crime Lab 2021), iv; Jasmón Bailey, “Racial and Equity Impact Note: 2021 Maryland Police Reform Proposals” (Maryland General Assembly, Department of Legislative Services, 2021),10.
2. Russek and Fitzpatrick, Early Intervention Systems, ii, iv.
3. “S.B. 124 Law Enforcement Officer Amendments,” Hearing before the Utah Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee (video), February 1, 2023.
4. “Makes Various Changes Related to Public Safety,” Hearing Before the Nevada Senate Committee on the Judiciary, March 31, 2021;State of New Jersey, Office of the Attorney General, “Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive No. 2018-3,” March 30, 2018; Russek and Fitzpatrick, Early Intervention Systems, ii.
5. Michael Ranalli, “Tracking Officer Performance—From Hiring Through Employment,” Lexipol Blog, October 8, 2024.
6. NV Rev Stat § 289.823 (2024); “Makes Various Changes Related to Public Safety,”; “Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive No. 2018-3”; Development of Law Enforcement Early Intervention System, NC General Statutes §17F-10; Russek and Fitzpatrick, Early Intervention Systems, iii.
7. Russek and Fitzpatrick, Early Intervention Systems, iii; “Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive No. 2018-3.”
8. Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive No. 2018-3”; Russek and Fitzpatrick, Early Intervention Systems, iii.
9. Russek and Fitzpatrick, Early Intervention Systems, iii.
10. MD Public Safety Code § 3-516 (2024); “Makes Various Changes Related to Public Safety,”
11. “Makes Various Changes Related to Public Safety”; Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive No. 2018-3.”
12. Russek and Fitzpatrick, Early Intervention Systems, vi.
13. Bonsignore v. City of New York, 683 F.2d 635, 637 (2d Cir. 1982); Russek and Fitzpatrick, Early Intervention Systems, i.
14. United States v. City of Pittsburgh, No. 2:97-cv-00354 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 1997).
15. MD Public Safety Code § 3-516; NRS § 289.823; NC General Statutes § 17F-10; SC Code § 23-23-85 (2024); UT Code § 53-14-201 (2024), et seq.
16. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 15.409(2) (2024).
17. Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive No. 2018-3,”
18. Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive No. 2018-3,”
19. GA HB 112 (2023).
20. See, e.g., Georgia – GLECP 6.1, 6.2, 7.0; Indiana – ILEAC 2.2.3; Massachusetts – MPAC 35.1.8; Michigan – EAC 2.2.3; Wisconsin – WILEAG 2.5.8.
21. “S.B. 124 Law Enforcement Officer Amendments.”
22. 2023 UT S.B. 124, UT Senate, 2023 General Session, Day 28 (2/13/23), Senate Floor Audio (statements by Sen. Escamilla); Thomas v. City of Jacksonville, 2015 WL 13284967, *10 (M.D. Fla. 2/17/15) (unpublished).
23. See, e.g., UT Code § 53-14-203 (Early Intervention System Grant Program).
24. 2023 UT S.B. 124, Law Enforcement Officer Amendments.

About the author
Ann C. Maskaleris is an attorney on the Legal Analysis & Policy Development Team at Lexipol. Her prior experience includes 20+ years specializing in civil appeals, in both private practice and the public sector, in Chicago, Illinois. She’s experienced in representing state-level public safety agencies before state and federal reviewing courts.