Connect with us

Breaking News

Monopoly in Police Psychological Evaluations in New Jersey: Potential Conflicts and Concerns

Published

on

In New Jersey, the Institute for Forensic Psychology (IFP) has established itself as the dominant provider of psychological evaluations for law enforcement agencies. Founded in 1972, IFP has assessed over 100,000 individuals from more than 700 agencies, including most of New Jersey’s police departments. Its services include pre-employment evaluations, fitness-for-duty assessments, and promotional evaluations, making it a central player in the hiring and evaluation of law enforcement officers across the state. Dr. Lewis Schlosser, the chief psychologist at IFP, leads these evaluations.

The reliance on a single institution for such a critical function raises concerns over a potential conflict of interest. When one entity is responsible for evaluating the majority of law enforcement candidates in the state—and is being compensated by the departments it serves—questions naturally arise about the objectivity and accuracy of these assessments. Moreover, the impact of these evaluations extends beyond hiring decisions; they influence the overall quality and integrity of police forces throughout New Jersey.

Concerns Over Potential Conflicts of Interest

The exclusive use of IFP by most New Jersey police departments creates a scenario where an unchecked monopoly could lead to flawed hiring decisions. Psychological evaluations are intended to identify candidates who possess the mental and emotional stability required for the pressures of law enforcement. However, numerous reports suggest that the evaluations conducted by IFP may not be fulfilling that role effectively.

Candidates who are otherwise highly qualified—having passed physical, academic, and background requirements—have been disqualified solely due to negative psychological evaluations by IFP. In contrast, officers who successfully passed IFP’s evaluations have faced disciplinary actions, suspensions, and even terminations within their first few years of service. This raises fundamental questions about the accuracy and predictive value of these evaluations.

Incidents Highlighting Evaluation Accuracy

Several troubling patterns have emerged, suggesting that IFP’s evaluations may not accurately assess a candidate’s fitness for duty:

• Reports indicate that some officers who have been terminated for misconduct or incompetence had previously received positive psychological evaluations from IFP.

• Conversely, candidates who were rejected based on IFP’s findings have sought independent psychological evaluations that directly contradicted the institute’s conclusions, indicating possible flaws in the evaluation criteria or methodology.

• Multiple sources, including police union representatives and attorneys who handle civil service appeals, have described cases where candidates were mislabeled or miscategorized by IFP’s evaluations, despite having no history of psychological instability or behavioral issues.

Appeal Process and Legal Framework

In New Jersey, candidates who are disqualified from police service based on psychological evaluations have the right to appeal under the state’s Civil Service Act. The appeal process allows candidates to challenge disqualification decisions by presenting evidence, including independent psychological evaluations.

The New Jersey Civil Service Commission has, in some cases, reversed disqualifications after reviewing independent evaluations that contradicted IFP’s findings. This suggests that IFP’s evaluations may not always reflect a candidate’s true psychological fitness. For example:

• In the Matter of L.C. – A candidate for the New Jersey State Police was disqualified based on IFP’s evaluation. However, an independent psychologist’s report concluded that L.C. was fit for duty. The Civil Service Commission overturned the disqualification, citing insufficient evidence to support IFP’s conclusions.

• In the Matter of R.B. – After being disqualified due to psychological unfitness, R.B. obtained a contradictory independent evaluation and successfully appealed the decision, with the Civil Service Commission ruling that IFP’s conclusions lacked sufficient basis.

These cases underscore the subjectivity involved in psychological assessments and the importance of an independent review process to safeguard against flawed evaluations.

Theoretical Nature of Psychological Assessments

Psychology, as a field, is inherently more theoretical than empirical. While psychological evaluations are based on standardized tests and professional guidelines, the interpretation of results can vary significantly between evaluators. Personality traits, stress responses, and emotional stability are complex factors that cannot always be measured with clinical precision.

The subjective nature of psychological assessments means that two qualified psychologists could arrive at different conclusions about the same candidate. This raises a fundamental question: if psychology cannot provide a definitive answer about a candidate’s fitness for law enforcement, why should one institution have such significant influence over hiring decisions?

Recommendations for Ensuring Fairness and Accuracy

To address these concerns, several measures should be considered:

1. Diversify Evaluation Providers – Introducing multiple independent psychological assessment providers would create competition and reduce the potential for bias or conflicts of interest.

2. Implement Oversight Mechanisms – Establishing an independent state-level oversight body to review the consistency and accuracy of psychological evaluations would provide greater accountability.

3. Standardize Evaluation Criteria – Creating uniform guidelines for psychological evaluations across all police departments would reduce the variability in assessments and ensure consistency in hiring decisions.

4. Enhance the Appeals Process – Strengthening the civil service appeals process to allow for more thorough reviews of psychological disqualifications would help protect qualified candidates from unjust rejections.

Conclusion

The current monopoly held by the Institute for Forensic Psychology over police psychological evaluations in New Jersey presents serious concerns about fairness, accuracy, and accountability. When one institution controls such a critical aspect of law enforcement hiring, the risks of bias, flawed evaluations, and wrongful disqualifications increase. Introducing competition, enhancing oversight, and improving transparency in the evaluation process would help ensure that only the most qualified and capable candidates become police officers, thereby strengthening the integrity and professionalism of New Jersey’s law enforcement agencies.


Discover more from HUDTRUTH

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Breaking News

Brian Stack’s Sponsorship of Anti-Violence Bill Drips With Hypocrisy

Published

on

Trenton, NJ – State Senator Doug Steinhardt (R-Hunterdon/Warren) is spearheading legislation that would make New Jersey the first state in the nation to classify political violence as a hate crime. Standing beside him as a co-sponsor is none other than Sen. Brian Stack (D-Union City). At first glance, the partnership looks like bipartisan unity against extremism. But scratch beneath the surface, and Stack’s involvement is a glaring act of hypocrisy.

A Documented Record of Violence and Intimidation

For nearly two years, investigative journalists who have scrutinized Stack’s use of city resources and political machine tactics have reported being harassed, assaulted, and intimidated by his supporters. These aren’t vague allegations—they are backed by police complaints, arrests, summonses, and court records. While charges in some cases may have been dismissed, the very existence of such reports confirms that incidents serious enough to trigger police action did occur.

Stack himself is no stranger to physical altercations. His history includes documented incidents of violence, and his infamous photograph with a black eye—widely circulated and mocked—remains a public reminder of his volatility and “tough guy” posturing.

Even Union City’s police leadership has been implicated: the city’s police chief, Anthony Facchini, was caught harassing an investigative journalist at a Stack political rally. When the very institutions charged with protecting the public are weaponized against critics, Stack’s moral authority to sponsor an “anti-violence” bill evaporates.

Journalist attacked by a brian stack supporter
Journalist being strangled by a Brian Stack supporter
Union City Police Chief Anthony Facchini harassing journalists by grabbing his camera tripod during Brian Stack rally

The Fear Behind the Bill

Stack’s sponsorship is not just hypocritical—it may also reveal his growing anxiety and paranoia. With investigative journalists continuing to expose allegations of corruption within Union City and the State Senate, it is hard to ignore the timing. By attaching himself to legislation that shields politicians from violence, Stack appears less like a champion of safety and more like a man desperate to insulate himself from the backlash his own actions have invited.

GOP’s Cowardly Silence

Sen. Steinhardt and the New Jersey Republican Party also deserve criticism for their willful blindness. While Republicans frequently decry corruption in New Jersey politics, they remain silent about the mountain of evidence against Stack—choosing political expediency over principle. By holding up Stack as a co-sponsor, the GOP is effectively whitewashing his record and enabling the very behavior they claim to oppose.

A Rotten Foundation

Yes, protecting public officials from violence is a legitimate goal. But when one of the bill’s main backers has a history littered with police complaints, arrests of his supporters, intimidation of journalists, and even personal incidents of violence, the legislation itself becomes tainted. Far from a bold stand against political extremism, it reeks of political theater and self-preservation.

Until both parties confront Brian Stack’s corruption and history of intimidation, this so-called “first-in-the-nation” anti-violence bill will remain nothing more than a hypocritical shield for one of New Jersey’s most notorious machine politicians.

Journalist legally arrested during public comment in commissioners meeting
Journalist assaulted by Brian Stack, right hand man and Board of Education secretary Justin Mercado 
Brian Stack and his black eye
Journalist being removed from church while praying, Gov Murphy, former Gov Mcgreeve and Brian Stack didn’t want him there
Journalist removed from senate judiciary committee chaired by Brian stack
Brian Stack supporter breaks camera tripod

Discover more from HUDTRUTH

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Breaking News

Craig Guy’s Sanctuary Obsession Puts Hudson County at Risk

Published

on

Hudson County residents deserve leaders who prioritize their safety, not politicians chasing headlines with reckless policies. Unfortunately, County Executive Craig Guy seems more interested in pandering to the extreme left than standing with law enforcement and the hard-working families who simply want safe communities.

ICE Presence in North Hudson County, Braddock Park

Recently, videos circulating on social media show ICE officers patrolling the area around North Hudson County Braddock Park in North Bergen. Their presence is not only lawful, but essential. ICE agents are tasked with removing violent offenders, gang members, and dangerous individuals who have no legal right to be in this country. Sheriff’s officers stationed in the county park are tasked with the same responsibility: keeping the public safe. Any attempt to interfere with their cooperation only makes the job harder and the community less secure.

Sanctuary County Agenda

According to an anonymous source within Craig Guy’s own circle, he has expressed a desire to turn Hudson County into a 100% sanctuary county. Even more troubling, he allegedly wants Democrat incoming sheriff (if he wins against the Republican candidate for sheriff) Jimmy Davis to issue an order directing sheriff’s officers not to cooperate with ICE. This would amount to political interference in law enforcement, tying the hands of officers who swore an oath to protect and serve.

Such policies would effectively shield dangerous criminals from federal authorities, turning Hudson County into a safe haven for lawbreakers. By doing so, Craig Guy isn’t protecting immigrants—he’s protecting violent offenders at the expense of the law-abiding residents of our county.

Bail Reform’s Failure in Hudson County

Craig Guy’s sanctuary agenda only adds fuel to a fire already burning out of control. Bail reform, touted by Trenton insiders as a “progressive victory,” has been a disaster for Hudson County. Criminals are arrested and released within hours, often going on to reoffend before their cases even make it to court. Residents in Union City, Jersey City, North Bergen, and beyond have seen the results: more violent crimes, more repeat offenders, and more fear in our neighborhoods.

Law enforcement officers—whether they wear a sheriff’s uniform or an ICE badge—deserve support, not sabotage. They are on the front lines cleaning our streets of criminals. When politicians like Craig Guy push sanctuary policies, they undermine this mission and embolden those who threaten public safety.

Time for Accountability

Craig Guy’s reckless political games invite the attention of the federal government, and deservedly so. By attempting to obstruct cooperation with ICE, he is putting Hudson County at odds with federal law and jeopardizing the safety of its citizens. One can only hope that federal authorities, including the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, take note of Guy’s actions and hold him accountable.

Hudson County deserves better. We deserve leaders who stand shoulder to shoulder with law enforcement, not against them. Sanctuary policies do not protect families—they protect criminals. Craig Guy’s sanctuary obsession is a betrayal of the public trust, and the residents of Hudson County should not stand for it.


Discover more from HUDTRUTH

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Breaking News

After Charlie Kirk’s Assassination, Hudson County Confronts the Reality of Political Violence

Published

on

Conservative activist Charlie Kirk, 31, was shot and killed on September 10, 2025, while speaking at an outdoor event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. Authorities confirmed that a high-powered rifle believed to have been used was recovered nearby, and the FBI has released photos of a “person of interest” as the manhunt continues. President Donald Trump responded by announcing Kirk would be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously and ordered flags lowered to half-staff nationwide.

Utah’s governor, Spencer Cox, called the killing a “political assassination” and urged patience as investigators determine the shooter’s motive. Leaders from both parties, including Kamala Harris and Barack Obama, condemned the violence, while many Republicans stressed the growing climate of hostility toward conservatives.

Hudson County Responds: Vigil in Jersey City

Here in New Jersey, the Hudson County Republican Party has announced a candlelight vigil in honor of Charlie Kirk. The vigil will take place Friday, September 12, at 7:00 p.m. at the 9/11 Monument at Exchange Place in Jersey City.

This local response underscores how national tragedies reverberate in Hudson County, a place with its own vibrant political culture and long history of partisan battles.

The Campus Connection: Why Hudson County Should Pay Attention

Hudson County is home to New Jersey City University (NJCU), Hudson County Community College (HCCC), and Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken. These campuses, like Utah Valley University where Kirk was killed, host public forums, debates, and guest speakers that bring together diverse and sometimes divided audiences.

Kirk’s assassination highlights the urgent need for campus administrators here to revisit event security:

Venue safety – monitoring rooftops and adjacent buildings. Crowd control – bag checks, police coordination, and entry protocols. Information discipline – preparing to respond to misinformation that spreads rapidly online during crises.

The Bigger Picture: Political Violence in America

While investigators have not yet confirmed the shooter’s motive, the fact remains: an outspoken conservative leader was gunned down while speaking on a college campus. This follows a troubling pattern of increasing political violence across the country.

The political world is already absorbing the consequences:

Escalating fear: Politicians, activists, and even student leaders may now think twice about open forums. Information chaos: False claims and misidentifications flooded social media within hours, forcing authorities to issue corrections. Hardening divides: Many Republican voices blame a culture of hatred stoked by left-leaning media and Democratic rhetoric. Democrats insist violence must never be politicized.

What This Means for Hudson County

Hudson County is no stranger to heated politics. With competitive local elections, powerful political machines, and a student population that reflects nearly every viewpoint, the assassination of Charlie Kirk will fuel debates here about the safety of political speech.

The upcoming Jersey City vigil is more than a memorial—it is a statement. It signals that local conservatives see Kirk’s death not as an isolated tragedy, but as part of a larger struggle against political intimidation and violence.

As campuses reopen this fall, Hudson County’s colleges must grapple with a new reality: the very spaces meant to foster debate and free expression are now potential flashpoints in America’s battle over politics and ideology.


Discover more from HUDTRUTH

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025 Leroy Truth Investigations