Read Part II: Termination, reintegration and post-deployment syndromes
[Part I discusses planning, training, and deployment of undercover operations. Part II will discuss termination, reintegration and post-deployment syndromes]
From current news headlines to TV cop and spy dramas, the public continues to be fascinated with undercover law enforcement work, often because such stories combine the features of vicarious danger and the ultimate triumph (we hope) of good over evil. Of course, these portrayals typically overlook the plodding hard work that underlies most successful undercover operations, and gloss over many of the psychological variables that can influence this kind of assignment for better or worse. This column and the next one will describe the role of psychological services in the key phases of undercover work, including selection and training of undercover officers (UCOs), preparation for undercover operations, deployment and monitoring, termination and reintegration, and managing deployment stress and post-operation psychological syndromes.
Stresses and Challenges of Undercover Policing
To gather sufficient evidence to prosecute serious crimes, specially trained officers must sometimes infiltrate criminal organizations or subcultures. While the targets of undercover operations carried out by law enforcement agencies may vary – narcotics, money laundering, illegal immigration, terrorism, and so on – the fundamental goal of all undercover operations is to develop prosecutable evidence by accessing subjects and their activities from the inside. In large-scale operations, the ultimate goal may be the system-wide shutdown of the criminal enterprise.
In the drug trade, for example, the primary focus of most major law enforcement undercover activities is not to interrupt the short-term street-level transactions between dealers and users, but is mainly directed at the primary cultivation, importation, manufacture, and other activities of the high-level wholesaler. Similarly, the long-range purpose of infiltrating terrorist or extremist groups is not necessarily to stop individual acts of sabotage or destruction, but to get as close as possible to the organization’s leadership to interdict the potentially destructive activity at its source.
In addition to types of targets, undercover assignments vary in terms of time frame, from short-term buy-bust scenarios to longer-term investigations lasting many months or years. Undercover operations also differ in terms of methodology. At the most basic level is plainclothes surveillance and enforcement, conducted by non-uniformed officers either on foot or in a vehicle. When the deal has been consummated, they identify themselves as police officers and make the arrest. Another level is “deep undercover,” where the officer’s identity is changed by false documentation, appearance is altered by grooming and costuming, and one’s contact with family, friends, and other officers is strictly limited. These kinds of investigations sometimes take several months or years to accomplish their aims.
Psychologically, the essence of all undercover operations is the same: UCOs knowingly and purposefully develop relationships that they will eventually betray. In this process, UCOs establish relationships with criminal suspects and law-abiding citizens alike, and both will help the officers establish identities and make the right connections without knowing the truth about them. Many undercover officers find this dual betrayal a difficult road to walk, adding to the stressors already inherent in undercover work. In addition, during the deployment, the UCO may have to knowingly stand by and observe the continuation of illegal and harmful activity, which can itself be a source of great stress and frustration.
Even in this age of terrorism, narcotics continues to be the largest area of focus for undercover law enforcement and this is regarded as one of the most hazardous and stressful jobs in policing. For example, local police or federal UCOs are ten times more likely than uniformed officers to be shot or to shoot someone else. In addition to this ever-present danger, undercover narcotics assignments also put officers in daily intimate contact with the dregs of humanity, so that the work is typically physically, intellectually, and emotionally stressful, demanding, and exhausting. Finally, there is the sense of failure and mutual recrimination that occurs when a mission fails or has to be shut down prematurely.
Successful undercover work must therefore be a model of planning, coordination, and timing. In almost no other kind of police operation are so many roles played by so many personnel over so long a period of time, and under such sustained conditions of stress. Even the intense stresses of a hostage negotiation (see Hostage negotiations: Psychological strategies for resolving crises safely) typically involve time frames of hours to days, not weeks or months. Undercover work is thus one area where a departmental or consulting psychologist can make an important contribution.
For the following discussion, I have adopted police psychologist Neil Hibler’s six-stage progression of an undercover operation, recognizing that these stages may often overlap, blend into one another, and recycle with one another. The essential phases are (1) selection of personnel for the undercover team; (2) training of the team; (3) planning the operation; (4) deployment of the team and carrying out of the operation; (5) termination, or “closedown” of the operation, either upon successful completion or because of unforeseen complications; and (6) reintegration of the undercover officer into normal work and life roles. Each of these phases has its own psychological stresses and challenges, with corresponding strategies to address these. Although this is one version of a model program, each law enforcement agency must work out policies and protocols that are realistic for their own undercover teams.
Selection and Screening
As with many special assignments in law enforcement (investigations, hostage negotiation, SWAT), those who seek involvement in undercover work are not always those who are the best qualified. Although in some departments, appointments to undercover teams may be based on little more than seniority, rank, or favoritism, most law enforcement executives understand the need to carefully screen and select officers who will make effective UCOs.
This screening and selection process will naturally include a variety of elements, such as the officer’s knowledge of tactics, weapons, legal principles, undercover strategies, evidence collection and preservation, and so on. The screening process should also include a psychological component, which usually involves some combination of a structured clinical interview and psychological testing. These evaluations should be updated every six to twelve months and prior to every new major assignment, because while a person’s basic personality structure doesn’t change substantially over time, life circumstances and emotional states certainly can.
In general, nominees for undercover work should have a track record of competent performance in their regular police assignments and possess sufficient career experience to have crystallized and refined their basic law enforcement role. This is important because new trainees who have not mastered their agency’s routine duties will have no immediate job to return to, leaving them flounder around the department following completion of the undercover assignment.
More specific qualifications for undercover work entail at least two levels of consideration. The first involves demonstrating broad people-skills and abilities, such as being able to work both with others and alone, being able to function reliably without a great deal of direct supervision, the presence of effective interpersonal and communicatioin skills, demonstration of clear thinking and good judgment under stress, and being able to handle boredom during periods of slow or no progress.
The second level addresses readiness and suitability for the specific undercover operation. Qualifications here include the absence of current conflicts at work or home that would interfere with commitment to the upcoming assignment, as well as task-relevant skills and personal attributes as defined by age, ethnicity, gender, geographic, cultural, or experiential knowledge. Examples include being streetwise to a local inner city drug culture, being knowledgeable about banking and finances when infiltrating a white-collar money-laundering operation, being able to pilot a boat or plane in a narcotics trafficking case, or being fluent in the language and customs of a foreign-based religious or political terrorist group.
Characteristics of Effective Undercover Officers
Despite the iconic Hollywood image of the rule-bending, lone-wolf, creatively nutsy, antihero-type undercover agent, a truly effective UCO can’t really be crazy – in fact, he or she has to be capable of demonstrating exceptional emotional stability under stress. The following set of characteristics, adapted from the work of police psychologists, as well as that of FBI Special Agents Dr. Stephen Band and Donald Sheehan, comprise an aspirational profile of the ideal UCO.
UCOs should be experienced, seasoned investigators of reasonably mature age, with a secure police identity and prior experience in other areas of policing. They should have had some life experience outside of law enforcement. They must be able and willing to accept training and supervision when necessary and to work hard at perfecting their craft. They should volunteer for undercover work because they believe in the goals and methodologies of undercover policing and have demonstrated appropriate moral and ethical values that correspond to their belief in the purposes of legitimate law enforcement activity in a free society. Their interest in undercover work should be motivated by a justifiable pride in their ability to excel in this type of endeavor. At the same time, this should not be pursued as a quest for glory or as an escape from less desirable work or an unpleasant personal life.
Undercover officers have to be able to show perseverance and resourcefulness in the face of complex, changing, ambiguous, and often dangerous circumstances, with very little external supervision or oversight. At the same time, they cannot be free agents or loose cannons, and must be comfortable taking direction and operating within their agency’s policies, procedures, and guidelines. They must be highly proficient and flexible in their undercover role-plays, be convincing actors, and at the same time be able to maintain their core identities and commitment to the mission. They must be able and willing to spend long intervals away from family and friends.
UCOs must be self-confident without being egotistical, decisive without being rigid or stubborn, flexible without waffling, capable of independent action but able to quickly snap back as team players when necessary, focused and not prone to distraction from the main objective, stress-resilient and mentally tough without being overly cynical or aggressive, and generally psychologically stable and not prone to impulsivity, mood swings, or erratic behavior. Importantly, they must be able to purposefully and credibly establish, nurture, and maintain close, sometimes intimate, personal relationships with a variety of different types of people, knowing that these relationships will ultimately be betrayed as part of the larger mission and their overall dedication to enforcing the law.
Training
As with any assignment, the purpose of training for undercover work is to develop and sharpen operational performance by acquiring knowledge and practicing skills necessary for functioning in the undercover arena. In fact, selection often overlaps with training as undercover candidates are further culled in the training process. Aside from any technical knowledge the undercover officer might need to fit into his or her role, the essence of undercover work involves interpersonal skills. These include the ability to deal convincingly with others, to be creative, flexible, and self-disciplined in carrying out the assignment, and to be able to exert good judgment and calm behavior under stress.
Given the importance placed on teamwork and training in most types of law enforcement operations, it is perhaps surprising how often this element of undercover work is overlooked. For example, in one survey, more than a quarter of a group of UCOs said they received insufficient training, supervision, and administrative support for their undercover assignments. The short shrift given to training of UCOs would be unthinkable in other areas of police work, such as SWAT, hostage negotiation, or criminal investigation. Yet, for some reason, UCOs often have not received the same attention to training, despite the fact that such officers frequently face levels of immediate or potential danger as great or greater than any hostage or SWAT team member – and without armed backup. FBI agents Band and Sheehan propose a formal certification program for undercover officers that specifies the standards for testing, selection, training, and monitoring of these officers.
The psychological component of UCO training is guided by the principle that the ultimate priority is the safety of all involved officers and the success of the assignment itself. Therefore, all relevant components of that assignment – from weapons, to communications equipment, to the officers’ mental status and behavior – are subject to scrutiny and analysis at every phase of the operation to ensure the mission’s success and maximize officer safety. Essentially, then, the message to the UCO is: “Your brain is the most important tool in this operation, and therefore it will be subject to a ‘systems check’ whenever it is deemed necessary.” This also includes training officers to recognize symptoms of their own stress reactions that might compromise the operation.
Planning and Preparation
No operation of any kind can be successful without proper planning and preparation, and – continuing the cycle – the training phase of an undercover operation now transitions into the planning phase. Contrary to the lone-wolf, shoot-from-the-hip, Hollywood stereotype, research has shown that most UCOs themselves actually would prefer to have more, rather than less, planning, preparation, and supervision during an assignment and most believe that this kind of support would have eased their post-deployment psychological adjustment in past missions.
To begin with, planning must be based on credible intelligence. The plan itself should be more than a rough outline: it should have a beginning, a middle, and an end, with contingency plans and provisions for foreseeable and unforeseen mishaps and emergencies. The goals should be as specific as possible, e.g. simple intelligence-gathering vs. making street-level arrests vs. long-term infiltration and shutdown of a regional criminal operation. Obviously, the resources in manpower and materials must be available to carry out the mission. Finally, for both prosecutorial evidentiary purposes and legal ass-covering reasons, all aspects of the plan should be thought out as carefully as possible, vetted by the agency’s legal department, and documented in writing.
Another aspect of preparation involves providing undercover officers with proper support. Agents Band and Sheehan recommend that managers include UCOs in decisions that affect the course and direction of the operation. It is also important to provide backstopping, i.e. information accumulated to support the undercover role, as fully as possible, as well as to assign a control officer or contact agent who can keep the UCOs grounded in their law enforcement identities and purposes of the mission. Regular meetings should be held between UCOs and executive managers, whose first priority is the physical and psychological safety and well-being of the UCOs under their command.
These planning efforts should also take into account the personality and working style of the individual UCO. Some officers may require more frequent contacts with their control officer, for both logistical feedback and moral support, whereas other officers may be more suited to working alone for longer periods. Even though screening and selection will hopefully have weeded out officers with serious psychological problems, UCOs will still have their individual personalities and operating styles and the psychological makeup of the officer is as important a factor in planning and carrying out the operation as is any other aspect of the mission.
The Cover Identity
The central feature of all undercover operations is creating a cover identity for the UCO. Obviously, this role must be as believable as possible. Movie portrayals depict chameleonic “masters of disguise” who can seamlessly slip in and out of any persona, from bespectacled professor to tattooed biker – but in reality, nobody is that good an actor. Even the most talented Hollywood stars are playing their pre-scripted roles for a brief period of time on an artificial set; they don’t have to stay in character for days, weeks, or months at a time, continually improvising behavior and dialogue along the way, with their lives and safety only one slip from disaster.
Accordingly, to assure maximum success, the undercover role should never be a total masquerade; in fact, the closer it is to the officer’s real identity and persona, the better the chances of successfully pulling it off. Certainly, obvious features such as age, sex, ethnicity, and language fluency are important, but so are such seemingly trivial factors as names; for example, cover names should closely resemble real names, so that the agent is not caught off guard if his cover name is suddenly called, or his real name is inadvertently shouted out. There will be a certain amount of preparation and role-playing needed for any operation, but the fewer features of the role that have to be artificially rehearsed, and the more similar the officer’s true identity and life experience is to that of the cover, the less opportunity there will be for dangerous surprises. This doesn’t mean that the UCO’s normal lifestyle has to be an exact replica of the undercover role, just close enough to be a comfortable fit.
Target Profiling
One aspect of the psychologist’s involvement in mission planning and preparation deals more specifically with the personality dynamics, behavioral profiles, and other knowledge points relevant to the infiltrated group’s members. Such research may then lead to recommendations for how to interact and earn the trust of different targets of the operation. This degree of behavioral profiling may not be necessary for routine buy-and-bust drug cases which involve brief, uncomplicated undercover work. But when planning a large-scale operation that may involve long-term undercover interaction with high-level criminal personalities, some insight into the targets’ inner mental workings is likely to prove useful. In addition, “internal profiling” involves determining which particular UCOs might be the best match for a particular target.
Deployment
As with all phases in the present model, the phase of preparation cycles over into the phase of deployment. Now the operation is set to go.
Pre-Deployment Briefing
This is essentially a final briefing and “dress rehearsal” for the operation that unites the plan with the players. At this point, everybody involved in the operation – UCO, control officer, support personnel, command staff, etc. – should understand their respective roles and how to interact with one another. Even though the burden of the operation is necessarily placed on the primary UCO, the operation itself should always be seen as a team effort. Scheduling of contacts and ways of signaling trouble should be worked out in advance. Any last-minute questions or changes in plan based on new intelligence should be dealt with at this point.
Another consideration is planning for the UCO’s family needs. Since he or she may be out of contact for a considerable period of time, a family liaison officer should be part of the undercover team. This person will serve as a confidential go-between to keep the family apprised, within the limits of the plan’s confidentiality, of how the UCO is doing and to convey permissible messages from the UCO to the family.
Stresses of Undercover Deployment
Psychological responses to overwhelming stress and critical incidents occur in law enforcement as they do in any emergency service or public safety profession (see Critical incidents: Myths and realities). Serious stress reactions to undercover deployment are hardly inevitable, however, or no one could last very long in this kind of work. Indeed, the vast majority of problems encountered in most surveys of UCOs consist of technical and strategic matters, rather than health or psychological concerns.
Still, the risk of psychological reactions among UCOs is a great enough concern that several studies of undercover deployment stress have been undertaken. One review of declassified FBI data indicated that the major sources of stress for special agents under deep cover included the agent-supervisor relationship, maintaining the role requirements of the undercover operation, and strain on family and social relationships. Major psychological reactions noted in this study included general paranoia and hypervigilance, as well as corruption of the agent’s value system and commitment to the operation, including a growing sympathy for the targets.
A study of UCOs in the Honolulu Police Department found the most commonly reported post-deployment symptoms to be anxiety, heightened suspiciousness, loneliness, feelings of isolation, and relationship problems. Many officers were distressed at not being able to talk to anyone about the assignment and many suffered deterioration in personal relationships as a result of their undercover deployment. All of these UCOs reported at least some symptoms during their deployment, and about half identified themselves as having stress reactions or other psychological problems that started an average of five months into the operation. A third of the officers felt that they would have benefited from the opportunity to consult with a psychologist at some point during their undercover deployment.
The prime stressor inherent in any undercover deployment is the ever-present fear of blown cover, which could endanger the UCOs as well as others. Other stresses are more technical in nature. When working wired or using surveillance equipment, hardware glitches can risk compromising the whole operation. Where the operation involves interagency collaboration, unresolved differences in objectives, procedures, or technical matters among the different agencies can sabotage the assignment. Mismatched personalities or selection of UCOs who are not familiar with the undercover environment and culture can sink the operation. Few UCOs can remain undercover for months at a time without a break. Lack of sufficient recovery time between deployment periods can thus prove stressful, and officers should be afforded the opportunity to come in when needed before continuing their operational roles.
Narcissistic Entitlement and the Thrill Factor
Psychological reactions to undercover deployment need not be stress-related per se. Police psychologists have described the emergence in some UCOs of a self-centered, pretentious, superior, and arrogant persona, a caricature of the hard-driving, competitive, and self-sufficient agent at the pinnacle of a complex, multilevel, operational police hierarchy. In moderate doses, such tough-minded but flexible “healthy narcissism” is actually an asset in dealing with the undercover role and is correlated with operational success. The problem arises with unhealthily escalating levels of egotistc self-absorption when the UCO begins to believe that he is a law unto himself, rather than a member – albeit a crucial member – of the undercover team.
In fact, one of the reasons that undercover work is so attractive to some officers is that it permits a vicarious delving into the amoral power trip of the criminal: the same reason most of us like to watch The Sopranos, or read stories about famous serial killers. Abetted by a sensation-hungry and novelty-seeking temperamental style, the officer may become increasingly susceptible to the seductions of power and pleasure afforded by the undercover role. The thrill of deception and manipulation has then become an end in itself, outweighing commitment to the law enforcement objectives.
At the same time, the UCO’s inflated self-importance may lead him to expect greater and greater deference and consideration from the other members of his team, indeed, from his police peers generally. This may then breed resentment and alienation, as fellow officers come to shun the increasingly obnoxious prima donna. The unfortunate result may be degenerating cooperation and a compromised mission.
Role Overidentification and the Undercover Stockholm Syndrome
Remember that successful undercover operations are all about forming and maintaining relationships. The targets are people, and even many career criminals or ideological extremists have their “human” side. Many have families with children. Some may be quite likable and engaging, the kind of people with whom the officer might enjoy having a beer at a barbeque – if only they weren’t smuggling drugs, laundering currency, murdering rivals, or blowing up buildings.
One the greatest potential stresses of undercover work, then, is for an officer to form deceptive pseudofriendships with people he will ultimately have to betray, albeit in the cause of justice. Some UCOs are able to achieve the kind of mental dissociation necessary to accomplish this role, while others may be drawn to question their own loyalties and commitments, as their sympathy for the target grows. This is sometimes called the undercover Stockholm syndrome.
In fact, research shows that there is a direct relationship between a UCO’s attachment to the targets and his or her perceived level of distress during and following the operation. In some cases, this may lead to the officer engaging in drug abuse, sexual indiscretions, and criminal activity during the assignment. Officers have also reported negative effects on their subsequent post-deployment law enforcement careers following undercover assignments which involved betraying close attachments.
Managing Deployment Stress
If the UCO’s personality and behavior are crucial tools in a successful undercover operation, then proper attention to the agent’s ongoing mental status is not just a psychologically cosmetic feel-good measure, but is as integral to the mission as maintaining the integrity of weapons, vehicles, or surveillance equipment. If the UCO’s psyche breaks down, the mission breaks down. Conversely, effective, well-planned, and thoughtfully carried out psychological monitoring and intervention services can sometimes enable UCOs to operate for long periods of time, even indefinitely as moles or sleepers.
On one level, UCOs must be responsible for keeping tabs on their own stress levels and knowing when to take appropriate steps to maintain their bodies and minds in optimal performance mode. The next line of defense is the supervisor or control officer, who plays several roles. One is to keep the UCO informed of any strategic or logistical changes in the operation’s goals or tactics. Another is to function as a “stress barometer” to assure that the UCO is dealing with the pressures of his role assignment in a reasonably healthy and adaptive way. This can only be accomplished by keeping in regular contact with the UCO.
One of the purposes of the UCO-control meetings is to reinforce the mission’s purpose and the UCO’s core identity as a law enforcement officer. This kind of reality check may be the only antidote to the Stockholm-like sympathy for the target described above. Hollywood portrayals depict the lone-wolf type of UCO officer as fiercely independent and resistant to meeting with his meddlesome control officer, who is usually portrayed as a rule-bound dork. In actuality, when real-life UCOs express any dissatisfaction with supervision, it is usually for not enough guidance and information, rather than too much, as well as poor overall communication of the team’s expectations. In fact, the single greatest factor in fomenting Stockholm-type affinities with criminal targets cited by UCOs themselves is perceived lack of administrative support: “They don’t give a damn, so why should I?”
Finally, some departments build into the operation regular contact with a psychologist; in other departments, this is arranged on an as-needed basis, and in still other departments, there are simply no psychological services routinely available for undercover assignments. Obviously, psychologists in this role must have some understanding of undercover work and police psychology in general. Again, for law enforcement officers who might have a general aversion to having their heads shrunk, the role of the psychologist on the undercover team must be conceptualized in the same way as other “maintenance” professionals: if your car breaks down, you bring it to the motor pool; if your wire or videocam malfunctions, you have the electronics tech look at it; if you bust your knee or get stabbed, the medic patches you up; and if you’re getting fatigued, anxious, and forgetful, it’s time to haul your brain into the team psychologist for a tune-up.
The good news is that, while a significant number of UCOs suffer some form of psychological aftereffect as a result of their assignments, most of these remain in the mild to moderate range, most are resolved within a few weeks or months of the operation’s close, and very few require that a UCO be pulled from an ongoing mission on psychological grounds alone. In fact, regular contact with the control officer and regular psychological monitoring are the best assurance that undercover stress or other psychological problems won’t boil over to a degree that would compromise the mission or cause the UCO to be pulled.
[Part II will discuss termination, reintegration and post-deployment syndromes in undercover assignments]
To learn more about these topics
Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and is not intended to provide specific clinical or legal advice.
NOTE: If you have a question for this column, please submit it to this website.
