September 2009

Supporting the Integration or Re-Integration

of Military Personnel into Federal, State, 

Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement

Employing Returning Combat

Veterans as

Law Enforcement Officers
“I AM HONORED TO HAVE SERVED ALONGSIDE THE BEST OF WHAT AMERICA HAS TO OFFER. 

IN THE WAKE OF 9/11, YOUNG AMERICANS COURAGEOUSLY STEPPED FORWARD TO 

PROTECT OUR SECURITY AND FREEDOM. WE OWE A GREAT DEBT TO THESE VETERANS. 

AS POLICE CHIEFS, WE HAVE A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO HONOR THEIR SELFLESS SERVICE 

AND TO EXPLOIT THE MULTITUDE OF SKILLS READILY TRANSFERABLE TO A CAREER IN LAW 

ENFORCEMENT. I STRONGLY ENDORSE THE IACP INITIATIVE, EMPLOYING RETURNING 

COMBAT VETERANS AS LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, AND ENCOURAGE EVERY POLICE 

CHIEF TO IMPROVE THEIR ORGANIZATION THROUGH PARTICIPATION IN THIS PROJECT.” 

-MARK RAY

CHIEF OF POLICE, BEVERLY PD, MASSACHUSETTS 

LTC, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, RETIRED

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM VETERAN

This document, Employing Returning Combat Veterans as Law Enforcement Officers, was produced by the 

International Association of Chiefs of Police under grant number 2007-DD-BX-K111, awarded by the Bureau of 

Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or 

recommendations expressed in this document are those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the official 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) 

515 North Washington Street 

Alexandria, VA USA 22314 

P: 703.836.6767 1.800.THE.IACP F: 703.836.4543 

www.theiacp.org 
Acknowledgements

The International Association of Chiefs of Police, Employing Returning Combat Veterans 

as Law Enforcement Officers project wishes to acknowledge the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) project advisers and 

mentors, without whom this project would never have succeeded. In particular, we wish 

to thank James Burch II, BJA Acting Director; Pamela Cammarata, BJA Associate Deputy 

Director; Steve Edwards, BJA Senior Policy Advisor; and Linda Hammond-Deckard, BJA 

Policy Advisor. Special thanks to Steve Edwards who provided innumerable hours of 

thoughtful and helpful guidance, which resulted in the design, methodology, and delivery 

of the research instruments.

The Project Advisory Committee, created in early 2008, is comprised of many talented 

individuals, who were instrumental in providing guidance and suggestions throughout the 

project, and assisted in the design and implementation of the research effort. The project 

appreciates their leadership, commentary, and time spent in ensuring the success of the 

Employing Combat Veterans project. Members of the Project Advisory Committee are 

listed in Appendix A.

The project would also like to thank the following law enforcement leaders for hosting the 

project’s four focus groups across the country:

• Sheriff Leroy D. Baca, Los Angeles (CA) Sheriff’s Department 

• Chief Mike Yaniero, Jacksonville (NC) Police Department 

• Commissioner Frederick Bealefeld, Baltimore (MD) Police Department

• Chief James Jackson, Columbus (OH) Police Department

During the research phase, the following persons were of exceptional assistance:

Major Randall B. Russin, Baltimore County Police Department; Captain Ralph H. Davis 

III, Delaware State Police; Deputy Chief Ron Gibson, Colorado Springs Police Department; Colonel Greg Boyle, USMC, Commander – Wounded Warrior Regiment – Marine 

Corps Base, Quantico; Honorable Harvey C. Barnum, Jr. USMC (Ret), Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of the Navy – Reserve Affairs; Brigadier General Rodney L. Johnson, USA, 

Provost Marshal and Commanding General USACIDC; and Bruce Sokolove (Coach Sok), 

Field Training Associates, Ypsilanti, MI.

Lastly, the project is grateful for the responsive and professional support from Laura Zimmerman, Ph.D., Klein Associates, a division of Applied Research Associates, Inc., who 

played a key role in the development, research, and execution of all phases of this project.

IACP Leadership and Project Personnel

Executive Staff

Chief Russell Laine James McMahon

President Deputy Executive Director

Daniel Rosenblatt John Firman

Executive Director IACP Research Center Director

Project Staff

Arnold Daxe, Jr., CPP Special Agent Mike Robinson

COL, USA, Retired Naval Criminal Investigative Service

Project Manager IACP Fellow

Deputy Major Sabrina Tapp-Harper Andrew Biggerstaff

Baltimore Police Department IACP Intern

IACP Fellow

Ryan Daugirda Kristine Saltarelli

IACP Intern/Temporary Employee Content Editor and Writing Consultant

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 9

Introduction 14

Challenges of Contemporary Warfare. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Governing Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Significance of the Issue 16

Deployment Related Health Concerns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Readjustment Period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Determining Fitness for Duty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Recruiting Combat Veterans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Project Overview 19

Field Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Future Products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Training Curriculum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Project Methodology 21

Focus Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Individual Interviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Surveys. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Panel Presentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Roundtable Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Findings 24

Surveys. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Focus Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Individual Interviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Panel Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Roundtable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Recommendations 46

Further Study 48

Future Initiatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Appendix A: Project Advisory Committee 49

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

► Findings and Recommendations from Field Research 

Department of Defense military personnel are committed on a large scale to support the 

nation’s war on terrorism, specifically the ongoing military conflicts in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. Law enforcement professionals and their families bear a significant burden 

in meeting these challenges as Reserve and National Guard units are activated and 

deployed. Law enforcement officers, like other public servants, share this responsibility 

as citizen soldiers. Rapid deployments of our Armed Forces did not allow many law 

enforcement agencies the time to develop proactive and sustainable training, 

employment, operational, and support strategies to maintain the continuing operational 

tempo. Law enforcement agencies have a responsibility to support these service 

members and their families for years to come, so it is imperative that they address their 

veteran officer1

 issues and provide the necessary assistance. The nation’s strategy of 

combating terrorism dictates that military activations of sworn and unsworn law 

enforcement personnel throughout the United States will continue well beyond 2010, thus 

it is important that agencies develop or refine their transition strategies and policies in 

order to optimize their support for veteran officers. 

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and law enforcement leaders 

across the country recognize that many issues face combat veterans returning from 

deployment to either new positions or positions they previously held as federal, state, 

local, and tribal law enforcement officers. In November 2006, the IACP joined with 

Applied Research Associates, Inc., Klein Associates Division (ARA/KAD) to discuss this 

evolving issue. Both organizations recognized the valuable skills returning veterans 

possess and the unique recruiting opportunity for U.S. law enforcement agencies. The 

group also identified potential critical challenges for the veteran officers such as 

screening for and treating Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and navigating the 

transition between the hostile environments of their deployment and the local community 

environments in which they serve as law enforcement officers. 

In late 2007, with funding support and guidance from the Bureau of Justice Assistance 

(BJA), Department of Justice (DOJ), the IACP and ARA/KAD designed a project to 

study the issues surrounding returning combat veterans who enter or return to law 

enforcement careers. The focus of this project was to understand the recent experiences 

of combat veterans as they transitioned into law enforcement careers. This report 

presents findings that underscore the transition issues faced by veteran officers and 

agencies as they deploy and return from military service. 

 

1

 The term “veteran officer” will be used throughout this summary and is defined as sworn police 

officers, sheriffs deputies, and federal agents who are combat veterans. 

-9-
► Project Design 

The Employing Returning Combat Veterans as Law Enforcement Officers project team 

designed a series of five project activities: three data collection methods and two 

discussion groups, to capture a maximum amount of information, provide structured 

analysis of that information, and to develop recommendations and guidance for both law 

enforcement leaders and veteran officers. 

Data collection methods: 

1. Focus groups - Four regional focus groups were held in California, North Carolina, 

Ohio, and Maryland that included veteran officers and IACP staff. The participants 

examined the influence of deployment and combat on the decision-making processes, 

including how veteran officers perceive and understand situations, detect danger, respond 

tactically and strategically, and determine action options. Analysis of the data revealed 

five overarching themes: 

• Veteran Attributes – Positive skills veterans bring to law enforcement 

• Transition Issues – Challenges surrounding the transition from combat to civilian 

life and law enforcement careers 

• Current Agency Response – The types of support or “disconnects” personnel 

received from their agencies upon returning from deployment 

• Resources/Agency Response Suggestions – Services and resources agencies can 

provide to returning and newly-hired veterans 

• Training Recommendations – Suggestions for training to support new recruits 

and returning officers who have been deployed 

2. Interviews - An ARA/KAD researcher with support from a trained law enforcement 

psychologist conducted one-on-one incident-based interviews with select focus group 

participants. The interviews expanded on points identified in the focus groups and 

provided more in-depth examples of transition resources and performance challenges. A 

significant portion of this report presents data from the individual interviews including 

quotes from veteran officers that illustrate issues in real-world contexts. This was a 

conscious decision to make sure that the ‘voices’ of returning veterans are ‘heard’ clearly 

by the reader, and that these words serve as the ultimate context for all other study efforts 

and in particular the final recommendations of this study. 

3. Surveys - The IACP distributed two surveys, one for law enforcement leaders and one 

for veteran officers. The purpose of these surveys was to verify the themes identified in 

the focus groups and interviews across a wider sample. The surveys provided data from a 

larger, more generalized sample of agency leaders and veteran officers activated or 

deployed in military service within the last five years. The surveys asked specific 

questions about military and law enforcement background, changes in behavior and job 

performance, health issues, and the assistance or treatment received. Leaders provided 

additional information about agency policies related to returning veterans and the number 

of veteran officers at their agencies that have deployed to or returned from military 

service. 

-10-
► Discussion Groups 

During the IACP’s 2008 Annual Conference in San Diego, a roundtable and panel were 

held to discuss the transitional issues that veteran officers face. The roundtable, which 

included law enforcement leaders, veteran officers, project staff, and others, allowed for a 

candid information exchange among the participants and was useful in examining ideas 

and real-life experiences. The panel included a representative from the Department of the 

Army, two police chiefs, a veteran officer, and a psychologist. Topics of particular 

interest were: 

• Policies & Procedures 

• Communication 

• Skills 

• Transition times 

• Psychological evaluations and medical screenings 

The methodology employed in all the activities elicited comprehensive, thoughtful, and 

insightful commentary and data on the issues facing combat veterans and their agencies. 

Although there were general consistencies across all data collection sessions, the diverse 

opinions and topic focuses led the authors to realize that this topic is not only highly 

relevant, but also multi-layered and complex. However, some findings were articulated 

across all research project activities and are listed for emphasis and insight into what key 

issues are on veteran’s minds. 

► Findings 

• Programs in Place – Some departments have excellent transition programs in 

place; others are conflicted on resolving issues 

• Positive Skills – Veterans believe they bring positive skills to the law enforcement 

profession such as leadership, physical fitness, and discipline 

• Patriotism – Veterans are proud to have served their nation and community 

• Negative Mindset Impacts Transition – Readjusting to receiving rather than 

giving orders, trusting others, and changing rules of engagement take time 

• Health Issues are Real – Depression, anger, withdrawal, and family issues create 

a low tolerance for citizen complaints and heightens the reintegration process 

• Concerns over Confidentiality – A deep-seated concern over a lack of empathy 

and stigmatization by departments/agencies 

• Frustrations with Leadership – Disappointed with chain-of-command for not 

displaying leadership in creating a well-rounded transition path for veterans 

• Desire for Comprehensive Training – Want comprehensive and flexible 

retraining program that exploits their skill sets 

-11-
► Recommendations 

The following time-phased recommendations are for your consideration. The timeline 

can begin upon receipt of this document. 

Within 30-60 Days:

• Publicly acknowledge veteran officers for their service on their return to their 

agency/community

• Create within-agency focus groups to learn more about veteran officers’ needs 

• Develop communication methods with veteran officers and their families 

throughout the deployment cycle

• Offer veteran officers a flexible timetable to meet a range of transitional needs 

• Create a specialized Field Training Officer (FTO) type program structured to assist 

veteran officers 

• Allow the veteran officer to ride-along or job-shadow with a peer 

• Address the confidentiality policies of the services offered and clarify 

misconceptions 

• Update veteran officers on new policies, procedures, laws, and changes in 

equipment and technology 

Within 6-9 Months: 

• Establish peer and family support groups 

• Incorporate training that addresses equipment differences and the reprogramming 

of muscle memory 

• Develop a comprehensive family care plan checklist 

• Structure training for each veteran officer’s specific needs 

• Review rules of engagement and standard operating procedures 

• Establish a comprehensive driver training program 

• Develop a comprehensive web-based communications system 

• Update returning officers on new policies, procedures, laws, equipment, and 

technology 

• Develop an ethics and language review to ease the transition back to a civilian 

culture 

Within 1-2 Years: 

• Develop core training (e.g., firearms, in-service, specialized training) 

• Create scenario-based training to identify transitional issues and to practice tactics 

• Address the unique training needs of federal agencies 

• Develop strategies to employ disabled combat veterans 

• Gauge the effectiveness of military and civilian law enforcement partnerships 

-12-
► Summary – Future/Next Steps 

The information obtained from this research will result in the development of two 

guidebooks – one for veteran officers and one for law enforcement leaders. The guides 

will be available in printed or electronic format to all 18,000 federal, state, local, and 

tribal law enforcement agencies in the United States. 

The leaders guidebook will also include draft curriculum recommendations to assist 

agencies in training and/or retraining veteran officers. The curriculum will focus, in part, 

on exploring PTSD issues, differentiating between hostile war zones and local 

community environments, and retraining the use-of-force techniques. 

Future steps are necessary to follow-up many of the research recommendations presented 

here. This project presents a first, exploratory look at veteran officer transition issues. 

Future work will continue to focus on better preparing both law enforcement leaders and 

their veteran officers as they share responsibilities in fighting wars abroad and crime 

stateside. The IACP is prepared to meet these challenges in partnership with the 

Department of Defense (DOD), DOJ, and the private sector to develop meaningful and 

cost effective follow-up projects. 

-13-
INTRODUCTION

According to 2003 data2 from the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative 

Statistics (LEMAS) survey compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 4,100 of 

the approximately 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States, had officers 

who were called to active duty in the National Guard or Reserve. Of those 4,100 

agencies, an estimated 11,380 full-time sworn law enforcement officers were activated in 

a 12-month period. About two-thirds of these officers were from local law enforcement 

agencies. Moreover, 11,380 officers constitute about two percent of the available law 

enforcement workforce nationwide. 

Challenges of Contemporary Warfare 

The battles in Iraq are being fought not in the desert but in the streets of Baghdad and 

other Iraqi cities. Moreover, U.S. military and coalition forces are engaged in both rural 

and urban conflict in Afghanistan in which our commitment remains open ended. 

Veterans returning from the Vietnam War could easily distinguish their combat 

environment—mostly jungle, farm, or open terrain—from their urban or suburban 

policing environment. In the case of returning combat veterans from Iraq or Afghanistan, 

their combat environment and their policing environments may appear surprisingly 

similar. Military operations on urban terrain pose a great challenge as, among other 

issues, opposition forces blend in with the population making distinctions between friend 

and foe difficult. This urban-warfare environment is similar to our country’s urban 

policing environments, except that the rules of engagement are different. 

Troops must make instantaneous decisions when confronting resistance in the urban 

combat setting, and it is very possible that such combat experience enhances their 

decision-making abilities in the domestic policing environment. However, the 

environments in which service members work are quite different from the environments 

in which law enforcement officers work. Sustained operations under combat 

circumstances may cause returning officers to mistakenly blur the lines between military 

combat situations and civilian crime situations, resulting in inappropriate decisions and 

actions—particularly in the use of less lethal or lethal force. This similarity may cause an 

operational or reactive issue that could result in injury or death to an innocent civilian. 

Governing Law 

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA; 

43 U.S.C. 38) is administered by the U.S. Department of Labor through the Veterans’ 

Employment and Training Service. USERRA covers every person who has served in the 

military and applies to all employers in the public, private, and federal sector. 

 

2

 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/ICPSR/STUDY/04411.xml. BJS indicates the survey data 

will be updated in 2009. 

-14-
USERRA mandates that returning service members are re-employed in the position that 

they would have attained had they not been absent for military service, with their 

seniority, status, and pay as well as other rights and benefits determined by their 

seniority. USERRA also requires that reasonable efforts (such as training or retraining) 

be made to enable returning service members to refresh or upgrade their skills and help 

them qualify for re-employment. The law clearly provides for alternative re-employment 

positions if service members cannot qualify for their previous positions or the positions 

they would have been promoted to. 

USERRA is widely respected and adhered to by federal, state, and local law enforcement 

agencies. And certainly USERRA’s call for training and/or retraining resources for 

returning veterans is an appropriate requirement. The IACP and ARA/KAD are 

concerned that other training or retraining issues for returning veterans of Iraq and 

Afghanistan may exist that have yet to be discovered or documented. 

-15-
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ISSUE

Veteran officers are not unique to being away from their primary jobs for a year or more; 

however, many more issues surround their transition into law enforcement careers based 

on the similarities between military and law enforcement service. The needs veteran 

officers have upon returning to law enforcement also vary according to personal and 

family situations as well as the duration and type of deployment. These needs are 

manifested by returning officers as well as by new recruits. Ensuring a successful 

transition for veterans to law enforcement careers lies in understanding the specific 

difficulties they experience and identifying necessary training and support to ameliorate 

the problems. 

Little is known about how exposure to combat influences law enforcement officer 

performance. The IACP and ARA/KAD believe that some law enforcement agencies are 

not fully prepared for the screening and retraining of veteran officers and that the unique 

nature of combat, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, creates a new level of concern as 

they return from hostile war environments to local communities. 

Deployment Related Health Concerns 

Some service members return from war with illnesses, wounds or injuries of varying 

degrees of severity. Because of advances in medical care, more service members than 

ever are surviving their wounds, but return home with readjustment challenges. 

One common illness that follows a traumatic event such as combat is PTSD. The 

influence of PTSD on returning veterans’ civilian lives is well documented. With 

symptoms such as anxiety attacks, depression, nightmares, aggressive behavior, 

flashbacks, sensitivity to noises and movement, and a numbing of emotions, PTSD can 

cause problems for veterans making it difficult to get along with family and friends, 

function on the job, or transition back to civilian life. If untreated, invisible injuries can 

lead to an onslaught of problems including domestic violence, alcoholism, and even 

suicide. Rates of each run high among veterans compared to the civilian population. 

In addition to PTSD, several other behavioral issues are common, such as: 

• Attendance problems/frequent use of sick leave 

• Difficulty passing fitness-for-duty tests 

• Inappropriate use of force 

• Domestic disturbances/violence 

All branches of the U.S. Armed Forces mandate that service members participate in a 

demobilization and transition process when they are released from active duty. This 

process includes briefings on service members’ rights and benefits as well as a thorough 

health assessment; however, PTSD symptoms may not develop until 6-12 months after a 

traumatic event and less than half the service members with current or emerging mental 

health problems seek treatment beyond these demobilization events. In addition, since 

veterans in rural areas may live too far from the mental health resources of military 

installations and Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities, they may simply not seek the treatment 

they are entitled to. 

-16-
Readjustment Period 

Returning to civilian life involves more than just hanging up the military uniform. The 

transition process encompasses a number of concerns and continues long after the initial 

demobilization. The greatest responsibility for continuing the transition process falls 

upon those with the greatest contact with returning veterans: their families, their 

employers, and their reserve units. To succeed, each of these support systems must be 

armed with specific knowledge about the key issues facing returning veterans so they 

have access to proper resources when issues arise. 

Unfortunately, these support systems may not fully recognize and diagnose a problem as 

it is developing. Families and employers frequently learn of a veteran’s difficulties when 

they reach a crisis stage that requires immediate intervention, placing them in a reactive 

mode with insufficient resources and information. 

Determining Fitness for Duty 

Law enforcement agencies in the United States must determine whether returning 

veterans employed in their departments are fit for duty. However, agencies likely do not 

know what, if any, problems are associated with shifting their officers from war fighters 

to peacekeepers. Some agencies employ the use of administrative interviews and 

psychological evaluations to assess how their veteran officers will perform the essential 

functions of their position, while other agencies revert to their department medical officer 

or lack any policy at all. A clear policy and assessment procedure to evaluate employees’ 

mental and physical fitness is needed to ensure public safety and guarantee a stable, 

reliable, and productive work force. 

Recruiting Combat Veterans 

With today’s law enforcement agencies severely understaffed, many agencies welcome 

the influx of returning service members interested in law enforcement employment. The 

prevailing perception is that individuals with military experience make desirable law 

enforcement employees. Several veterans suggest that some law enforcement agencies 

may not be recruiting enough veterans for a variety of reasons. Because of insufficient 

data, this area warrants further study. Veterans have a unique set of skills that appear to 

make them ideal law enforcement candidates such as the following: 

• Physical abilities/conditioning 

• Firearms training 

• Leadership experience 

• Combat experience 

• Respect for discipline and authority 

• Experience working with/in culturally/ethnically diverse groups 

-17-
The IACP and ARA/KAD think that these skills likely do lend themselves to law 

enforcement. However, there is concern that regular law enforcement academy or inservice training curricula do not contain course material specific to the needs of returning 

combat veterans. For example, current curricula do not address the heightened reactions 

veteran officers develop in combat to enemy threats and how to temper these reactions to 

appropriate levels in policing environments. Specialized training and transition assistance 

that addresses such specific needs are required but have not yet been developed. 

-18-
PROJECT OVERVIEW

The Employing Returning Combat Veterans as Law Enforcement Officers project 

addressed issues surrounding the return or entry of combat veterans to law enforcement 

careers. Anecdotal stories and incidents led the IACP to believe that returning veteran 

officers may face issues or problems that must be addressed to ensure a successful entry 

or re-entry into policing careers. The IACP determined that insufficient guidelines, 

programs, and services exist to meet these needs. The goal of this project, therefore, was 

to determine the most critical needs of veteran officers and provide policy guidance to 

both veteran officers and to the law enforcement agencies that employ them. 

Supported by BJA, IACP collaborated with ARA/KAD, a research organization that 

specializes in understanding how experts use their knowledge and intuition to make 

complex, high-stake decisions during critical incidents. Laura Zimmerman, Ph.D., served 

as the principal researcher on the project. Her background is in experimental psychology 

with a focus on law enforcement procedures and training. 

The aim of the project team was to ensure that returning combat veterans succeed in 

either new or resumed law enforcement careers by conducting research that expanded the 

current level of understanding and developing resources to support the findings. The 

initiative is supported by a national advisory committee of law enforcement, military, 

psychological, academic, and health experts. 

Field Research 

The project team designed a series of five core project activities: three data collection 

methods and two discussion groups, to capture a maximum amount of data, provide 

structured analysis of that information, and to develop recommendations and guidance for 

both law enforcement leaders and veteran officers. When combined, these findings 

allowed the IACP and ARA/KAD to create a set of recommendations for new policies 

and programs that support returning veteran officers. Activities included the following: 

• Four regional focus groups 

• One-on-one incident-based interviews 

• Panel presentation and roundtable discussion during IACP’s 2008 Annual 

Conference 

• Surveys for leaders and veteran officers 

Future Products 

The most important component of this project will be the products that are developed to 

ensure that both returning combat veterans and law enforcement agencies are prepared 

for the transition from military duty to local law enforcement. The IACP and ARA/KAD 

are producing several products that stem from the research findings, which include two 

guidebooks and a training curriculum outline. 

-19-
Guidebook for Law Enforcement Leaders 

IACP will distribute a guidebook to state and local law enforcement leaders that presents 

issues relating to the successful transition of returning combat veterans to communitybased law enforcement. The guide will address issues such as: 

• Recruitment strategies 

• Policy and practices 

• Assessment of transitional obstacles 

• Differentiating between hostile (combat) and community environments 

• Provision of essential services 

• Training curricula 

• Skill assessment protocols 

The guide will be disseminated to all 18,000 federal, state, local, and tribal law 

enforcement agencies in the United States, in either printed or electronic formats. 

Guidebook for Combat Veterans 

IACP will distribute a second guidebook to help returning combat veterans fully 

understand the opportunities presented by a career in law enforcement, as well as the 

issues surrounding this choice. The guide will address a variety of issues: 

• Military versus law enforcement skill sets 

• Types of law enforcement agencies and their differences (size, scope, mission, 

region) 

• Transition planning 

• Obstacle identification 

• Physical and mental health inventory 

• Support services provided by the VA and by local law enforcement 

Training Curriculum 

IACP will develop suggestions for possible training curricula, with focus on the unique 

skills and transition issues of returning combat veterans. The curriculum outline will help 

both hiring agencies and returning veterans to identify, discuss, and overcome any 

transitional obstacles. The curriculum will focus in part on core issues such as: (1) 

PTSD; (2) differentiating between hostile war zones and local community environments; 

and (3) retraining on the use-of-force continuum for local law enforcement versus 

combat-zone force perspectives. The training curriculum will be an appendix in the law 

enforcement leaders guidebook. 

-20-
PROJECT METHODOLOGY

This research effort focused on combat veterans who returned to their civilian law 

enforcement job or those combat veterans who entered law enforcement after they 

separated from the military. Data was collected using three methods: focus groups, 

interviews, and surveys. Supporting information was gathered during a roundtable and 

panel discussion at the 2008 IACP Conference. 

Focus Groups 

Four regional focus groups were conducted in California, North Carolina, Ohio, and 

Maryland. These focus groups were well attended by veteran officers from the hosting 

agencies and other nearby locations. 

The focus group selections were based on a geographical representation and the ability of 

the selected police and sheriff’s departments to host the one-day event. Host department 

leadership selected individual veteran officers from their agencies with additional veteran 

officers from nearby departments who also wanted to assist. Officers were selected from 

several regional departments or agencies in order to gather information from a variety of 

small to large agencies. Members of the project’s advisory board and IACP project staff 

served as group facilitators. In total, 53 veteran officers participated in these focus 

groups. All participants were reminded that their names and department affiliations 

would remain confidential. 

Focus Group Procedures 

The focus group agendas generally adhered to the following format: 

• Introduction of project staff, project summary, and breakout sessions 

• Introduction of participants, who discussed their law enforcement and military 

backgrounds 

• Session 1 – Positive skills veterans bring to law enforcement, transition issues, 

performance issues, and training challenges 

• Session 2 – Current services and resources available to returning veterans, agency 

treatment of veterans returning to law enforcement, services and resources 

agencies could provide to assist returning veterans, and training needed to assist 

their transition to law enforcement 

• Session 3 – Examples of veterans who did not make a successful transition 

into/back into law enforcement, suggestions for future focus groups, project 

suggestions, and final thoughts 

All participants signed informed consent forms and completed a focus group evaluation. 

A clinical psychologist was present at all focus group sessions. The clinical psychologist 

provided participants with contact information and instructions to contact him or her if 

issues arose as a result of the focus group discussions. 

-21-
Individual Interviews 

At the conclusion of the focus groups, ARA/KAD researchers conducted incident-based 

interviews with select focus group participants. The goal of these interviews was to 

expand upon points identified in the focus groups and gather examples of transition, 

resource, and performance challenges. 

Interview Process 

Ten interviewees participated in interviews at the IACP headquarters in Alexandria, VA 

on May 7-8, 2008. The two main interview objectives were: 

1. Understand the difficulties experienced by combat veterans entering or returning 

to civilian law enforcement 

2. Identify training and support needs that will assist combat veterans in their current 

positions as law enforcement officers 

Each interview lasted from one to two hours. First, interviewees recalled situations in 

which their combat experience influenced or affected their behavior and/or the quality of 

their performance as law enforcement officers. Questions also explored the challenging 

decisions faced during the situation, how their combat experience helped or interfaced 

with their approach to the situation, and different ways officers without combat 

experience may have managed the incident (or different ways the interviewee may have 

managed the situation prior to their deployment). 

Second, interviewees provided ideas for training to address veterans’ skill development, 

remediation, and enhancement. They also provided recommendations for veteran support 

programs that law enforcement agencies or joint law enforcement and military 

organizations may provide. 

Surveys 

IACP distributed two surveys using a web-based data collection tool. The findings from 

the focus groups and interviews provided the content for the survey questions. Fivehundred randomly selected police chiefs received both surveys with instructions to 

distribute the officer survey to their veteran officers who had returned from military 

service within the last five years. IACP and ARA/KAD project staff compiled and 

analyzed the data. 

Veteran Officer Survey 

The purpose of the veteran officer survey was to capture information about military and 

law enforcement backgrounds, changes in behavior and job performance, physical and 

mental health issues, transitional issues, and assistance and treatment received. 

-22-
Leadership Survey 

IACP collected similar information in a survey for law enforcement leaders. The goal of 

this survey was to understand how leaders and agencies address veteran officers returning 

to or entering their agencies. Leaders provided demographic information about their 

veteran officers and agencies, the value of veterans’ combat experience to their agencies, 

changes in the veteran officers’ behaviors and job performance, and agency resources, 

services, and policies for returning veterans. 

Panel Presentation 

Law enforcement and military leaders discussed their agency programs and policies on 

employing returning combat veterans during a panel discussion at the IACP’s Annual 

Conference in San Diego in November 2008. The panel included a representative from 

the Department of the Army, two police chiefs, a veteran officer, and a psychologist. 

Panel discussions included such topics as transition procedures and policies, mental 

health issues of combat veterans, and military deployment challenges. Following the 

presentations, comments and questions from the audience focused on a range of issues 

confronting returning veterans and those seeking employment for the first time. Seventyfive individuals attended the 90-minute session. The project team incorporated the notes 

on the discussion, presentations, and questions with the other research findings. 

Roundtable Discussion 

The IACP’s Annual Conference in San Diego hosted an Employing Returning Combat 

Veterans as Law Enforcement Officers Roundtable in which law enforcement leaders, 

veteran officers, project staff, and others gathered to discuss reintegration and transition 

issues affecting combat veterans. The forum allowed for candid information exchange 

among the participants and was useful in examining ideas and real-life experiences. 

Twenty-four individuals attended the event. The session opened with a short video and 

project briefing. Facilitated questions and discussion topics covered issues surrounding 

transition, performance, accountability, decision-making, and self-discipline. Roundtable 

discussions also focused on challenges veteran officers face when returning, mental 

health and physical injuries that affect performance, and behavioral changes attributed to 

combat experience. IACP recorded and used the topics and related responses for use as 

data in the project research. 

-23-
FINDINGS

Employing combat veterans as law enforcement officers is a multi-faceted subject and 

both veteran officers and leaders expressed a range of opinions on the topic. When 

discussing current agency response for returning veterans, some departments are meeting 

their veterans’ needs head-on, while other departments have not yet addressed veterans’ 

needs. Some law enforcement leaders do not see returning combat veterans as an issue 

and suggest that there is little need for new policies or programs. Others see the need but 

are conflicted on how to implement them, with many agencies stating they do not have 

the resources to accommodate the specific needs of veterans. 

Veterans also expressed diverse opinions and concerns as they discussed a range of 

mental and physical challenges, ranging from none to complete debilitation (e.g., quit 

force, career-ending disabilities, and suicide). They discussed problems unique to 

themselves, as well as issues that are indicative of systemic problems within agencies. 

Survey Findings 

A total of 340 surveys were received from veteran officers and 112 surveys from law 

enforcement leaders. The return rate of the law enforcement leaders’ survey was 22 

percent (n=500)3. The veterans’ survey return rate cannot be calculated because it is 

unknown how many surveys the leaders distributed to the veterans at their agencies. 

Many of the surveys were incomplete with various questions unanswered, which limited 

data analysis. However, the results do provide a picture of what veteran officers 

experience across the country and revealed many of the issues faced by veteran officers 

and agency leaders. The following data presents a summary of the respondents’ answers. 

Only relevant and informative responses are presented as they relate to each theme, rather 

than responses to each individual question. 

Veteran Officer Demographics 

Age and Years in Law Enforcement – The majority of respondents were male, between 

the ages of 30-39, and had served in civilian law enforcement positions from one to five 

years. Fifty-three percent (n=296) of veteran officers had law enforcement experience 

prior to military deployment. 

Thirty-eight percent of respondents were state troopers or highway patrol officers. The 

second highest representation, at 22 percent, were patrol officers (n=248). 

Military Status and Rank – The data in Figure 1 indicates that veteran officers achieved 

a rank that allowed them a level of responsibility and decision making authority often 

beyond what they would have in their law enforcement positions. 

 

3 The number of respondents who answered a respective question is represented by (n=) throughout the report.

-24-
Additional questions revealed the following: 

• Thirty-four percent (n=97) were military police, security forces, or Master of Arms

• Respondents reported an average of 13 years of military experience (n=278), with 

a range of 1-33 years

• Fifty-nine percent (n=168) are currently serving in either the National Guard or a 

Reserve component

• Thirty-three percent of respondents (n=285) were discharged, while seven percent 

were retired, leaving sixty percent with a remaining military obligation and subject 

to further deployments

Figure 1 – Veteran Officer Military Ranks 

Agency Demographics 

Leaders (n=95) reported an average of 342 sworn officers in their agencies (range = 4–

4,300). The number of non-sworn staff ranged from 0–1,500 with an average of 114 nonsworn staff. 

Officer Veteran Data – The majority of responding leaders (86 percent; n=66) currently 

employ veterans who have returned from deployment within the past five years. The 

average number of veteran officers in a particular agency who departed for or returned 

from deployment within the last 24 months was three (range = 0-33). Within the past 25-

60 months, leaders (n=71) reported the average number of officers who deployed or 

returned from deployment was six (range = 0-91). 

Agencies with greater numbers of officers departing for or returning from military duty 

also reported greater levels of preparedness for dealing with veteran officers’ issues. 

Analysis showed a positive correlation between agency preparedness and the number of 

Veterans Survey

Highest Rank Achieved (n = 281)

2%

57%

15%

3%

23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

E1-E3 E4-E6 E7-E9 W1-W5 O1-O9

Rank

Number Responding

-25-
officers who departed for military duty in the last 24 months (r=.231, p=.049)4

 and the 

last 25-60 months (r=.289, p=.015) and with those who have returned from military duty 

in the last 25-60 months (r=.325, p=.010). No correlation existed between agency 

preparedness and the number of officers who have returned in the last 24 months (r=.181, 

p=.117). This finding indicates that agencies are responding to the needs of their officers 

returning from deployment. However, it also indicates that agencies with fewer officers 

serving in the military are less prepared to assist them upon return. 

Veteran Attributes 

Participants consistently identified the positive skills veteran officers bring to law 

enforcement. Veteran officers and leaders recognize several areas and skills that have 

been strengthened by combat experience such as the following: 

• Firearms 

• Physical conditioning 

• Discipline and adherence to policy 

• Critical incident response 

• Training 

• Tactical operations 

• Leadership 

For many veteran officers, their combat experience allowed them to implement 

techniques they had only previously practiced in training. This included skills such as 

operations planning and execution, communications, and hand-to-hand combat. Most 

important, combat served as a barometer for veteran officers to gauge how they respond 

in life-threatening, stressful situations. Veteran officers attribute their enhanced ability to 

react quickly and calmly in threatening situations to the combat situations they faced in 

theater. They claim to have a higher stress tolerance and are better able to remain calm 

and focused under stressful conditions. While this response can be simulated in training, 

it takes actual incidents to determine how quickly and appropriately officers will respond. 

Ninety-nine percent (n=172) of the veteran officers responded that they noticed 

improvement in their leadership skills. Difficult assignments, making critical decisions, 

and a greater sense of military discipline were contributing factors to their improvement. 

Agency leaders credit veteran officers’ greater confidence, ability to operate in tactical 

environments, and ability to respond quickly to their experience handling life-threatening 

situations in combat. Seventy-four percent (n=161) saw an improvement in physical 

conditioning. However, many leaders did not notice an improvement in communication 

skills, perhaps the result of the lack of need for report writing and substantial verbal 

interactions with civilians while deployed. 

 

4

 (r=#) represents a correlation. A positive correlation demonstrates when one variable increases (i.e., 

number of veteran officers) so does the other variable (i.e., agency preparedness), a negative 

correlation does not. (p=#) is the significance value. A significance level of p<.05 was used, meaning 

that any p-value less than .05 is significant; any value over .05 is not significant. 

-26-
Transition Issues 

Several challenges exist as veteran officers’ transition from combat to law enforcement 

careers and reintegrate into civilian life including their behavior, transition period, and 

health. 

Veteran Officer’s Perspective on Behavior – Only 19 percent (n=342) of veteran 

officers responded to questions regarding behavioral changes since returning from 

combat. Of those who responded, 44 percent (n=64) reported changes in driving behavior 

and 43 percent (n=63) reported changes in muscle memory; however, they did report 

changes in their reaction to sudden noises/movements (75 percent; n=65) and changes in 

mood (72 percent; n=65). Veteran officers commented that they are more irritable and 

easily angered compared to pre-deployment. One respondent stated that “sudden noises 

cause an excess awareness and reaction, mood changes due to lack of sleep at night, 

memories, and no outlet of understanding.”

Veteran Officer’s Perspective on Transition Period – When asked how long the 

transitional period should last between their return from deployment and resuming their 

full-time law enforcement duties, most veteran officers agreed that some transition time is 

necessary. The majority responded that a transition time of less than six months is 

appropriate (71 percent; n=100). See Figure 2. 

Figure 2 – Transition Periods Suggested by Veteran Officers 

Veterans Survey

Suggested Transitional Period (n=100)

16%

71%

10%

3%

None Required

Less Than 6 Months

7-12 Months

1-3 Years

-27-
Comments made by veteran officers indicate that there needs to be flexibility in the 

transition time based on the needs of the individual officers. Many respondents indicated 

that the officers themselves should determine the amount of transition time they need. 

“There really is no magic number – it depends on the veteran, his age, maturity, 

the degree of close personal combat experienced, his/her family situation. There 

are a multitude of factors to consider.” 

“I believe combat veterans can prove to be the police department's best 

employees. Steady transition is the key. Constant contact with the employee and 

tailoring the reintegration process to the individuals involved is paramount to 

guaranteeing success.” 

Veteran Officers’ Perspective on Health Issues – Twenty-three percent of veteran 

officers (n=40) reported receiving a physical injury or wound during their deployments. 

A third (n=60) also reported having issues such as hearing loss, back pain or issues, and 

headaches. Ninety-five percent (n=59) stated their physical issues are ongoing. 

Twenty-eight percent of veteran officers (n=49) reported experiencing mental health 

symptoms that they associate with combat. Some comments included examples such as 

exaggerated survival instincts, PTSD, paranoia, and anxiety. As with the physical issues, 

the majority of officers report their mental health symptoms are ongoing. Half of the 

officers who reported mental health symptoms also reported physical symptoms. 

Notably, nearly all veteran officers (93 percent; n=48) who reported experiencing mental 

health symptoms also reported changes in one or more of the following: driving behavior 

(46 percent; n=48), muscle memory (50 percent; n=48), reactions to sudden 

noises/movements (85 percent; n=48), and mood (88 percent; n=48). Those who reported 

physical symptoms without mental health symptoms (14 percent; n=10) did not report 

these behavioral changes. 

Veteran officers provided comments about their transition that generally fall on both ends 

of a spectrum. Some reported that their military service added benefit to their lives and 

improved their skills, attitudes, and relationships. Others reported the opposite; their lives 

had worsened, as did their attitudes and relationships. 

Leader’s Perspective on Behavior – Few leaders noticed behavioral changes in their 

veteran officers who returned from deployment, with the exception of changes related to 

psychological issues. Twenty-eight percent of leaders noticed some psychological issues 

post deployment (Figure 3). 

Leaders made the following positive comments about the behavioral changes in their 

veteran officers:

“I notice that most, if not all, of our returning veterans have a much greater 

appreciation for (life) by virtue of the fact that they were in life-threatening 

situations.” 

“They are able to respond more quickly without detailed explanation to calls.” 

“The veterans we have employed tend to be more mature and advanced in the 

areas listed than non-veterans.” 

-28-
Figure 3 – Behavioral Problems Leaders Noticed Post-Deployment 

 “My one returning veteran seemed to be sensitive to or keenly aware of 

surroundings, especially people.” 

Leaders also shared their observations of some negative behavioral changes in their 

veteran officers such as:

“Military duty takes a toll on the individual emotionally and they don't seem to be 

as stable in their personal life.” 

“They tend to come back ill-prepared for the civilian world.” 

“They have exaggerated survival instincts and often suffer from PTSD.” 

“Less tolerance for officers with less experience or training, especially in critical 

incidents. Seem to come back with an attitude.” 

“I have one officer who has had a problem with increased number of civilian 

complaints.” 

“I feel that some of the combat veterans exhibit some PTSD problems. Some 

paranoia to a degree, which I attribute to the heightened alertness and loss of 

sleep while involved in combat duties.” 

“Many returning combat veterans have increased the frequency and duration of 

subsequent deployments, and in some cases have left agency employment so that 

they can either return to active duty, or accept employment as a Department of 

Defense contractor.” 

Leaders’ Perspective on Transition Period – Most leaders agree that transition time is 

necessary. Eighty-six percent (n= 62) of leaders think the transition period should be less 

than six months. Interestingly, 20 percent (n=45) of leaders without military experience 

think no transition period is necessary, an opinion shared by only three percent (n=29) of 

Leaders Survey

Behavioral Problems Leaders Noticed Post-Deployment

(Avg. n=50)

2%

10%

10%

28%

8%

10%

14%

6%

6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Firearm Issues

Excessive Violence

Disorientation

Psychological Issues

Attendance Issues

Low Morale

Increased Citizen Complaints

Substance Abuse

Domestic Violence

Percent Agreement

-29-
the leaders with military experience. Similar to veteran officers, many leaders think that 

officers should determine their own transition time. 

“It depends on the officer. To some extent, we are relying on the military to return 

them healthy when released from active duty or to discharge them based on any 

problems or issues arising while deployed.” 

Current Agency Response 

Leaders’ Perspective – Leaders conveyed a variety of opinions about psychological 

testing for their veterans: 

• All breaks in service over six months require an evaluation 

• Evaluating everyone removes the potential stigma 

• Maybe an interview but not a complete psychological evaluation 

• The military ought to provide it as a means of assisting veterans who return to the 

workforce 

• Employees need to understand the differences between law enforcement duties and 

the military 

• Testing does not prevent anyone from developing psychological issues after they 

return to work 

• Psychological effects of combat duty have been well-documented 

• The negative societal stigma attached to proactive mental health programs does a 

great disservice to returning combat veterans 

• Candid, confidential debriefing with a mental health professional is important 

• The military should not release them from active duty if they are not fit to return to 

work 

• Can help to gauge whether and when they should return to active duty as a law 

enforcement officer 

• Can be done at the VA 

• Some veterans come back and will not seek help if they need it 

• Psychological symptoms are a possibility and could have a detrimental effect on 

citizen contact 

• Case by case depending upon where and how long they served. 

Veteran Officers’ Perspective – Sixty-eight percent (n=103) of veteran officers replied 

that they would consider using their agency’s Employee Assistance Program or Early 

Intervention Program (or equivalent); however, many respondents expressed concern 

about each program’s confidentiality. Some comments included: 

“I have considered attending but I often talk myself out of it because I do not want 

to be labeled as someone who cannot handle stress.” 

“A private therapist or the VA would likely be my first choices, followed by our 

Employee Assistance Program, partly for privacy reasons, partly for the 

[professional] experience I would expect the VA to possess.” 

“Real or not, I perceive the possibility that any knowledge of me using these 

services by co-workers or superiors, would brand me with a stigma I want 

nothing to do with and possibly call my overall mental state into question.” 

-30-
“Nothing is confidential. I don't trust the upper leadership of this job. It’s a 

bureaucracy, and they have a lot of people investigating us for all kinds of 

things. I am not going to give them anything they can use [against] me.” 

These types of comments indicate a high mistrust of services designed to assist with 

transition and adjustment issues. Departments need to address the confidentiality issues 

of the services they offer and/or clear up misconceptions related to confidentiality. 

Suggested Agency Improvements 

Many focus group members suggested a need for focus groups within their own agencies 

so their leaders would understand issues faced by their veterans. Officers were asked if 

their agencies should create a veteran’s ad hoc advisory committee to advise their 

department chief on veteran’s issues. Of the veteran officers who responded (n=180), 68 

percent stated they think that their agencies should create this type of committee; most 

stated they would serve on such a committee. 

“The ad hoc committee would be useful in helping identify and work through 

issues created by military service. It would also work as a way to vet those issues 

on a case-by-case basis.” 

Training Recommendations 

The survey instruments did not include questions that directly addressed training. Survey 

respondents did not include any training recommendations in their comments pertaining 

to other question topics. 

Additional Comments 

The survey also allowed respondents the opportunity to share any additional comments 

on veteran officers returning to or entering law enforcement. Veteran officers stated the 

following points. 

“I would like to see input from the female perspective.” 

“Knowledge on veteran-related issues is a huge asset for a department. Knowing 

what a department is dealing with will give them the ability to help veterans 

when it is needed.” 

“I am happy to see veterans in law enforcement receive attention, as there are a 

high percentage of veterans in law enforcement. Veterans’ issues are 

unfortunately low on the priorities list in this country despite the challenges 

asked of them.” 

“I love being in the military and having the opportunity to serve in a law 

enforcement agency. This is the best of both worlds and I have never had a 

regret doing it.” 

Survey Summary 

The survey analysis provided a more detailed look at veteran officers and agencies. The 

following points highlight key data collected from the veteran officers’ survey responses: 

-31-
• Veteran officers desire recognition upon return to their department 

• A transition period of up to six months is desirable and should be tailored to the 

individual officer 

• A good proportion of officers maintain their Reserve or National Guard affiliation 

• Veteran officers bring transferable skill sets learned in the military to their 

department 

• Reintegration must include specific, tailored training to acclimate veteran officers 

to civilian policing tasks 

• Veteran officers can display a variety of emotional, physical, and behavioral 

changes upon return which may take weeks or sometimes months to notice the 

change 

• Departments can do more to reach out to veteran officers and their family members 

as they readjust to life post deployment 

• Veteran officers have a perception that assistance programs and personnel will not 

maintain their confidentiality, leading veteran officers to avoid seeking assistance 

The leaders found the following to be true of their veteran officers: 

• Improvement was noted in leadership skills after they returned to duty 

• Psychological difficulties, such as PTSD, may be attributed to their combat 

experience 

• Attributes such as fitness, discipline, and maturity were valued 

• A transition period of less than six months was adequate for some. The greater 

number of activations, the longer each subsequent transition took. 

• Confidential psychological assessment and fitness for duty evaluations for veteran 

officers should be mandatory 

Focus Group Findings 

Analysis of the focus group data revealed five overarching themes: veteran attributes, 

transition issues, agency response, suggested agency improvements, and training 

recommendations. 

1. Veteran Attributes 

Focus group participants consistently identified the positive skills veterans bring to law 

enforcement. Examples include: 

• Superior firearms and tactical skills 

• More discipline, higher ethical standards, integrity 

• Better decision makers and leaders 

• Better able to assess situations and react under stress 

• More life experience and maturity 

• Better at planning and being prepared 

• Higher physical fitness level 

• Greater willingness to involve themselves in dangerous situations 

These findings indicate that veterans return with skills that they believe enhance their 

performance as law enforcement officers. Their actions in combat environments provide 

experiences that transfer to domestic policing, particularly their ability to react under 

stress and make quick, accurate decisions in uncertain and changing situations. 

-32-
Focus group participants frequently made the distinction between veterans and nonveterans who are law enforcement officers. Their opinion was that officers without 

military experience were more tentative about reacting in crisis situations and less skilled 

at employing the tactics and strategies necessary to resolve events. 

2. Transition Issues 

Many issues surround the transition from combat to civilian life and the return to law 

enforcement careers. Veterans noted that their perspective on a number of issues has 

changed based on their military experience: 

• Low tolerance for citizens’ complaints, which they perceive as minor, relative to 

their own combat experiences 

• Reduced level of empathy for others 

• High level of frustration with their families and with civilians 

• Impatience with the decision makers and leaders within their agencies 

• Indifference to spouses’ or family problems 

• Feeling that veterans are the only people who understand their issues and 

experiences, leading to isolation and desire to return to a combat theater 

• Only trusting other veterans; an “us versus them” mentality 

• Different rules of engagement and standard operating procedures 

• The need to adjust driving behavior to domestic streets 

• The need to adjust language to civilian environments 

• Temporarily feeling stressed and anxious, along with having nightmares 

• Perception that the Reserves and National Guard face a different set of issues and 

have less of a built-in support system compared to active duty veterans 

Veterans say the bonds formed within their units are stronger than the bonds they have 

within their law enforcement agencies. They also think that their families do not 

understand their experiences or issues. 

When veterans return to their jobs, they initially have trouble adjusting their use of force 

thresholds or adhering to domestic operating procedures. For instance, in military 

operating environments, troops can physically detain suspicious or non-compliant 

individuals even when little threat is present. Domestically, officers need a greater threat 

level to go “hands on.” Different objectives dictate how buildings are searched in a 

combat zone versus domestic environments. The standard operating procedure in a 

combat zone is to search buildings at a very rapid pace and physically detain anyone 

encountered. In domestic environments, officers search at a slower pace, with more 

planning, and must question non-threatening individuals who are not suspects. 

For a short time upon return (estimates of two to six months), veterans react, mentally 

and/or physically, to the environmental indicators of danger they encountered in combat 

environments. For example, they report some hesitancy when approaching cars during 

traffic stops, or when dealing with gang members. They avoid driving over potholes or 

close to roadway debris and they drive out from under bridges at a different place from 

where they entered. 

National Guard and Reservists, along with their families, face issues that differ from 

active duty members, such as not having a built-in family support system, the initial 

-33-
expectation that they would not deploy into combat theaters and separation from their 

units when they return. 

Many veteran officers in the focus groups reported having difficulty adjusting from 

having decision-making authority during deployment to having limited input on decisions 

back at their agencies. 

3. Current Agency Response 

Focus group participants discussed the types of responses or policy “disconnects” they 

encountered at their agencies when they returned from deployments. These include: 

• No structure in place for transitioning veterans back into their departments 

• Differences in methods of computing pay and benefits while deployed 

• No family assistance programs while deployed 

• Variation in the transition times agencies allow recruits, from none to 90 days 

• Perception that some agencies are disingenuous in their concern for the issues 

faced by veterans during their transition 

• Non-veterans evaluating their return to duty status 

• A requirement for mandatory evaluations when not required of others 

• Lack of communication between law enforcement agencies and the military 

• An unawareness of the resources available to veterans 

• A reluctance to hire military personnel who may deploy multiple times 

• In some cases, there was minimal assistance or compensation from federal 

agencies for the sworn federal officers who conduct investigations and are 

deployed Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) 

Discussions revealed the need to have standardized plans in place prior to veterans’ 

return from deployment. With a plan in place, veterans will know what to expect from 

their agencies when they return. They expressed a strong feeling that their agencies do 

not understand their needs because most of their supervisors are not veterans, or are out 

of touch with Gulf War-era veterans. 

Federal agents shared some unique concerns during the focus groups sessions. They are 

deployed overseas as federal agents and do not train with the military prior to 

deployment. Many agents may not have extensive military backgrounds. They work 

alongside military service members and share similar experiences as the troops; however, 

they do not receive military benefits or support. Some federal agencies have few 

transition assistance programs; agents stated that in some cases their agencies failed to 

acknowledge their service overseas or address any trauma or transitional issues upon 

return. 

4. Resources/Agency Response Suggestions 

The focus group participants provided many suggestions for services and resources they 

would like their agencies to provide to veterans, such as: 

• Pre-deployment briefing and/or resource packages that inform veterans and their 

families about what to expect from the agency throughout the deployment and 

upon return 

• Clear definition of agency benefits, compensation, and paperwork requirements 

-34-
• Liaison between law enforcement agencies and veteran affairs 

• Peer-to-peer support groups 

• A single person within the department to handle officers’ issues while deployed 

• Agency liaison with officers’ families while deployed 

• Structured transition plan to reintegrate officers back into their agencies 

• A departmental representative who has military experience and can provide neutral 

and confidential guidance to returning veterans 

• Continued e-mail or phone contact with officers while they are deployed 

• Publicly acknowledging veterans for their service in a way that includes their 

families 

• Reassuring veterans that they can discuss problems and seek help confidentially 

and without repercussions 

Many of the needs expressed by the focus group members involved support for their 

families. They also requested that their agencies provide peer-to-peer support groups 

where veterans can meet in supportive and understanding environments. Many expressed 

frustration at having to figure out complex and confusing paperwork with little or no 

guidance. They worry that asking for help will hinder or hurt their careers and want 

reassurance from their agencies that it is permissible and encouraged to seek assistance. 

5. Training Recommendations 

Focus group participants wanted their agencies to direct them to the most essential 

policies, procedures, and changes without making them wade through incoherent and 

irrelevant documents. Participants also wanted to practice transitioning their language 

from an environment where everyone is the enemy to an environment of community 

policing. 

The discussions indicated that training to reprogram muscle memory is vital. Veteran 

officers return with training unique to military combat survival, such as where to reach 

for their weapons and other survival equipment. They need to relearn the automatic 

reactions that correspond to the equipment and tactics they use in domestic environments. 

A comprehensive driving training would support the transition from combat zone driving 

to domestic driving. Focus group participants thought scenario-based training would be 

useful. They wanted either a FTO or peer assigned to them to evaluate their actions and 

update them on new tactics and equipment. 

Individual Interview Findings 

Conducting face-to-face interviews with ten veteran officers allowed the project team 

time to elicit details about experiences during deployment and within agencies. 

Interviewees were asked about difficult tasks or duties associated with their transition to 

law enforcement. They discussed law enforcement skills that were positively or 

negatively influenced by their combat experience and the unique abilities combat 

veterans bring to their policing jobs. In addition, they provided details about their 

transition assistance needs and suggested on going support, policy, and training that 

agencies could provide. 

-35-
Veteran Attributes 

It is clear, from both the focus groups and interviews, that the qualities veterans bring to 

agencies are highly valued. Several interviewees also noted a trade-off in value, 

suggesting that the military also benefits from their skills as law enforcement officers. 

The focus groups provided a list of veteran attributes and interviewee discussions 

reflected many of these attributes, such as greater discipline, maturity, and leadership. 

These skills often support a higher level of performance in tasks that include planning, 

coordination, and assessment. 

Interviewees stated that military service enhances their abilities to more quickly analyze 

situations, process information, and respond. Deployments made them “more attuned to 

people and their behaviors.” This is one of the qualities that gave veterans more 

confidence in their technical skills and a greater willingness to involve themselves in 

dangerous situations. 

“The military prepared me to be very organized, so when I am on a traumatic 

scene I am very calm about those things. In just a few seconds I figure it out and 

start to manage the crisis. That is a major advantage of the military. Those that 

have been in major crises and have survived them handle them better later.” 

While there was consensus among the interviewees that veterans bring an array of skills 

to the department, it is not the case that veteran officers will always be better, faster, or 

more conditioned than non-veterans. The ability to manage a specific situation, such as 

engaging an enemy, is still dependent upon that officer’s range of experience in those 

types of situations. It is possible that combat experience will produce an officer who is 

better prepared to manage those incidents than a veteran who did not face combat. 

Additionally, there are a number of transitional challenges (both technical and personal) 

that veterans must balance upon returning. These challenges may or may not affect job 

performance. 

Transition Issues 

Key to improving department resources for combat veterans is identifying the challenges 

personnel face when transitioning from military deployment to civilian work. As one 

interviewee expressed, “when you get back your senses are more heightened. You need to 

focus on the fact that you are not in a combat environment and that you are providing a 

professional service. Heightened senses make sure that the officer goes home at night, 

but negatively it could cause them to over-react or re-experience something that 

happened to them [during deployment].” 

The focus groups and interviews revealed a range of transition challenges including: 

• Performance impact 

• Increased stress and discomfort levels 

• Reduced empathy and tolerance for civilians 

• Family frustrations 

• Challenges with leadership 

-36-
Performance Impact – Interviewees repeatedly stressed the need to re-acclimate to law 

enforcement work: “You have to get re-acclimated to the daily rhythm. In the workplace, 

there are some difficulties in remembering how to do it as a police officer.” This reacclimation includes territorial familiarization and relearning how to drive. 

“I had to readjust to geography because they knocked down a lot of houses and 

changed streets. When I came back it was like the city had totally changed.” 

“I got lost sometimes because I didn’t know what street I was on. It is kind of an 

eerie feeling standing there by yourself and not knowing where you are. It was a 

street that I was familiar with before. After the second deployment, the transition 

took longer.” 

“I don’t like driving over potholes because in Iraq they would put explosive 

devices in potholes and then pour concrete over them. And still, I have problems 

driving over potholes, and anything in the road that looks like it shouldn’t be 

there.” 

While the impact of this type of challenge may appear small on the surface, one 

interviewee relayed the impact of this disorientation. 

“During a foot chase, the suspect hopped over a fence and I pursued him. He ran 

in one direction and I found myself standing on the street with no idea which 

way to go. I was totally disoriented. I had worked these streets for years, but it 

was like I’d never been there before. When you’ve been away for a year you 

have to become familiar with the streets again. I had to study maps to familiarize 

myself with the area.” 

One of the greatest performance challenges may be overcoming the mental shift from 

battlefield to Main Street. The ability to make this shift leads to many of the other 

transition challenges highlighted during the interviews, such as interfacing with civilians. 

As shown in the example below, it can also create higher levels of uncertainty about how 

to manage a situation or a degraded reaction time during events. 

“In [California], a gang city, I responded to gun fire. There was an 11 year-old 

gunshot victim. I get there, and chaos is breaking out, there is a crowd. They are 

all asking questions, pushing to get on the scene. And I thought I was back in 

Iraq, and I thought I was going to lose my control. And there are people 

surrounding you, and everyone wants something. Started pushing people, and 

that is when you have to gain your composure, and I was able to stop and say ‘I 

know why they are like this; it is an 11-year-old.’ In Iraq you would fire a 

couple shots in the air to push the crowds back. But here [the response] would 

be to push the yellow tape back and request backup. And in Iraq, I have had 

people come into your truck and take your food or equipment. And you fire a 

couple of shots, but here you can’t do that. It is real hard, especially when you 

have just come back from a tour. It is hard for your mind to transition from a 

military to a law mode... I did not act on my impulse like it was Iraq, I actually 

physically stepped back to my patrol car and watched things for awhile and I 

was able to clear my mind. It wasn’t that I didn’t know where I was, it was more 

I felt overwhelmed by all the screaming. I was more nervous because of having 

to deal with crowds in Iraq.” 

-37-
Because operating procedures and rules of engagement are different from combat to law 

enforcement, many interviewees discussed the challenges of shifting back to law 

enforcement procedures. 

“In SWAT, no one can get shot. When we enter a building or room [in the 

military] we yelled ‘down’ and shot anyone who didn’t, but not in SWAT. You 

have to make a judgment call. By military standards, I am successful if I take 

less than 13 percent casualties but in SWAT, you can’t take any casualties.” 

Increased Stress and Discomfort Levels – The California example reflects a high level 

of discomfort with crowds. Several interviewees identified this as a situation that is much 

more stressful post-deployment. 

“When I’m in a crowd, if people start flanking me I move back and make sure no 

one can sneak up on me... In a situation like that, there should always be a 

bumper behind you. Even at small gatherings, even when we have a cookout, I 

try to stay back. If I go to a bar, I will sit at the end of the bar away from 

everyone and, if it is packed, then I’m leaving.” 

Other interviewees felt understandably challenged by sights and sounds that were 

reminiscent of the battlefield. One interviewee recalled that it took weeks to get over 

taking cover as a conditioned response to hearing alarms sound, and is still startled 

occasionally at the sound of a siren (over a year after returning). It is important to note 

that this interviewee also felt that “these conditioned responses can be a good thing.” 

However, there is a need to balance this over-conditioning and determine the appropriate 

level for civilian policing. 

Additional points of discomfort were related to differences in weaponry and other 

equipment during deployment vs. post-deployment. 

“We are so used to carrying long rifles there, and here it was odd not having one. 

[I had to] get used to the idea that you only have a sidearm. And wearing your 

vest on the inside not the outside, there were equipment issues that I had to get 

used to. Driving a car, learning your geography again you have to relearn 

everything.” 

Reduced Empathy and Tolerance for Civilians – Examples illustrating a reduced level 

of concern for civilians once returning to policing were prevalent throughout the 

interviews. This manifested itself in what some interviewees considered “small 

problems” or “whining” from the civilians they encounter. Others expressed decreased 

concern and greater frustration with people who they perceived as unconcerned about the 

war. 

There were several examples of officers having to regain self-control when they found 

themselves yelling at people or becoming aggressive during their interactions with 

civilians. Interviewees recognized that they had become accustomed to communicating 

differently with people while in Iraq or Afghanistan. 

“In Iraq, I had to use hand gestures or demonstrate for people to understand. 

When I got back here I found myself doing the same thing. I’d point in a 

direction and tell them to go. When I got back [home], I found myself pointing 

and telling people where to go and get out and show them. That was an 

-38-
adjustment I had to make. Before, if people were on the corner and I wanted 

them to move I would have just warned them, not put my hands on them. [When] 

I realized it was me that was making my job harder and not everyone else I 

started making adjustments.” 

This communication difference is also reflected in officers’ increased military demeanor 

upon returning to law enforcement. 

“The hardest thing for me during my transition was control issues... A student 

told me recently that I was so intimidating...I didn’t see myself as intimidating. I 

had two complaints lodged on me. Both of them dealt with people perceiving me 

to be very military in bearing and unbendable on the scene...That is the hardest 

thing I had to deal with.” 

Decreased concern for civilian well-being is perhaps one thing that impacts an officer’s 

effectiveness on the job. The role of an officer to protect and serve is not only 

compromised by this mental shift from protector to a disinterested or unconcerned 

individual, but the public perception of the officer’s willingness (or lack thereof) to 

protect can have a severe impact on community relations. Interviewees recognized this 

indifference, however, in some of the interviews, the posture was “I know it’s wrong, but 

I don’t care anymore.” 

“I have no tolerance for people asking me for directions. Someone stopped me 

and I said, ‘Why can’t you just leave me alone?’ I had a bad attitude, and I 

could tell from his face that I made him mad, and rightfully so. I was 

disrespectful. [I have] this ‘I don’t care’ attitude. I don’t want to waste my time 

with disabled vehicles because I want to go catch the bad guys. I have less 

tolerance for the minor things, and they should be just as important. There was 

an 80-year-old male with a disabled vehicle, and he started changing the tire 

himself. And I told him not to do that. Normally I would have changed the tire 

myself, but he kept going, and I walked back to my car.” 

Participants in both the focus groups and interviews noticed an increased suspicion of 

citizens based on their nationality. Specifically, a few officers expressed a heightened 

awareness when they see someone of Middle Eastern descent. There is a tendency among 

some to profile those they come across with an Arabic name. Interestingly, this was 

expressed solely as an artifact of deployment rather than the veteran officers’ personal 

perceptions toward people of Middle Eastern descent. This may speak to the need for 

cultural training not only pre-deployment, but also post-deployment as a way to 

“deprogram” perceptions and definitions of the adversary. 

Family Frustrations – Not surprisingly, many veterans have increased frustration or 

challenges with family. Whether this is the result of feeling stress over reintegrating into 

the family unit, needing an outlet for releasing frustration, or imposing structure wherever 

possible, there is a tendency to be more hardened with family. This hardening can begin 

prior to the return home. 

“Over there dealing with family stuff was frustrating. We were like, ‘We don’t 

have the time to deal with this stuff.’ Our tolerance for dealing with stuff back at 

home was lower. The stress and focus was on trying to get back home... Dealing 

with family problems, when I got home, at first my family really didn’t bother me 

-39-
with stuff; it was more about quality time. My tolerance for noise, I was like, ‘I 

need alone time, leave me be.’ ...tolerance is still low for everyday life.” 

Perhaps another motivator for this behavior is the need to maintain a leadership position 

upon returning. For those veterans who rank higher in their military position than their 

law enforcement position, losing this rank can be difficult to manage. This perceived 

reduction in rank can lead to increased frustration with their agency leadership. 

“In Iraq, no one ever questioned you; you did things the way you wanted. In law 

enforcement, you can’t do that, you have to remember to take it down.” 

“Overseas you can just make a decision, but here you have to go through all the 

admin layers before you can make a decision.” 

Challenges with Leadership – As the example above illustrates, officers stated that they 

tend to have more decision-making authority while deployed overseas. Upon return, that 

authority is diminished. Often, veteran officers transition from a command position 

during deployment to a patrol or a lower command position at their law enforcement 

agencies. They report the tendency to compare their manager’s decision making process 

or style to their own. 

After working within a military environment, which often has a more regimented 

structure, officers often find it difficult to work under leaders that may not be as decisive, 

direct, or polished as their military officer [leader].

“I expect a lot from someone in a leadership position. You expect them to conduct 

themselves in a certain way and when they don’t I get frustrated. Coming out of 

the [military], I have certain standards on how they should behave. It irritates 

me more now. I see a lot of things. It seems I pick up on the double standard a 

lot more now.” 

One notable point from the data is that work transitions are potentially more manageable 

for veteran officers whose roles and tasks in the department are similar to those in the 

military. For example, tasks related to working intelligence for the law enforcement 

agency and serving in an Intel Analyst role in the military may be similar enough that the 

technical re-acclimation process may not be as great as those who serve in divergent 

roles. This finding indicates a need for flexibility that addresses a range of transitional 

needs rather than “one size fits all” veteran support. 

Current Agency Response 

“The patrol didn’t know what to do with me. I sat around for a week, so I had to 

read a bunch of policies and procedures. It was just very unorthodox. They just 

threw together some training for me.” 

Interviewees had diverse perceptions of how their agencies responded to their 

deployment. The data indicates that a low level of organized support currently exists 

among agencies. For most, their agencies lack a structure to transition veterans into the 

department. This lack of structure also exists in regards to keeping officers up to date on 

agency affairs while deployed, preparing for reintegration (e.g. not being included in 

performance review and promotion processes) and supporting them once they returned. 

-40-
“Supervisors didn’t always understand. Like when I had to go to the Veteran’s 

Administration for appointments. They made it hard for me to do things with the 

military so I could slowly get back to civilian life. And no one wanted to touch 

me because I was subject to go back to war.” 

There appears to be a general lack of formalized transition programs. Some veteran 

officers experienced a program that was assembled impromptu, without real thought to 

their individual needs, while others were surprised to find that their department had no 

idea that they were even returning to the job from deployment. These varied experiences 

were attributed to a need for improved communication between military and law 

enforcement organizations. 

Resources/Agency Response Suggestions 

Interviewees provided a range of suggestions for improved agency support. These 

suggestions call for programs that not only support personnel as they transition back into 

their civilian roles, but also target individual veteran officers’ needs. The greatest need 

expressed was for an agency representative or sponsor who can support veterans and their 

families during deployment and post-deployment. 

“When new recruits come into the system, if they are military, everybody should 

be assigned a sponsor. So, if they get activated their sponsor takes care of things 

and keeps the person abreast. Because when I was away, I wasn’t told anything. 

They took my benefits and nobody called or told me anything. They couldn’t call 

me because all we had was satellite. Sponsors could be a contact for the family. 

Your wife and kids won’t know who to call otherwise. When you get back, the 

sponsor sets up training and your dates to go to the range, etc.” 

“Much of agency support should be logistical. Have a liaison officer, someone to 

help you handle all those logistical things. A mentor or support officer that will 

get you back in and get you going. Someone that will help you get reacclimated.” 

In addition to assigning a sponsor to veterans and their families, interviewees expressed a 

strong desire to have improved communication between their law enforcement and 

military organizations. 

“The post-deployment assessments—the department needs to know exactly what 

happened to that officer while he was deployed. So [the police agency and 

military] can talk together to let them know that person is coming back, and 

people can plan. And there should also be some contact with the family, how is 

he doing, is he closing himself off, is he more aggressive, and those are all 

things that you need to know. And then you can cater training to possible PTSD 

or re-adjustment issues. A lot of times, re-adjustment issues are misdiagnosed as 

PTSD.” 

They also suggested that their agencies set up or facilitate the organization of support 

groups for the veteran officers returning from military service. 

 “I think there should be a support group either within the police department or 

within the community. People can share their stories, and people can laugh, and 

laughing is a coping mechanism.” 

-41-
Of great importance to the veteran officers was the need to be acknowledged for the work 

that they, and others, have done overseas. This was a topic of much discussion during the 

focus group sessions and was reinforced during the interviews. 

“You are back in your job, and there is a level of frustration for not feeling 

appreciated. You come back and all your work has piled up...We were supposed 

to receive an award, and we have not received our awards yet. And every time 

we contact headquarters they say, ‘we are working on it.’ I think we should be 

paid a lot more appreciation by [our agencies]. I think [there needs to be] a 

greater appreciation for the fact that you have volunteered and supported the 

global war on terrorism.” 

“I was never as proud as the day I walked off the plane and there were a bunch of 

people waiting. It was really sad to realize that it just didn’t matter [in my 

agency] sometimes...There was never a welcome home party or any recognition 

of what we did and the sacrifices that we made. It would be nice to be 

recognized.” 

Training Recommendations 

“A vet coming back can say, ‘I already know about that, I already have that 

training, I need this,’ etc. There is a difference between forcing and offering 

training.” 

Many of the anecdotes presented indicate various training needs, including transitional 

training for driving skills, operating procedures, new equipment familiarization, along 

with re-orientation to community relations and communication skills. Interviewees 

discussed the need for diverse training that addresses different skill sets and skill levels. 

“[Training needs] will depend on the experience the person had when they were 

deployed. If they had an administrative job, they will come back and only need a 

refresher.” 

“I found it interesting that I had to ride along with an FTO (Field Training 

Officer). I wouldn’t [normally] do that. I outrank FTOs and they only outrank 

recruits. I think I should have ridden around with a Sergeant. It is kind of 

humiliating to have to do that.” 

“[The new recruits] coming in from active duty [notice] there are police officers 

that don’t shine their boots or iron their uniforms, but they still might be a good 

cop. In the academy you should prepare them for the let down that not everyone 

is military and not everyone is like you. Also, I was used to the high speed, and it 

isn’t like that either. You just have to lower your expectations.” 

Interviewees discussed training to help with the policy and equipment changes that take 

place while they are deployed. 

“They need to put something in place to start supporting us better. [We need 

support for] training, rules of engagement, or use of force. Over there, you fire 

warning shots, here you don’t use that. In our agency, policy changes at least 

once a week, so you have to keep up on that. [You have to get] re-acclimated 

with your gear and used to shooting your own weapons, using your handcuffs 

-42-
and the things that you carry on a day-to-day basis. We only get to qualify with 

our weapons twice a year, so if they deploy for six months and come back and 

get into a situation where they have to use their weapon there might be a 

hesitation.” 

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) has a training program that 

resonated with many of the focus group and interview participants. The LASD issues a 

Unit Commander Military Leave Resource Handbook which instructs their leadership on 

how to support veteran officers. This handbook addresses the obligations of leadership, 

legal codes, how to avoid scheduling conflicts, and a structured out/in processing 

checklist for the department and veteran to follow. It also establishes a Military Action 

Committee which facilitates the transition process and maintains communication with the 

officer when he or she is deployed. 

It would be useful to evaluate the LASD program and consider using it as a model for 

future training programs. Some veteran officers expressed concern about making 

programs and training mandatory. They also warn against stigmatizing officers who 

return from duty by leading people to believe that all veterans are “broken” as one 

interviewee put it. 

“I hope that we can tell people that these guys are not monsters waiting to blow 

up. These kids are not broken. In some ways they are better.” 

“The [program] Los Angeles [conducts] would be powerful. So the vet coming 

back can say “I already know about that, I already have that training, no I need 

that, etc.” There is a difference between forcing and offering training. 

[Veterans] don’t trust anything that is regimented, so we try to make it 

informal.” 

“I was so impressed with the Los Angeles program. There are only a few 

programs in the country. Los Angeles has volumes of officers coming back, so 

they can’t afford not to deal with that. I liked the fact that they have support and 

mentoring, a psychologist on staff, and a structured program...[Perhaps] the 

small departments that can’t afford [a program like Los Angeles] can use the 

resources of the bigger units.” 

Panel Findings 

The following points emerged from the floor discussions as well as interaction with the 

panel members at the 2008 IACP Annual Conference: 

• Veteran officers return to agencies with maturity and experience and these 

attributes should be utilized 

• Continuous communication with family members is critical 

• Written departmental policies for the reintegration of veteran officers are essential 

• Trust, communication, and teamwork are recognized attributes in the transition 

process 

• Transition time is necessary but the duration should be flexible 

• Field training officers assigned to assist with the transition process should have 

military experience 

-43-
• Psychological assessments and fitness for duty evaluations are necessary but 

should not use procedures that will stigmatize the employee 

• Law enforcement leadership should establish a peer group that includes all 

returning veteran officers 

• Law enforcement leadership should establish an ad-hoc advisory group so veteran 

officers can influence departmental policy and procedures 

• Law enforcement leaders should continue their promotion policies that affect their 

veteran officers and include them in the process while deployed 

• Disciplinary procedures should not differentiate between veteran officers and other 

employees 

• Medical screening is important for the veteran officer and their family members 

• Some sworn officers in the chain of command may not understand the sacrifices 

veteran officers make while in the voluntary service to their country 

• Studies on multiple deployments and their effect on agencies is incomplete but 

ongoing within the DOD 

Roundtable Findings 

Similar to the panel discussions, many common discussion points emerged from the 

roundtable: 

• Veteran officers understand chain of command and bring the ability to “think 

outside the box” to domestic, tactical, and operational confrontations in stressful 

environments 

• Serving in the armed forces reinforced their sense of discipline which helped keep 

them alive during their deployment 

Roundtable participants advocated for mentoring programs with other veteran officers 

and military liaison officers to assist with pre-deployment tasks. The participants also 

made the following points about transition issues: 

• Peer groups were important to setting departmental policy 

• Veteran officers expressed the need for more time during their pre-deployment 

stage to take care of personal business and ready their family for separation 

• Assigning a military liaison officer who represents a military component to assist 

with pre-deployment tasks is necessary 

• While some veteran officers agreed that they might require approximately 90 days 

to decompress and transition, most agreed that chiefs should encourage them to 

take the time they need before they return to work. Other veteran officers returning 

from multiple deployments may require more time.5

• During the transition phase, veteran officers could be placed in less stressful jobs 

to better acclimate themselves to routine duties 

• Families must always be included in pre-deployment, deployment, and postdeployment plans and planning 

• Some federal agencies are challenged by deployments; some assistance (overhaul) 

in policy, procedures, and caring is essential in some departments. 

 

5

 Deployment-related health concerns may be exacerbated by multiple deployments but this 

phenomenon has not been studied sufficiently to draw any conclusions. 

-44-
• A departmental web site (home page) with information (official and unofficial) 

would help with communications 

• Returning veteran officers with disabilities require physical and mental assistance, 

some more than others 

• Periodic confidential psychological assessments are necessary to monitor any 

negative effects upon resumption of law enforcement duties, with feedback and 

training provided to the employee if needed 

• Agencies – big and small, municipal or state – handle veteran officers differently. 

IACP sample policies or roadmaps would be helpful to those organizations lacking 

written policies. 

• Agencies may have written policies in place; however, communications are 

problematic within the chain-of-command 

• Individual financial planning should be part of the transition program 

-45-
RECOMMENDATIONS

Veteran officers and law enforcement leaders, including those in charge of federal, state, 

local, and tribal law enforcement agencies, would benefit from a comprehensive predeployment, deployment, and post-deployment plan that exploit the talents, ambitions, 

sense of pride, and discipline fostered in veteran officers. The research provided many 

suggestions for programs, initiatives, and training that would help new recruits and 

returning officers who have served. 

This research study identified several “best practices” and recommendations that can be 

implemented by agencies to ensure veteran officers have a successful entry or re-entry 

into policing. Some of these recommendations can be implemented immediately upon 

receipt of this document and are not resource dependent; others are geared for mid- and 

long-range development. 

Immediate (30-60 days) 

• Publicly acknowledge veteran officers for their service on their return to their 

agency/community 

• Create within-agency focus groups to learn more about veteran officers’ needs 

• Develop communication methods with veteran officers and their families 

throughout the deployment cycle 

• Offer veteran officers a flexible timetable to meet a range of transitional needs 

• Create a specialized FTO-type program structured to assist veteran officers 

• Allow the veteran officer to ride-along or job-shadow with a peer 

• Address the confidentiality policies of the services offered and clarify 

misconceptions 

• Update veteran officers on new policies, procedures, laws, and changes in 

equipment and technology 

Mid-Range (6-9 months) 

• Establish peer and family support groups 

• Incorporate training that addresses equipment differences and the reprogramming 

of muscle memory 

• Develop a comprehensive family care plan and checklist 

• Structure training for each veteran officer’s specific needs 

• Review rules of engagement and standard operating procedures 

• Establish a comprehensive driver training program 

• Develop a comprehensive web-based communications system 

• Update returning officers on new policies, procedures, laws, equipment, and 

technology 

• Develop an ethics and language review to ease the transition back to a civilian 

culture 

-46-
Long-Range (1-2 years) 

• Develop core training (e.g., firearms, in-service, update specialized training) 

• Create scenario-based training to identify transitional issues and to practice tactics 

• Address the unique training needs of federal agencies 

• Develop strategies to employ disabled combat veterans 

• Gauge the effectiveness of military and civilian law enforcement partnerships 

From these research activities the IACP will produce two guidebooks, one for veteran 

officers and one for leaders, which will provide a comprehensive easy-to-read roadmap 

that will address the issues faced by veterans. We will also develop a curriculum to assist 

agencies in training and/or retraining veteran officers. 

-47-
FURTHER STUDY

Because this was an exploratory study, the next steps should include systematic 

evaluations of targeted themes in order to validate the current findings. The IACP and 

ARA/KAD suggest the following: 

• Determine best practices among law enforcement agencies for veteran officers’ 

transition from service member to law enforcement officer 

• Conduct research on the real or perceived stigmatization of veteran officers’ 

seeking assistance services 

• Compare veteran officers to non-veteran officers and identify where each group’s 

skills can benefit one another for the most effective work force 

• Examine factors pertinent to returning military police, security force, or Master of 

Arms personnel who transition to civilian law enforcement 

Future Initiatives 

There are several potential projects that would allow the IACP to continue to provide and 

validate support to both veterans and police chiefs and optimize their service to their 

families, their departments, their communities, and themselves. Such projects could 

include: 

• Examine sworn and unsworn law enforcement positions and identify those that can 

be filled by veterans who are fitted with prosthetic devices, to provide them the 

opportunity to fulfill a law enforcement career. 

• Conduct empirical evaluation of the Phase I findings 

• Implement and oversee a pilot program with a small group of law enforcement 

agencies that incorporates the recommendations contained within the guidebooks 

• Survey DOD military police agencies and compare findings with civilian law 

enforcement agencies 

• Study the effect of multiple deployments on law enforcement agencies 

• Develop a web-based multimedia training program for veterans and supervisors 

• Develop a guidebook for families of veteran officers 

• Partner with DOD or VA and examine alternative careers for disabled veteran 

officers in the criminal justice field 

• Partner with the U.S. Army’s Battlemind program to build resilience into law 

enforcement officers at the pre-deployment stage 

The IACP is prepared to address this need for further research and meet the challenges of 

developing meaningful and cost effective follow-up projects with selected partners. 

-48-
APPENDIX A 

Project Advisory Committee 

Lieutenant Colonel John Brown 

Deputy Commissioner of Administration 

Pennsylvania State Police

Michael Brown 

Sheriff, Bedford County (VA) 

Major General Joseph Carter 

Adjutant General 

Massachusetts National Guard 

Past President – IACP 

Colonel Frank Cohn 

USA, Retired 

Major General Eugene Cromartie 

USA, Retired 

Chief of Staff, IACP, Retired 

Dr. Fabrice Czarnecki 

Director Medical-Legal Research 

Gables Group Inc. 

Douglas Davis 

Chief of Police 

Waynesboro (VA) Police Department 

Steven Edwards, Ph.D. 

Project Monitor 

Senior Policy Advisor for Law 

Enforcement 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

U.S. Department of Justice 

James Fox 

Chief of Police 

Newport News (VA) Police Department 

Sheldon Greenburg 

Director of Public Safety Leadership 

Program 

Johns Hopkins University 

Terry Hess 

Chief of Staff 

Combating Terrorism Technology 

Support Office 

Audrey Honig, Ph.D. 

Program Director - Employee Services 

Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department 

Command Sergeant Major David 

Hudson 

Senior Enlisted Adviser 

National Guard Bureau 

Richard Keller 

Senior Consultant 

Battlemind Transition Office 

Walter Reed Army Institute of Research 

Jessie Lee 

Director 

National Organization of Black Law 

Enforcement Executives 

Colonel Patrick Lowery 

USA, Retired 

Ron Neubauer 

Executive Director 

Eastern Missouri Police Academy 

APPENDIX A 

Project Advisory Committee 

Lieutenant Colonel John Brown 

Deputy Commissioner of Administration 

Pennsylvania State Police

Michael Brown 

Sheriff, Bedford County (VA) 

Major General Joseph Carter 

Adjutant General 

Massachusetts National Guard 

Past President – IACP 

Colonel Frank Cohn 

USA, Retired 

Major General Eugene Cromartie 

USA, Retired 

Chief of Staff, IACP, Retired 

Dr. Fabrice Czarnecki 

Director Medical-Legal Research 

Gables Group Inc. 

Douglas Davis 

Chief of Police 

Waynesboro (VA) Police Department 

Steven Edwards, Ph.D. 

Project Monitor 

Senior Policy Advisor for Law 

Enforcement 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

U.S. Department of Justice 

James Fox 

Chief of Police 

Newport News (VA) Police Department 

Sheldon Greenburg 

Director of Public Safety Leadership 

Program 

Johns Hopkins University 

Terry Hess 

Chief of Staff 

Combating Terrorism Technology 

Support Office 

Audrey Honig, Ph.D. 

Program Director - Employee Services 

Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department 

Command Sergeant Major David 

Hudson 

Senior Enlisted Adviser 

National Guard Bureau 

Richard Keller 

Senior Consultant 

Battlemind Transition Office 

Walter Reed Army Institute of Research 

Jessie Lee 

Director 

National Organization of Black Law 

Enforcement Executives 

Colonel Patrick Lowery 

USA, Retired 

Ron Neubauer 

Executive Director 

Eastern Missouri Police Academy 

-49-
Joseph Rollo 

Director, Psychological Services 

Prince George’s County (MD) Police 

Department 

Sergeant Major Jeffery Stoddard 

Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor 

Veterans Administration 

Lieutenant Mike Thompson 

Maryland State Police 

Andrew Traver 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & 

Explosives 

Chicago Field Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Barbara Webster 

Principal Research Associate 

Institute for Law and Justice, Inc. 

John Wintersteen 

Director of Public Safety & Town 

Marshal 

Paradise Valley (AZ) Police Department 

Michael Yaniero 

Chief of Police 

Jacksonville (NC) Police Department 

Laura Zimmerman, Ph.D. 

Research Psychologist 

Applied Research Associates 

Klein Associates Division 

-50-
-51-
The International Association of Chiefs of Police

515 North Washington Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314

P: 703.836.6767 1.800.THE.IACP F: 703.836.4543

www.theiacp.org