New Paragraph

Some emergency response employees are exposed to Operational AND Organizational Trauma
November 3, 2024

Cover photo from www.tcsupfitting.com


In the emergency response context, there has been much discussion and research over the past 20 years regarding the effects of traumatic events of policing, fire and EMS operations on officers and some civilian personnel. It could be a single occurrence, several events or the cumulative result of many years of dealing with stressful incidents, but undoubtedly many personnel have suffered from varying degrees of mental health issues.

 

Police and other emergency responders are subjected to many horrific incidents 24/7 in their operational careers. Some of them involve grizzly deaths and untold exposure to danger and at times threats to their lives. In the policing world, making decisions around the use of deadly force and being subjected to assaults and attempts on their lives are not uncommon events.


U.S. police Captain and author Saul Jaeger, M.S. says that police officers “are exposed to an average of 178 critical incidents throughout their career, while the average person encounters two to three traumatic events in their life.”[i] EMS and fire service personnel would likely have similar stats.


Thankfully, the conversation is alive, given that in the past such discussion only occurred around the impacts of war on military personnel. Successful programs and proper resources are now largely in place to help uniformed and civilian employees (mainly call takers and dispatchers) and much has been done to try and break down the stigma that still does exist to some extent, resulting in employees being reluctant to self-disclose any symptoms of an Operational Stress Injury.


But what happens when the trauma that employees are exposed to isn’t related to operations, but to individuals, groups or cultures within the organization itself? Or in other cases, following an operational stress injury an individual experiences ‘sanctuary trauma’ from the organization they expect to be protected by, only to feel even more trauma and stress from unsupportive individuals or laborious HR processes.


Organizational stressors in the policing world, often fall into one of several of the examples below:


  • Inconsistent leadership style;
  • Leaders that over-emphasize the negatives (e.g., supervisor evaluations, public complaints);
  • Difficult co-workers;
  • An unhealthy organizational culture;
  • The feeling that different rules apply to different people (e.g., favouritism);
  • Co-workers seeming to look down on sick or injured members;
  • Dealing with difficult and/or weak supervisors (poor leaders);               
  • Excessive administrative duties;
  • Staffing shortages;         
  • Pressure to volunteer free time;
  • Unequal sharing of work responsibilities;       
  • Bureaucratic red tape/lack of decision-making;       
  • Promotional processes; and
  • Internal investigations.   


Some of those issues may be individual perceptions by some employees and I acknowledge that not everyone can be pleased, but often where there is smoke there is fire. Leadership is key at all levels, and must be consistent, fair, communicative and accountable to mitigate as many of these concerns as possible.


Organizational stressors, such as limited resources, interpersonal conflict, discrimination, and, significantly, ineffective leadership impact the mental health of police officers, much like operational stressors, which include traumatic incidents, risk of physical injury, and high consequence of error. (Simmons-Beauchamp, Sharp, 2022)[ii]


‘Sanctuary trauma’ is described by author Lisa Williams in her 2023 article entitled: Adding Insult to Injury: Sanctuary Trauma and Moral Injury, as:


…refers to the experience of trauma within a supposed safe or trusted environment. It occurs when individuals experience violations of trust perpetrated by members of their institution, or when an institution causes harm to an individual who trusts or depends on that institution.[iii]


In that vein, I recently heard of an incident under my watch, wherein a member who had been involved in a very challenging police operation that resulted in a death to a civilian and serious injuries to several officers, eventually approached a supervisor in our HR, and disclosed the mental health issues he was facing. The HR supervisor apparently replied with words to the effect of “Oh great, another (operation X) case.”


Obviously that disappointing welcome did not give the officer any sense that caring and supportive assistance would follow, which he harbored quietly within until he mentioned it to a retired senior officer friend years later. Here is a case where an officer is suffering from an operational stress injury and is brave enough to come forward following years of anguish, but was then subjected to sanctuary trauma by someone whose job it was to support the member. It made me physically ill to know that despite preaching that our members need to seek the help they deserve and that they will be supported, that such insensitive behaviour was exhibited under my command. How much more destructive conduct occurred at different organizational levels that completely flew in the face of what we were trying to achieve? Attempts to end the “suck it up” attitude exhibited by some supervisors and managers apparently fell on some deaf ears.


Of course, potential harmful internal environments (organizational and sanctuary failures) are not isolated to emergency responders. Companies and agencies of all sizes can be equally susceptible to ‘people’ – alone in or in clusters, at peer, supervisory and/or executive levels, that either inadvertently treat individuals in insensitive and harmful ways or are simply determined to make the lives of some others a living hell.


I propose that even in the policing realm, some of those negative experiences can have an even greater impact on the mental health of those on the receiving end than those exposed to severe acts of violence and threats to their lives. From a ‘career-risk’ perspective, disclosing such environments or seeking help because of their affects, can become even more threatening to hurting individuals.


A 2022 study conducted by Daniela Acquadro Maran, Nicola Magnavita and Sergio Garbarino, entitled: Identifying Organizational Stressors That Could Be a Source of Discomfort in Police Officers: A Thematic Review, stated the following:

Analysis of the included articles revealed four main themes in organizational factors, the presence or absence of which could influence police officers’ well-being as follows:


  1. Social support from the organization;
  2. Leadership;
  3. Organizational culture;
  4. Bureaucracy.[iv]


Given that ‘leadership’ is my raison d'être, I noted that the report went on to say, “In a previous study by Russel, it was found that there was a lower perceived level of burnout in the group with a leader who exhibited high levels of transformational leadership. This type of leader is able to mitigate perceived burnout, especially when stress levels are low.” In my view this is an important statement.


I’m a firm believer that effective leadership is paramount to building committed employees; strong and united teams; productive and trusting relationships (inside and outside of the organization); high morale; elevated levels of productivity and professionalism; and most importantly: inspiring people to do and be their very best.


Administrative, bureaucratic and cultural challenges employees face that cause them organizational stress, can be identified by leaders that know, understand and listen to employees. Good leaders model caring, supportive and communicative leadership for all supervisors and managers, and they monitor and mitigate unfair or oppressive actions among them. They do all they can to improve working conditions for the betterment of the team when specific failures become apparent. Unfortunately, such wrongs do not always rise to a higher level out of fear of disclosure by the individual(s) affected, or so-called leaders higher in the food chain burying them due to a lack of their personal support or fear that reporting it up might jeopardize their career aspirations.


As always, leadership is a must. In the operational realm, true leaders will guarantee that meaningful trauma support programs are in place; that members understand what is available and how to gain access; and that a continuum of positive organizational dialogue occurs at all levels regarding program criticality. It can’t only be about posting a pamphlet and a contact phone number and then ticking off a box on a ‘To Do’ list. They need to do all they can to ensure that any impediments to members accessing those programs and the help that they deserve, are mitigated and detractors appropriately dealt with.


It's important to note that sadly, having all the effective programs humanly possible will not persuade some employees to self-disclose trauma they have experienced. That remains a reality.


Leadership failings can exacerbate employee operational, organizational and sanctuary trauma in several other ways and the frequency of personnel reporting same, including:


  1. Failing to create a positive culture of understanding, support, respect and trust;
  2. Neglecting to effectively address problem employees and supervisors that impede that culture or violate established processes; and
  3. Failing to develop a supervisory and management team that consistently strives to build employee trust through the best and the worst of times, 24/7, 365 days a year.


Law enforcement leaders cannot prevent members from seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling and experience the very worst situations society has to offer. They can only provide exceptional leadership, offer the best in training and equipment and listen to the suggestions of employees on how to lessen the gravity of some of these occurrences and their impacts. But traumatic operational events will still occur.


However, leaders can and must provide the finest in programs and support to help them deal with such tragedies when they do happen.


Conversely, organizational and sanctuary trauma can be prevented – through best-in-class leadership. Law enforcement employees need and deserve nothing less.


 
[i] Jaeger, Saul: The Impact of Life Experiences on Police Officers, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 2023, https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/perspective/perspective-the-impact-of-life-experiences-on-police-officers

[ii] Simmons-Beauchamp, Bonnie and Sharp, Hillary: The Moral Injury of Ineffective Police Leadership: A Perspective, Frontiers in Psychology, April 15, 2022, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9051365/#:~:text=Organizational%20stressors%2C%20such%20as%20limited,of%20error%20(Schafer%2C%202010%3B

[iii] Williams, Lisa: Adding Insult to Injury: Sanctuary Trauma and Moral Injury, Fit Responder, 2023, https://www.fitresponder.ca/post/adding-insult-to-injury-sanctuary-trauma-and-moral-injury

[iv] Acquadro Maran, Magnavita and Garbarino: Identifying Organizational Stressors That Could Be a Source of Discomfort in Police Officers: A Thematic Review, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2022, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8951201/

 

By Chris Lewis January 26, 2026
It’s certainly not Bovino, Noem and higher. Over the past several months the U.S. President’s seemingly valid promise to close the southern border and to rid the U.S. of illegal aliens who are “killers, rapists, drug dealers and individuals from mental institutions” has evolved into something less defendable. Like him or not, it was tough to argue with the public safety need to deport dangerous criminals back to whence they came. I wish Canada would do the same, but in a more strategic way. Chasing undocumented women through Home Depot and dragging U.S. citizens out of vehicles on Main Street – while clad in mostly civilian attire, screaming profanities and with covered faces, has not worked well for ICE and CBP, in terms of public perception and community trust. Enforcing these laws is not easy for those agencies, even when acting within their legislative framework and with probable cause. Angry crowds; individuals with far-left anti-government convictions who just want to hijack the agenda and commit violent acts; and the doxing of federal agents to cause threats to them and their families, cause untold stress on and danger to law enforcement. None of that is justified and is most often a crime. The public needs to stay out of these operations. If someone interferes with the agents and/or their lawful operations, they should expect to be arrested. Placing cameras in officers faces or trying to obstruct them as they conduct an activity, does nothing but raise the temperature of the operation and will end with the placement of handcuffs. Videoing from afar is different, but some take it to the next level. If they threaten anyone with a weapon of any kind, they should anticipate being shot and perhaps killed. That is reality. But at the same time, law enforcement cannot exist without public trust. If the various Department of Homeland Security (DHS) entities that are conducting these operations always acted as per the original strategy and didn’t often violate the rights of people based on the look or colour of so-called “suspects”, as professionally as possible, there would likely not be such an inflammation of the normal American citizen psyche. After all, Trump was elected in part based on his stated “criminal illegal alien” agenda. However, the way his goal was operationalized and the questionable tactics often publicly witnessed has denigrated the trust of many citizens on both sides of the political spectrum. The most recent loss of life occurred in Minneapolis Minnesota on Saturday January 24th. I won’t pass final judgement on the actions of the agents involved in the shooting death of the U.S. citizen there before the results of a professional and unbiased investigation are released. I was obviously not on the ground with those officers to see and hear all they did from their various positions and angles. I have watched all the videos that have been posted, however, and I will say this: “At this point, it does not look good.” When I was a police commander and received information from the field of a critical incident, the initial information was seldom accurate. In fact, over the hours to follow it changed regularly. I would not make any proactive statement to the media, but if asked, I would simply say that we had the proper resources on the ground and I would await verified information, etc. If it was an officer involved shooting or chase that involved injuries or death, I would follow the protocol of the mandatory independent investigation, and would generally say: “It’s undoubtedly a tragic situation, and my thoughts are with the involved officers, citizens and their families, but it is an ongoing investigation and I cannot provide any more information than that.” But what is the DHS leadership saying? What are elected officials saying? Some have already defended the agents and others – like the Governor, are damning them. Within hours of the shooting CBP Commander Greg Bovino publicly defended the actions of the officers, saying that the deceased man had been armed and that the suspect intended to “do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” Yes, he was armed, according to local police, but lawfully licensed to do so according to the 2nd Amendment that many Americans treasure. Regardless, it is not clear in any video so far that the man held anything but a camera in his hand when brought to the ground, and Bovino himself could not bring any clarity to his early statement when asked by the press on Sunday morning. He simply fell back to letting the investigation run its course. Sorry Greg, you’re a day late and a dollar short on that one. Then DHS Secretary Kristi Noem told the media, “This looks like a situation where an individual arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement.” She acts like the deceased man brandished a gun and threatened the officers. Trump administration officials then called the dead man a “would-be assassin.” If that was the case, being shot and killed should have been the expectation, but are we seeing that? Not so far. How does any of that banter from so-called leaders lend itself to public confidence for an independent investigation that they can trust? True ‘leadership’ involves doing what is right for the people you serve first and foremost, closely followed by the people you lead. These comments do not exhibit leadership at all. ICE and CBP normally operate in enforcement environments at or near (within a hundred miles of) international border points. They absolutely make dangerous arrests at times. But are they selected and trained to operate within the urban environments we are currently witnessing? Perhaps to a degree, but DHS has hired thousands of agents this past year who have received abbreviated training. That’s never a good thing from organizational and officer risk perspectives. I’m not saying normal ICE/CBP agents aren’t as trained and capable as local and state police officers. I’ve known many and they were wonderful officers, but their basic training cannot be the same. Their operating environments may overlap but are generally different. Similarly, most local cops aren’t trained in border enforcement and immigration laws and practices either. In the Minneapolis situation, local police are not supporting the operational activities of the federal agents. The Chief of Police and Mayor are both publicly opposed. Support by local police should be a given – not for random stops of people that look Hispanic and yelling demands for proof of citizenship, but during valid probable cause arrests and the execution of warrants. To stand and watch DHS officers who are unprofessionally targeting innocent U.S. citizens – including off duty local police officers of colour, comes with a loss of public trust as well as ethical and civil liability conflicts. However, I do believe it is the duty of local police to protect DHS agents who are being attacked in the street. DHS should put an immediate halt on any operational activities outside of international border points and pull back from municipalities. Municipal and state police leaders across the country must put their heads together with DHS officials and sort out who does what and how, very quickly. The need to clarify the roles, responsibilities and rules of engagement for their agencies and their people on the street. By being intelligence-led; conducting thorough investigations; working cooperatively and professionally through their varying legislative authorities as they search for and arrest undocumented criminals, they may be able to restore some level of public trust. This cannot continue as is. CBP’s Greg Bovino gave a passionate speech on Sunday afternoon where he spoke of “choices” made by protestors, politicians and the media. It was apparent that he was passing blame on everyone but the DHS in this debacle. Undoubtedly there have been poor choices by many but come on, man. You, the DHS Secretary and your ICE counterpart need to make the “choice” to pause, reflect, regroup and strategize for the good of the people you serve, the American people. Then your President needs to make the right choice and support the change.
By Chris Lewis January 14, 2026
I’ve been watching the enhanced and prominent activity of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers over the past several months with interest. Under President Donald Trump’s second Administration, as promised he has directed ICE to arrest and remove dangerous criminal illegal aliens, and specifically pointed out murderers, rapists, etc. That sensible goal has resulted in some bad people being taken off the streets as well as roundups of people that seem to be hardly dangerous criminals, albeit technically “illegal aliens.” Regardless, the issue I want to speak to is the ongoing controversy over ICE officers – some clad in civilian attire for the most part and others wearing ICE uniforms, but all covering their faces in some fashion. My comments are not “anti-ICE.” I am 100% behind law enforcement but I’m also always honest when I see what I believe is a wrong. I worked with and still maintain friendships with people that are now retired U.S. border and immigration officers. They were the best of the best and I’m sure most current officers are nothing but well intended. This is simply about my concerns around the covering of officer’s faces. I simply don’t get it. This is not Seal Team Six deploying on a dirt road to nowhere in Pakistan, to kill Osama Bin Laden. This law enforcement operating on Main Street USA, in commercial parking lots and sidewalks. These are law enforcement officers not an anti-terrorist unit. If ICE officers need to hide their faces for some legitimate operational reason like they are engaged in an undercover operation somewhere, they should stay out of the public and media spotlight. Members of the public that support the covering of ICE officer’s faces, speak of the dangerous work they do and threats of retaliation by relatives and extremists. ICE officials defend the practice and the Acting Director of ICE stated in a July 2025 CBS interview: “I’m not a proponent masks. however, if that's a tool that the men and women of ICE need to keep themselves and their family safe, then I'll allow it.” [1] If that’s his rationale, I hope they don’t tell him they need heat-seeking missiles with nuclear warheads too. Yes, their job comes with dangers and risk. They’re law enforcement officers not ice cream truck drivers. If the reason is to mask their identity from potential bad guys (which I simply don’t buy), there are also public accountability concerns, for the good guys. For example, identifying an officer that is alleged to have used excessive force, or has even been unprofessional, is important for the public from a process perspective. In terms of the whole pile of good guys ICE also ends up dealing with, I’m concerned for the safety of ICE when they run up to a vehicle, aggressively screaming commands through their facial coverings, sometimes with guns drawn. If I was a wanted criminal, I would likely know my goose was cooked and have to make a decision in terms of my response. That would be on me. But if I was a legally armed U.S. citizen who knew they had no warrants and had never so much as received a parking ticket, I might respond with some aggressive action of my own if not 100% sure that I was dealing with law enforcement and not some half uniformed/half civilian clothed maniac with a gun. That might include initiating a gunfight or at the very least stepping on the accelerator. That’s a frightening scenario for the lawful public and should be for the ICE officers. Uniformed police officers in Canada for the most part wear either name tags, their badge numbers or both on their uniforms. In Ontario, it’s the law. Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers wear name tags when they enforce our borders. So do many, many local and state police officers across the U.S. They also do not hide their faces except in extremely rare circumstances. Do all of these officers not make arrests of gang members; illegal aliens; drug smugglers; and dangerous criminals? Do they hide their faces and their names out of a fear of retribution? Do they testify behind a curtain and using a pseudonym during subsequent public trials? Absolutely not. The same rules apply to our police Public Order Unit (POU) officers that unfortunately have seen more violent protest operations in the past 20 years than they did in the 100 years prior. In Toronto, it has become a full-time job. In addition to a lot of good people that are just exercising their right to peaceful protest, at times POU officers deal with some very radical extremists who want to achieve absolutely nothing but cause mayhem, destroy property and if possible, fight with police. As a uniformed police officer, tactical team member and investigator – as did many colleagues, I arrested murderers, outlaw motorcycle gang members and local criminals. I interrogated murderers and rapists for hours. I testified against all these people in court. In small town Ontario, every community member knew where my family and I lived. People I had arrested (and even their parents) knocked on the door of my home to further their arguments. I curled with a local man I’d locked up a week before and against several I’d arrested or charged. I was in and out of provincial jails and federal penitentiaries on investigations and prisoner escorts. In London in the 1980s, my wife and I dined in a lovely restaurant, just two tables away from a notorious biker I’d dealt with on a raid and at biker check-points. We simply nodded at each other and ate our meals. Many of the folks I dealt with were simply not nice people. But I was doing police work! If it was all peace, love, flowers and unicorns, everyone would want to do it. Mind you through all those years, even when I had to use force to arrest some of these individuals or take them into custody at gun point, I treated them like humans. I didn’t disrespect them; didn’t use excessive force; was professional and spoke to them like they were human beings. I truly think that can make a significant difference. In fact, some very bad people I met along the way told me that it did. Some of the publicized ICE interactions with the public have been far from professional. I know their job is difficult and at times they are dealing with complete idiots, but cooler heads should most often prevail. The leaders of ICE should ensure “Professional Public Interaction” is strongly emphasized in ICE officer training and placed front and center in their rules of engagement, then ban facial coverings during public operations. Take that decision out of the hands of the frontline ICE officers that are bravely out doing their jobs. The officers will be safer and so will the law-abiding people in the community. [1] CBS News, CBS News presses ICE head on why agents can continue using masks, YouTube, July 18, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOOGyLuRkgU 
By Chris Lewis January 6, 2026
In my view, when all the decisions are made at one end of the room, it’s a failure of leadership.