THE police high command has launched a new Early Intervention System Policy which it says is a tool which will help it “clearly identify patterns of misconduct and assist in identifying policy failures or gaps for appropriate actions” to help cops consistently display actions that “reflect the standards and ethics” of the constabulary.

The policy, which is attached to the most recent Force Orders issued last Thursday as an appendix, rescinds 2015, 2023 and 2025 versions and “all subsequent republications”.

Commissioner of Police Dr Kevin Blake, in his prefacing remarks, said the policy is a recognition of the need to address the pressures facing cops.

“It is widely accepted that a police officer’s job by its very nature is challenging. In addition, police officers should manage their personal lives to function effectively. The Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF), in recognition of these challenges, has in its repository several regulations, policies and guidelines that guide officers in fulfilling their responsibilities ethically and with integrity. The Early Intervention System (EIS) has been developed to serve as a tool to support members by assessing their behaviours and actions and provide the necessary support to ensure they remain in conformity with the mandate of the force,” the top cop noted.

Said Dr Blake, “it takes real strength and grit to venture out to work each day and give one hundred per cent of your effort while having serious health or financial challenges at home weighing on your mind; yet that is the reality of many of us each day. Our early warning system to identify members with such challenges begins with you, their colleagues on the front line with them, so keep an eye on each other and let us be our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers”.

In the meantime, according to the Force Orders, the EIS is designed to benefit both the JCF and the concerned members by establishing a mechanism to clearly identify patterns of misconduct and assist in identifying policy failures or gaps for appropriate actions; enable members to be aware or identify blind spots or behaviours that are inimical; and to enable the JCF to mitigate professional risks to personal integrity and corporate image.

The policy applies to all sworn and non-sworn members of the JCF and the Rural Police Force and covers the identification, intervention and diversion of members displaying uncharacteristic behaviours. It also outlines the responsibilities of key personnel in the identification, intervention and diversion process as well as creating an enabling environment that underpins ethics and integrity.

The policy, which outlines several tiers of interventions, places the first move on the supervisors informally, tasking them with the responsibility to deal “with any report of antisocial behaviour or any other act of unprofessional conduct on the part of a member”. Upon ascertaining the possible reason(s) for the unusual conduct, the member may be referred to the Medical Services Branch for assessment and diagnosis or the Chaplaincy Services Branch of the constabulary.

The commissioner in the meantime stressed that “interventions should be conducted professionally and methodically to ensure that the issues affecting the member are addressed effectively”.

Those interventions include, among other things, recommending or causing the member to attend counselling where the issue is found to be personal or stress related; recommending or causing the member to be rotated where the diagnosis indicates fatigue or burnout; and recommending or causing the member to be placed on leave.

Furthermore, monitoring and evaluation of members is required following intervention and assessment which will see an EIS file being developed for each member to whom an officer or senior sub-officer will be assigned with a report being submitted every two months to the EIS until the intervention period expires.

Upon conclusion of its deliberations, the committee has the option of recommending reassignment, transfer, training or remedial training, counselling, mentoring, coaching, leave, or closer supervisions.

The commissioner in the meantime emphasised that “where there is evidence to suggest that unprofessional practices appear to be systematic within a station/division/formation, a similar approach should be taken which may require elevating the EIS committee from the divisional level to the area/branch level and in extreme cases to the Inspectorate and Professional Standards Oversight Bureau or portfolio level”.