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

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.