( ( THE PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS OF GENERAL DUTY POLICE WORK .- Final Report October 25th, 1999 l JI m~TE OFRC. . Prepared For: The Police Academy; Justice Institute of British Columbia. 715 McBride Boulevard, New Westminster, BC V3L 5T4 Prepared By: Gregory S Anderson (PhD), Darryl B. Plecas (EdD) University College of the Fraser Valley 33844 King Road, Abbotsford, BC V2S 7M9 TABLE OF CONTENTS ·Tabie of Contents ...................... .................... . · Acknowledgments, • . ..••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••.••••• ii • ) ') Introduction . . . • . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . 1 Brief Literature Review • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 Methods • • • • • • • • . . . • • • • . • • • • • • • • • . • . • • • • • • • • • • • " • . • . • • • • • 15 General Duty Task Analysis • • • • • . . • • • . . • • • • • • . • • • . • • . • • • • • • • 21 Critical Incident Task Analysis • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • 29 ObseN"ational Data • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • . • • 41 POPAT as a Selection Criteria • . • . . . • • . • • • • • • • • . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • 65 Selected References • • • • • 1, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 77 Appendices A. Physical Work Record Survey Form B. Critical Incident Survey Form C. Cover Letter D. Observation Report ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was endorsed by The British Columbia Federation of Police Officers, and the Municipal Police Chiefs Assocfation and funded by the British Columbia Ministry of the Attorney General through the Justice Institute of British Columbia Police Academy. As a collaborative effort, this project was directed through and advisory committee consisting oflnsp. Paul Tinsley, Sgt. Jim Mancel, Cst. Wayne Unger, Cst. Julian Knight and Cst. Joanne McCormick, with data collected by student research assistants -Robin Litzenberger who was instrumental in the organization and scheduling of data collection and data entry, Paul Lovatt who performed ride-alongs and data entry, Chris Weins who was involved in the prediction of shooting scores from physical data, and various Kinesiology and Physical Education students. The authors of this study would like to acknowledge the cooperation of the twelve municipal police departments in British Columbia - Abbotsford, Central Saanich, Delta, Esquimalt, Nelso~, New Westminster, North Vancouver, Oak Bay, Port Moody, Saanich, Vancouver and vi~toria - and thank those officers who took the time to complete the • surveys and those who allowed observation of their policing duties through ride-a-longs. We would especially like to thank the training officers within each department for their help in distributing and collecting·questionnaire packages and scheduling ride-a-longs. The authors would also like acknowledge the contributions of Doug Farenholtz who provided information concerning instruments used in the development of the POPAT, and Jean Bonneau, Chief of the RCMP Occupational Health Section for providing relevant background material and Federal Reports concerning the development of the PARE. !i CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION When we first set out to conduct this task analysis of general duty police work we had only one goal in mind - to re-assess the validity of the Police Officers' Physical Abilities Test (commonly called "the POPAT"). This test was developed and initially validated in the mid-eighties, and since then it has been used as a selection tool by all municipal police departments throughout British Columbia in their hiring of police constables. The desire to re-assess its validity through this task analysis evolved primarily out of a concern that it may not be entirely valid today given that the work of police officers has changed in a number of ways over the past decade. Police will generally agree that the nature of police work changes over time. This has an important implication to selection criteria established in the hiring of new police recruits. For example, ifthe physical work required of police officers has changed over the past decade tests such as the POPAT, which are legally valid as selection tools only so long as the physical requirements being tested are demonstrated to be directly related to the physical demands of the job, may be invalid. Indeed, human rights legislation in Canada and the United States clearly state that any selection criteria for employment must be directly related to job requirements, and be essential components critical to successful job performance (CHRA, 1985; Farenholtz and Rhodes, 1990) Accordingly, our initial goal was simply to determine what physical activities general duty police officers perform during their work and compare our findings to what is specifically required by the POPAT. In preparing a research design to meet this goal however, we quickly reasoned that we ought to also consider other issues of interest to the policing community. For instance, it would be useful to examine other activities that police officers do during their work - activities such as talking, using equipment, and Page 1 driving;· it would be interesting to consider how matters ofsleep patterns, shift work, and tiredness relate _to police work; it would be useful to look at how police officers approach their work given difference in age, length of service, weight, height, and gender; finally, it would be interesting to collect heart-rate data on police officers and look at how this relates to the various activities that they perform during their work. Encompassing this broader mind-set we ultimately settled on a design for the study which would both assess the validity of the POPAT and provide a detailed look, minute by minute, ~t the ac:tivities police officers perform during the course of their work. We describe the methodology applied in some detail in Chapter 3 of this report - suffice it to :say_f~r ~ow .that the subjects of the study are a representative sample comprised of267 police officers drawn from all twelve municipal police departments in British Columbia, each of whom provided extensive self-report data on critical incidents and their general work requirements. Further, 121 of the officers in the sample were randomly selected for direct observation during one shift, whereby we observed and recorded their every move minute by minute. Additionally, throughout each shift observed each officer wore a heart monitor which recorded the time interval between each heart beat. In the final analysis, the study was carried out over a one year period spanning October 1998 until October 1991"), and went even better than anticipated. This particular report is intend to provide the police community with an introductory description of what we found. It is referred to as "introductory" because there is still much that can be done in terms of data analysis and the integration of our findings with those currently in the literature. As you should expect the report will answer many questions about police work. But as you should also expect, it raises many questions about police work, and to that extent it will serve to stimulate discussion about directions for further research. References Farenholtz, DW and EC Rhodes (1990). Recommended Canadian standards for police physical abilities. Canadian Police College Journal 14(1): 37-49. Canadian Human Rights Act (1985) Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Hwnan Rights Commission. Pagel CHAPTER 2: BRIEF LITERATURE REvIEW Historical Ove1View of Recruiting Practices ... applicants between the ages of22 and 40, active, able-bodied men of thoroughly sound constitution... Recruiting Poster, Northwest Mounted Police, 1893 Police work was historically physically demanding, requiring long shifts of walking or riding a horse, with frequent confrontation. Police departments set arbitrary standards of height and weight, presuming large males were better suited for the arduous work and physical confrontations which occurred. However, by the 1950's many of the police departments realized the at'bitrary nature of these requirements, and their discriminatory . nature. Slowly, height and weight restrictions were lifted and departments were left to recruit individuals who had previously been denied employment based on physical size but had the capabiJ.ity of performing_the job-related duties. ·· Height, weight and gender were thought to be equivalent to "soundness" and provide a rough guide as to one's physical abilities. However, once these recruiting criteria were removed because of their discriminatory nature, there became a need to identify some method of insuring a recruit could perform the job-related duties. "It became necessary to define and measure the physical abilities needed to do police work in a manner that was objective, realistic and non-discriminatory (Bonneau and Brown, 1995: p.157)." In this regard, an early decision by the US Supreme Court in the case of Darthard v Rawlinson (1977: 433 US 321) encouraged the development of physical ability (agility) tests. The Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA, 1985) protects individuals from discriminatory practices unless bona fide occupational requirements are established for Page3 describes the process by which bona fide occupational requirements can be developed. These guidelin~s clearly describe the' methodology that should be followed in order to establish occupational requirements, and includes: an identification of essentialjobrelated tasks; identification of skills or abilities required to carry out the essential tasks; development of a screening protocol to insure individuals can carry out the essential tasks; and, the establishment·of standards that reflect one's ability to meet the minimum requirements for the job. Oc~u.p_ati~nal Fitness Selecting. the right people for police work is uot only. important to the employer, but also in the best interest of the public. There is a perception in the public, fueled through popular media, that police work is physically demanding, and the public expects police officers to be fit enough to perform their duties without endangering either themselves, or the public. The consequences of employing an unfit work force in physically demanding jobs can have major cost related implications. Failure to screen out individuals who can not perform the physical duties may result in injury, long term disability, rapid employee turnover, and poor productivity, having both a human and economic cost (Brownlie et al., 1985; Superko, Bemauer and Voss, 1988; Greenberg and Berger, 1983; Reilly, Zedeck and Tenopyr, 1979; Wilmore and Davis, 1979). Occupational fitness is a relatively new term, emerging as a growing body of literature supports the notion that there are physical capabilities that are pre-requisite to successful completion of job-related tasks in many physically demanding occupations. While the physical demands vary immensely between occupations and across position within the same occupation, the occupational fitness requirements also vary. For this reason, occupational fithess tequirerrients are job-specific, and reflect the job-related demands which essential pre-requisites for specific employment. Trottier and Brown (1994), in explaining the need for occupational fitness and ability standards, compared the role of a police officer to that of a lifeguard. A lifeguard's job is primarily sedentary. For 99.9% of the time a lifeguard ~an be found sitting and watching over a pool. These duties could easily be performed by a quadriplegic; however, the duties required the remaining 0.1 % of the time are related to saving a person in distress. The ability to respond to a drowning victim is a critical and essential part of the job, and is expected of the lifeguard. While the disabled lifeguard would not be unable to perform these duties, they should not be employed as a lifeguard even though they would satisfy 99.9% of the job requirements. Page4 As ·Bonneau and Brown (1995) put it, 11 the same applies to police work. n Police work, in general, is quite sedentary; however, in the interest of public safety, police are expected to have the ability to apprehend (which may include running, tackling, pushing, pulling and wrestling), arrest and contain criminals (perform take-downs and handcuffing), remove people from damaged vehicles (lifting, canying, pulling), control large crowds, and separate individuals who are arguitig or fighting (pushing, pulling, restraining). Several of theses tasks require maximal effort, and are extremely physically challenging. Further, the inability to perform these duties would clearly endanger themselves,_their fellow officers, and the general public. Task ~nalysis "'1 Human Rights legislation in Canada and the United States clearly state that any selection criteria for employment must be.directly related to job requirements, and be essential components critical to successful job performance (CHRA, 1985; Farenholtz and Rhodes, 1990). Each employer must be able to demonstrate that selection criteria are not discriminatory, demonstrate that each criteria is critical to job performance, and have clearly defined minimal acceptable levels for each of the selection criteria. Each of the selection criteria must be a valid representation of the true job requirements, or a legal case can be successfully mounted against the employer. Many of the past law enforcement agency's selection criteria have been challenged in court (height, weight, physical agility tests) and been dismissed as discriminatory. In particular, many of the physical abilities tests have been questioned in regards to their validity and adverse impact on females (Greenberg and Berger, 1983; Evans, 1980). · Courts have often dismissed test of physical abilities as hiring selection criteria because of the difficulty in demonstrating the job-relatedness of the tests. To use such tests, each agency has the responsibility of establishing the validity ofthefr selection criteria and demonstrate that they are bona fide occupational requirements (BFOR) or bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ). Osborn (1976), in developing a physical agility test for the Los Angeles County Sherriffs Department, described a methodology for developing bona fide occupational requirements. Osborn (1976) describes a methodology using self-report questionnaires encompassing three phases: a questionnaire development phase, a test development phase, and a phase in which minimal levels of performance were established and clearly defined. This methodology has been used by various agencies, including the Justice Institute of British Columbia (Farenholtz and Rhodes, 1986), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Bonneau, 1994; Bonneau, 1996; Gaul and Wenger, 1992), Canadian Pages Infantry (Jette, Kimick and Sidney, tp90), firefighters (Gledhill and Jamnik, 1992a; Gledhill and Jamnik, 1992b), Canadian Armed Forces (Stevenson, et al., 1992), and a large multifaceted gas company (Jamnik and Gledhill, 1992), and is now embedded in the Bona Fide Occupational Requirements Guideline (CHRA Sl/82-83). A task analysis provides·a tool to describe the tasks of employment and is "undoubtedly the most crucial phase in the development of any test or standard (Bonneau and Brown, 1995: p.159)." In the task analysis performed by Osborn (1976) he identified climbing, running,jumping, lifting, balancing, pulling, pushing, carrying, wrestling, cra~~n~, dragging and striking (hitting or kicking) as those physical skills used most oft~n by a police officer (in order of importance). Farenholtz and Rhodes (1990), using tlie same methodology, found walking, standing, climbing stairs, running, lifting, carrying, dragging, pulling, pushing, vaulting, jumping and crawling (in order according to the number of occurrences) (see Table 1). Many of the task analyses performed on police work have come to similar conclusions, with a core set of core competencies, or physical demands being required in police departments through out the developed world (Osborn, 1976; Wilmore and Davis, 1979; Greenberg and Berger, 1983;Farenholtz and Rhodes, 1986: Superko, Bernauer and Voss, 1988; Farenholtz and Rhodes, 1990 Gaul and Wenger, 1992; Bonneau, 1994; Trottier and Brown, 1994; Bonneau, 1996). Table 1. Most frequently performed physical tasks as found in various task analyses. Rank Osborn, 1976 Farenholtz and Rhodes, 1986 Bonneau, 199~ ~ 1 runnmg walking walking 2 JUmpmg ~tanding standing 3 lifting climbing stairs climbing stairs 4 balancing runnmg lifting 5 pulling lifting carrymg 6 pushing carrymg runrung 7 carrymg dragging pulling 8 wrestling pulling pushing 9 crawling pushing Jumpmg 10 dragging vaulting vaulting ,. .•. Page& It appears that the physical d~ds of policing are similar across developed nations. In a review of the literature Bonneau and Brown (1995) report similarities in the type and intensity of physical activities reported by police officers in North America, Europe and Australia. The results of large scale task analyses would support the notion that there are a core set of physical abilities required in order to function as a police officer, regardless of age, gender, race or gc:;ographic location. Occupational Fitness Tests Jp. t,he case of Dorthard v Rawlinson (1977: 433 US 321 ), heard in the Supreme Co!lft iii the-United States, the judge encouraged occupations that had specific physical demands tliat were related to satisfactory levels of employment development physical ability or agility tests that were objective, realistic and non-discriminatory. This is also reflected in the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA, 1985), in the Bona Fide Occupational Requirements Guideline (CHRA Sl/82-83). Since the passing of this legislation, numerous tests have been developed for physically demanding occupations (Farenholtz and Rhodes, 1986; Bonneau, 1994; Bonneau, 1996; Jette, Kimick and Sidney, 1990; Gledhill and Jamnik, 1992a; Gledhill and Jamnik, 1992b; Stevenson, et al., 1992; Jamnik and Gledhill, 1992). Pre-employment screening for physically demanding occupations have traditionally used one of two methods: an occupational fitness test (Metivier, Gauthier and Gaboriault, 1982; Greenberg and Berger, 1983; Jette, Kimick and Sidney, 1990: Stevenson, et al., 1992) or an occupational physical abilities test (Wilmore and Davis, 1979; Farenholtz and Rhodes, 1990; Jamnik and Gledhill, 1992; Gledhill and Jamnik, 1992a). While US courts have often dismissed test"():fphysical abilities as hiring selection criteria because of the difficulty in demonstrating the job-relatedness of the tests and their adverse impact on females, a shift towards fitness testing in the US occurred. However, fitness and physical ability are not syn,q_n:ympus. Fitp_e~s tests are typically physical or performance related, fitness tests, mea.Suring strength, endurance, power and agility in non-occupational · specific movement patterns (such as a maximal bench press, 12 minute run, vertical or broad jump, and shuttle run). Physical ability tests are an integrated measure of movement patterns typical of the occupation in question, duplicating the specific physical capabilities required. Standard fitness testing procedures are time consuming, and field tests of fitness are typically 'Taught with error, having a large star.dard error of the estimate. Further, standard fitness tests are often very hard to link to job-related duties. As selection criteria, these tests then have limited usefulness (Jette, Kimick and Sidney, 1990; Rhodes and Farenholtz, 1992; Bonneau and Brown, 1995). At best, general fitness tests should be used to monitor fitness levels of employees, motivate individuals to initiate or sustain a physical training program, and help in the development of individualized training Page7 programs (Lindell, 1975; Byrd, 1976; Craig, 1979; Metivier, Gauthier and Gaboriault, 1982; Bonneau-and Brown, 1995). Physical abilities tests are better suited to screen applicants for employment as can be more directly related to the specific physical demands of employment. These tests, while measuring job-related motor .abilities, put large amounts of stress on the physiological systems, and reflect the capacity of various fitness parameters (Rhodes and Farenholtz, 1992). In this study, Rhodes and Farenholtz found the run component of the POPAT to be related to maximal aerobic power and anaerobic capacity, while the push/pull apparatus did not correlate well with any of the standard field tests of strength. While the run is. oply 400 meters in length,.this is more in line with the distances covered on the job, anq being a.maximal test produces near maximal heart rates for two or more minutes, producing iarge cardiovascular stress. a Police Specific Testing In the first annual International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Law Enforcement Survey, the IACP surveyed 2,914 law enforcement agencies world wide (IACP, 1988). In this survey 81 % of the agencies surveyed reported 11 having physical fitness standards that recruits must meet (p.42)," although only 16% implemented mandatory fitness standards beyond the recruit level. There are several police specific physical ability tests used in North America. One of the earlier tests was designed for the Los Angeles County Sherriff's Department (Osborn, 1976). Using a questionnaire format to collect infonnation concerning essentialjobrelated duties, Osborn constructed a physical agility test consisting of tests that resemble, "as closely as possible, conditions in the field (Osborn, 1976: p.44)." This test included a six foot wall climb, a 440 yard run, a body transport, a balance beam walk, a vehicle push and a crawl, and time standards for each event were developed using 153 civilians and 89 deputies (although the.methods do notindicate their method ofderiving actual time standards). Wilmore and Davis (1979) developed a job-related physical abilities test for the selection of California state traffic officers. This test included a standard battery of field test designed to assess the "discrete components" of cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength, flexibility and body composition, and two physical abilities tests - a barrier surmount test and arrest simulation, and a dummy drag injury rescue simulation. The physical abilities testing was added to the protocol because of "the State Personnel Board's strong desire to correlate performance scores on the field test battery with an officer's ability to perform some critically important job related task that involves physical strength and ability (Wilmore and Davis, 1979: p.35)." The barrier surmount and arrest simulation mimics the work environment of highway patrol, having a highway divider and a perimeter fence on 100 foot intervals. A foot chase for a highway patrol Pages officer would typicaliy include vaul~g one highway divider, scaling one perimeter fence, and arresting an.uncooperative suspect - the later of which was tested using an arrest resistor device. A model to assess .one's ability to apprehend and.restrain a resisting suspect in police work was developed by Greenberg and Berger in 1983. These authors, because of the "probability of physical injury and the administrative infeasibility of a simulated test" involving the restraining and apprehending of a suspect, developed a regression equation that predicted likelihood of success from basic anthropometric and strength tests. These authors found that those individuals who performed best in a combative task could be pr,edi:Ctedfr~m a composite strength score (maximal bench press, upright row, and leg .preS1s), left ~d grip strength, weight, height and gender. Farenholtz and Rhodes (1985) developed a physical abilities test (Police Officer's Physical Abilities Test, or POPAT} using the methods of Osborn (1976) and Wilmore and Davis (1979). The test was designed to "predict the potential physical ability of the participant to resolve a critical incident involving the average male suspect (Farenholtz and Rhodes, 1990; p.46)." As the previous authors, Farenholtz and Rhodes divided their test using three distinct portions - getting to the problem (a pursuit), solving the problem (an arrest}, and removing the problem (a lift and carry). Getting to the problem consisted of a 400 meter agility run which included changes in direction and stride length, and stairs; solving the problem involved a pushing and pulling apparatus demonstrating the ability to dynamically control 35 kg (80 lbs) of resistance using a machine similar to that of Wilmore and Davis (1979) and a series of squat thrusts; removing the problem involved a lift and carry of 45.5 kg (100 lbs) over a 15.6 m (50 foot) distance. The Physical Ability Requirement Evaluation (PARE) was developed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, modeled after the work ofFarenholtz and Rhodes (1985). Because of the potential for adverse impact discrimination, with 65% of the females failing the POPAT, the RCMP re-eyalµated those portions oftl:te test which were :rp.ost problematic. These portions included the push/pull because of the resistance encountered, the vault, and the time frame of the fight portion of the test (Bonneau, 1996). After an independent evaluation the resistance to be moved during the dynamic push/pull sequence was confirmed, and the value of35 kg was retained in the PARE. However, the vaulting component of the test was eliminated. The original premise was that officers need to perform activities under maximal stress, however, the run portion of the POPAT elicits a near maximal (90% max HR) level of exertion and the RCMP found the vaulting sequence was not necessary. Further, the fight portion of the POPAT lasts on average one minute and 52 seconds in individuals that successfully complete the test (Rhodes and Farenholtz, 1992) - much longer than the average physical encounter met in the field (80% of which are less than one minute). The modifications forth coming to the Page9 POPAT in the development of the PARE were: the vaults were integrated into the rim portion of the test and a series of four' falls were added to the "fight11 sequence between the push and pull apparatus, reducing the fighting portion to, on average, one minute and ten seconds. Conclusion Physical abilities tests have been successfully implemented in the screening of potential recruits by those employers who have demonstrated that their selection criteria .are n9t dii;criminatory, that each criteria is critical to job performance, and who have .cle~ly defuled minimal acceptabie levels for each of the selection criteria. The problems a.Ssociated With their use are not inherent to the tests themselves, but the .i mplementation of standards within the police force - for example, 81 % of the agencies surveyed reported physical fitness standards for recruits, but only 16% implemented mandatory fitness standards beyond the recruit level (IACP, 1988). Should these tests test the true occupational physical ability requirements, then all individuals within the police force should be able to meet this standard, and not just new recruits. This will be the hardest obstacle to overcome should a court challenge arise challenging the physical abilities test. Page 10 Figure 2.1. Schematic representation of the POPAT test. T ~ STATIONt2 ~ PULL311K9 (801bs) ' ... STATIONl3 · "' PUSH 38Kg (801ba.) ·FR>llT STATIONM SQUAT THRUST AND STAND &RAil VAULT STATION•t RUN 400 METERS (llLAPS) & E STOP .- ........ 8' MAT T . E .--~11---.l TIME&PULSE COUNT STATION#S TORSO SACK CARRV451(g (1001bs.)75m E Page 11 Figure 2.2. Schem~tic representation_of the PARE test. The PARE at a glance The PARE (PhyU:al Ability Requinlment Evaluation) Is designed to simulate the moat common darnria or porice woltt (e.g.: chasing a suspect up a Slaim&l!ie; Jumping over a fence and a ditch, and hoklna back a crowd). It conslslS Ol lhree Clifferent stations. Tiie deelred goal Is for membelS to complete the ftrst two stations In four minute&. · ll.1embels carry a 1()().poln1 lonlo bag (8().pola'ld for new membels) for a distance of 50 feet Page 12 References Bonneau, I (1994) Revision to the Doghandlers Task Analysis. RCMP Health Services Directorate, Ottawa, Ontario. Bonneau, I (1996) PARE Standard Summary. RCMP Health Services Directorate, Ottawa, Ontario. Bonneau, J, and I Brown (1995) Physical ability, fitness and police work. Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine. 2:157-164 . .B~qWnlie, 1:-· .S Brown, G Diewert, et al. (1985) Cost-effective selection of fire fighter recruits. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 17(6)661-666. Byrd, DA (1976) Impact of Physical Fitness on Police Performance. The Police Chiet December:30-32. Canadian Human Rights Act (1985) Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Human Rights Commission. Craig, GB (1979) Mandatory Physical Conditioning Standards. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. March: 13-17 Farenholtz, DW, and EC Rhodes (1986) Development of Physical Abilities Test for Municipal Police Officers in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences. l 1(3):abstract. Gledhill, N and VK Jamnik (l 992a) Development and validation of a fitness screening protocol for firefighter applicants. Canadian Journal of Sport Science. 17(3): 199-206. Gledhill, N and VK Jainnik ( l 992b) Characterization of the pliysical demands of · firefighting. Canadian Journal of Sport Science. 17(3):207-213. Greenberg, GJ, and RA Berger (1983) A Model to Assess One's Ability to Apprehend and Restrain a Resisting Suspect in Police Work. Journal of Occupational Medicine. 25(11):809-813. International Association of Chiefs of Police ( 1998) IACP 1987 annual law enforcement survey: executive summary. The Police Chief. January: 38-43. Jamnik, VK and N Gledhill (1992) Development of fitness screening protocols for physically demanding occupations. Canadian Journal of Sport Science. 17(3):222-227. Page 13 Jette, M, A Kimick,. I( Sidney (1990) .Evaluation of an indoor standardized obstacle course for Canadian infantry personnel. Canadian Journal of Sport Science. 15:59-64. Lindell, JW (1975) Year-Round Police Fitness Training. The Police Chief. Sept: 38,64. Metivier, G, R Gauthier, _and.R Gaboriault (1982) A Screening Test for the Selection of Police Officers. Canadian Police College Journal. 6(1):1-12. Osborn, GD (1976) Physical Agility Testing: Validating Physical Agility Tests. The Police Chief. January:43-45. ·s Retlly, RR, Zedeck, and ML Tenopyr (1979) Validity and Fairness of Physical Ability Tests for Predicting Performance in Craft Jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology. 64(3):262-274. Rhodes; EC and DW Farenholtz (1992) Police officer's physical abilities test compared to measures of physical fitness. Canadian Journal of Sport Science. 17(3):228-233. Stevenson, JM, IT Bryant, GM Andrew, et al. (1992) Development of physical fitness standards for Canadian armed forces younger personnel. Canadian Journal of Sport Science. 17(3):214-221. Superko, RH, E Bemauer, and J Voss (1988) Effects of a Mandatory Health Screening and Physical Maintenance Program for Law Enforcement Officers. The Physician and Sports Medicine.16(9) :99-109. Trottier, A and J Brown (1994) Police Health: A Physician's Guide for the Assessmentof Police Officers. Canada Communications Group; Ottawa, Canada. Wilmore, JH, and JA Davis (1979) Valid~tion of a Physical Abilities Field Test fqr the Selection of State Traffic Officers. Journal of Occupational Medicine. 21(1):33:.40. Page 14 CHAPTER3: METHODS Tb,e purpose of this chapter is t~ describe the methodology established for the entire Police Recruit Physical Abilities Study. While this report only describes results relating to parts of the Police Recruit Physical Abilities Study, it will still be useful for the reader to have an understanding of the entire methodology overall since all parts of the study are very much inter-related. In terms of details here, this chapter will describe the sample of officers involved in the study, the response rates, the research design for each part of the study, the nature of the data base constructed, instruments used, and analyses to be conducted. Development and GoV'ernance: Police Recruit Physical Abilities Study Initiated in the summer of 1998 by the Police Academy of the Justice Institute of B.C. and with fw!ds provided by the_ Police Services Division of the Attorney Generaj's Ministry of British Columbia, the Police Recruit Physical Abilities Study began with a purpose directly related to this report-to provide an assessment of the physical demands of police work. In considering a design for that assessment however, it became apparent that a level of cooperation existed within the policing community in British Columbia that would facilitate a broader purpose of the study, as well as a research design that would assume, (to a large degree) a grounded theoretical approach. Indeed, the study was fully supported by both the B.C. Federation of Police Officers and all twelve municipal police chi·~fs in the province through the Municipal Police Chiefs Association - with the understanding that the study would be exploratory as much as it would be descriptive, and with the assumption that a key element would be to establish a database to facilitate future research efforts. Today, the study is guided as it has been from the outset by a Research Committee of Page 15 the Justice IIistitute who meet regularly with the Research Team, and who have been instrumental in org~g and schedUiing the participation of officers from each department involved. Further, the Research Committee has been actively involved in the design of the instruments used in the study. Design and Components: Police Recruit Physical Abilities Study The design of the Police Recruit Physical Abilities Study is based primarily on a r~dQ.m. sampling of all municipal police officers in British Columbia who were listed as beipg. a8s1gnecI to "general duty" in June, 1998. The listing of officers was provided by each department to the researchers who simply s~lected every third officer named. This resulted in 279 officers being asked to participate in the survey component of the study. The survey component of the study involved each officer receiving two questionnaires, one which asked them to describe the physical demands of their job "on average" (the Physical Work Record Survey Form as per Appendix A), and another which asked them to describe the most physically demanding critical incident that they experienced in their most recent twelve months of work (the Critical Incident Survey Form as per Appendix B). Both questionnaires were presented in a package along with a letter of introduction explaining the general purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of any participation, the confidentiality of all responses, and instructions for return of the questionnaires in a sealed envelope back to the researchers (see Appendix C). Questionnaire packages were distributed to officers through the Training Officer in each department who collected them for forwarding to the researchers. A second part of the study involved asking every other officer surveyed to participate in a ride-a-long component. Specifically, this component involved having a research assistant ride with the offic~r for a full shift during which a detailed record is made of all physical activities performed by the officer. Using a set of 24 "Observation Reports" (see . Appendix D), the research assistant records all instances of each of 30 different physical activities occurring within each minute of each shift. Instances are recorded from the minute each officer leaves the shift briefing at the start of the shift and through to when the officer goes to the locker room at the end of the shift. Accordingly, data is collected on as many as 720 minutes per twelve hour shift, and as it has turned out, as many as nine physical activities per minute. The data is coded onto the same data set which contains the survey data. Scheduling of the ride-a-longs has been done in a fashion which ensures that all shifts and all days of the week are proportionately represented. Further, all ride-a-longs are conducted by the study's two primary research assistants who report that the system for recording their observations has worked extremely well. Page 16 1• ... ,, ·'' ·'' A third part of the study involve~ having each officer who participates in the ride-along component wear a heart monitor, which records every heart beat. The monitor is activated the minute the researcher starts recording observations of physical activity at the beginning of the shift, and at the end of the shift the data which has been gathered and stored by the monitor i.s downloaded into the research assistants lap-top computers. While the intent of the Research Team was to collect heart monitor data on every officer, data from early ride-a-longs was corrupted due to problems with the monitors. These problems resulted "in the monitors being replaced with more sophisticated ones which have _proven.t o be quite reliable. Ultimately, the data from the heart monitor .com,Ron:ent will also be added to the same data set which contains survey data, although .beY,ond the scope of the present report. Analysis of the R-R interval d~ may occur at a later date sliowd funding be available for computer programming. One factor of both the ride-a-long component and the heart monitor component is that participating officers will each receive a report at the end of the study which will compare data from their own shift to that of officers in the study overall. In fact, it is perhaps this feature that underlies the enormous interest and cooperation in the study by officers overall - only one officer declined to participate in the ride-a-long component, while many officers not part of the sample, have volunteered to be included. Characteristics of Primary Sample The sample of officers participating in the study is representative of all officers assigned to general duty/patrol within municipal police departments in B.C .. Accordingly, as Table 3.1 shows, there are great ranges in terms of the characteristics of the officers participating - some are young (eg. 24 years old) and/or have only a few months of service (e.g. 3 months), while others are nearing retirement at 55 years old and/or have nearly 30 years (e.g. 353 months) experience in the patrol division. The average officer participating is 36 years old and has 1Oyears of service, which means that on average they were hired at 26 years of age (the average age at which police officers are hired in B.C.). Officers participating in the ride-a-long component were selected randomly from the above sample, and as you would expect, have the same characteristics. Overall, the sample is seen to be an especially good one because it provides an opportunity to examine the extent to which the physical demands of general duty police work are the same or different in relation to different work environments (eg. rural vs. urban, eleven vs. twelve hour shifts, one person patrol cars vs. two person patrol cars) . In the. present sample, as Table 3.2 shows, virtually half the officers (52%) work in a single department while the others each work in one of eleven other departments. Page 17 Table 3.1. Selected characteristics of police officers responding. ·Mean (range) Characteristic Considered Age 36 yr (24--55) -Months in service 117 mo (3-401) Months in current position 53 mo (1-353) Length of shifts 11 hr (10-12) Working in patrol division 91 % Male · 81 % Female 19% Height 179 cm (155-198) Weight 84 kg (50-140) Weight of duty belt 7.3 kg (2-16) Weight of body armor 2.5 kg (0.5-12) Always worked with a partner 37% Sometimes worked with partner 28% Work a full shift rotation 87% • all figures rounded Page 18 Table 3.2. Police_departments ofofficers sampled. Police Department 010 of Total Sample Vancouver 52 Victoria 9 Abbotsford 6 Port Moody 3 Esquimalt 3 Central Saanich 2 Nelson 1 .. Saanich 6 Delta 7 New Westminster 5 Oak Bay 2 West Vancouver 4 The Data Base and Analysis Constru~ting a data ba8e for the analysis of data collected through the Polic-e · Recruit Physical Abilities Study has proved to be a challenge, not only because of the volume of data involved, but also because of the desire to have an ability to ultimately analyze what physical activities occur in each minute of each shift - which is complicated by the fact that any officer might be involved in as many as nine different activities in a single minute. Further, the Research Team wanted to have the ability to analyze every single combination of activities in relationship to potential differential effects regarding a multiplicity of officer and work characteristics. Complicating the analysis yet further is the desire to be able to analyze the data in light of corresponding heart rate data collected. In the final analysis the primary data base is expected to consist of more than 2000 variables and over a million bits of data, all of which will be contained on an SPSS (version 8.0) data base. Page 19 The data from the ride-a-long component is of course very important, not only because of the levef o( detail it makes possible, but because of its role in confirming the validity of responses provided by self-reports of officers. This validation will be especially important to future taslc analysis studies elsewhere only self-reports are feasible. For the present report the analysis is focused largely on a descriptive analysis of the Critical Incident Survey Form and Physical Work Record Survey Form, and on considering the results inJight ofte POPAT. Further, while not presented here, it should be noted ~t the re.~earchers have conducted a preliminary analysis of the results of the survey with a view to determining differences based on department, gender, years of senAce~· age~ and officer height and weight. Importantly, that analysis was characterized by lack ofobserved significant differences. In fact, it is fair to say that any existing differences found where not related to what officers perceived was required of the job in terms of physical activity. That is, officers (on average) generally perform the same activities with like frequency regardJess of who they are and where they work. Any differences are more related to how they respond to the physical demands of the job. These issues will be addressed in detail in the final report. a Page 20 CHAPTER4: GENERAL DUTY TASK ANALYSIS The purpose of this chapter is to describe the results of the Physical Work Record Survey component of the Police Recruit Physical Abilities Study. As discussed in the methodology chapter, that component involved 267 officers, each of whom completed a questionnaire designed to provide their self-reports regarding their assessment of the physical demands of general duty police work. Specifically, the questionnaire asked officers to describe; 1. How necessary it is that they be able to perform selected physical activities; 2. How frequent they perform these selected physical activities; 3. How much time they spend doing these selected physical activities during an average shift, and; 4. How much effort they feel is required to perform these selected physical activities. While the listing of physical activities addressed by the questionnaire does not constitute the basis for a comprehensive task analysis of general duty police work, it does include all of those activities which have been shown by earlier,studies to be the basis for arguing for selected bona fide occupational requirements in police work. In terms of a more comprehensive task analysis of police work, as mentioned in the methodology chapter, the Police Recruit Physical Abilities Study also includes a "ride-a-long" component. The basic findings of the ride-a-long component of this study are detailed in Chapter 6. Data from 121 ride-a-longs completed were, however, notably consistent with the average responses provided by the officers surveyed. ) The Necessity of Selected Physical Activities Officers participating in the survey were asked to consider how necessary they believed it was that they be able to perform each of a list of fifteen physical activities Page 21 during duty, and as Table 4.1 illustrat~s, it is clear that the vast majority of officers felt all but two (i.e. crawling and lifting above the shoulders) were necessary. The necessity of officers being able to perform these duties was confirmed further by the research-assistants observing physical activities through the ride-a-longs. Specifically, the average necessity rating assigned to each physical activity by the officers involved was identical to that assigned by the research assistants in all but three cases. In these cases, as Table 4.2 shows, the officers assigned average ratings of "somewhat necessary" ~hile the research assistants recorded them as clearly "very necessary". The re_as_op. le 4.~~- 9bserved vs officer ratings of how frequently various physical activities are performed during duty. Physical Activity Considered Average Rating Assigned By Officer Average Rating Assigned By Obsetvers Standing constantly performed constantly performed Walking constantly performed constantly performed Sitting constantly performed constantly performed Climbing up and down stairs often performed constantly performed Handling/manipulating objects often performed constantly performed _ Twisting/turning upper body often performed constantly performed Pulling and pushing often performed often performed Bending, squatting, kneeling often performed constantly performed Lifting and carrying often performed often performed Running occasionally performed occasionally performed Climbing up/down from object occasionally performed occasionally performed Dragging occasionally performed occasionally performed Leaping and jumping occasionally performed occasionally performed Crawling seldom performed seldom performed Lifting above the shoulders seldom performed seldom performed .. Page 26 S-Point SCale: never .perfomied seldom performed occasionally performed often performed constantly peif~rmed Effort Required to Perform Selected Physical Activities . . _ . Officers participating in the survey were also asked about the amount of effort .they ·use to perfomi each of a listing of six physical activities in their work, and as Table 4.6 shows, 3l1 but one (i.e. climbing up and down. stairs) were cited as requiring at least "medium to maximum" or "maximum" effort. Again, these self-reports were lent credence by the observations of the research assistants doing ride-a-longs. They assigned the same ratings as were assigned on average by the participating officers (see Table 4.7). Table 4.5. Average amount of time police officers usually spend during a shift performing various physical abilities. Physical Activity Considered -~ Average # of minutes per shift .. 373 Sitting Standing - 138 •, Walking 94 Bent over at waist 14 Lifting and carrying below shoulder 9 Pulling and pushing 7 Squatting, kneeling 7 Running 6 Lifting and carrying above shoulder 1 Crawling * all figures rounded Page27 Table 4.6. Police officers' ratings of how much effort they use in performing various physical activities during duty. · ,hysical Activity Considered Less than Medium Effort Medium Effort Medium to Maximum Effort Running 5% 13% 88% Pulling an~ pusbirig 11% 18% 72% 10% 24% 66% Lifting and carrying 13% 30% 57% Leaping and jumping 17% 27% 58% 17% 50% 23% · ..Dragging .. . Climbing up/down stairs .. * all figures rounded Table 4. 7. Observed vs officer ratings of how much effort they use in performing various physical activities during duty. Physical Activity Considered Average Rating Assigned By Officer Average Rating Assigned By Observers Running medium to maximum medium to maximum Pulling and pushing medium to maximum medium to maximum · · ·medium to maximum medium to maximum Lifting and carrying medium to maximum medium to maximum Leaping and jumping medium to maximum medium to maximum medium medium Dragging . Climbing up/down stairs 5-Point Scale: minimum effort minimum to medium effort medium effort medium to maximum effort maximum effort {25 % maximum) {50% maximum) (75-80% maximum) Page 28 CHAPTERS: CRITICAL INCIDENT TASK ANALYSIS In this chapter we describe the results of the Critical Incident Survey part of the Police Recruit Physical Abilities Study- results which, as noted in the methodology chapter, are based on self-reports from 267 police officers. Recall that those officers were asked to provide information about their most physically demanding critical incident . within their most recent twelve months of work. The results are important because they provide a measure of what the physical demands of police work can be in the most difficult of circumstances. While the results reported here are based on 267 incidents, it is important to be aware that responding officers were asked to place their completed assessment in perspective to all others in their careers. That is, after completing the Critical Incident Survey Form, officers were asked to consider their most demanding critical incident of the last twelve months of work in comparison to other equally or more physically demanding incidents they have experience over their entire career. They were asked to recall the number of such incidents they have had over their career, and the results suggested that critical incidents equally as demanding as those reported here occur for each officer at a rate of one every ten months. Further, more physically demanding incidents occur at a rate of one every fourteen months. The Nature of Critical Incidents Reported One of the things asked for by the survey was background information on the critical incidents reported, and the results were as you would expect. Specifically, the results indicated that the most demanding of critical incidents can occur at any time and under a variety of circumstance. For instance, as Table 5.1 shows, while a greater percentage of critical incidents occurred at night and in May, June, and July significant percentages occur at all times of the day and throughout the year. Further, it is clear that these incidents commonly occur without much forewarning. Indeed, as Table 5.2 shows, 37% were initiated from observations of an officer as opposed to their being dispatched to the incident (50%) or being called as backup (4%). As well, while many officers were Page 29 able to describe the p.ature of the incidttnt·as either relating to a motor vehicle accident (4%); domestic violence (12%), social violence (10%), or resistance resulting from an investigation (31 %), a full 43% of officers responding had to describe the nature of the incident so something else (the list of which is too numerous to mention here). Even the location of critical incidents are without a pattern. About half (51 %) of them were reported to have occurred on a street, highway, road, but as Table 5.3 shows, they also occur in many other locations. In some .respects t.hen, .there is no easy way to characterize critical incidents .wbicP. responding officers describe. as the most demanding. Officers have to assume that .iucJ1 incident~ occur anytime, almost anywhere, and without warning. On the other hand, the results in.3ke it very clear that there are some commonalities among those incidents which officers describe as the most demanding. Specifically, they are likely to involve the officer having to deal with one or more subjects, each of whom is likely to be a suspect as opposed to anyone else (e.g. victim, as per Table 5.4). Further, while 89% of the time the incident will involve one subject, 20% of the time it will involve two subjects, 12% of the time it will involve three, and 6% of the time it will involve as many four. Again, as per Table 4, regardless of the number involved, each is likely to be a suspect as opposed to anyone else. More significantly, the subject is likely to be a young male, have average or better physical abilities, and be in a less than desirable mental state. Most of the time (60%), at least one of the subjects will be violent. Finally, as Table 5.5 shows, the subject will often be taller and heavier than the officer involved. Page30 Table 5.1. Occurrences of reported critical incidents by month and time of day. 0/oof Month Time Yearly Total /oof 0 Daily Total January 5% O:Ol-2AM 15% February 10% 2:01-4AM 10% 7% 4:01-6AM 3% Apri_l 9% 6:01-SAM 3% May 12% 8:01-lOAM 3% June 14% 10:01-Noon 3% March : - .. July 14% 12:01-2 PM 8% August 8% 2:01-4 PM 12% September 4% 4:01-6PM 7% October 7% 6:01-8 PM 10% November 6% 8:01-10 PM 11% December 5% 10:01-Midnight 14% * All figures ro1JJ1.ded. Results from Section A, Background Information, Critical Incident Survey Form. Page31 Table 5.2. The nature of critical iri.cidents reported. Type of Incident 0/o of Total Reported Motor vehicle accident 4% Social Violence 10% Domestic Violence 12% -· Resistance resulting. from investigation 31% Other 43% How the Incident was Initiated .. Planned 3% Back-up 4% Other 6% Observed 37% Dispatched 50% * all figures rounded. Results from Section A, Background Information, Critical Incident Survey Form. Page 32 Table ·s.3. Locati~n of critical incidents reported. Location Listed 0/o of Total Reported Street, highway, road 51 % Sidewalk 19% Residential yard 9% Private residence 9% Apartment building 9% Bar, pub, club 6% Public park 4% 26 other locations, none of which were cited by more than 3% of the officers responding * all figures rounded. Results from Section A, Background Information, Critical Incident Survey Form. Page33 Table ·s.4. Char~teristics of subje~ts involved in critical incidents reported. Subjects' Status Subject 1 Subject Subject Subject 2 3 4 89 77 77 77 %victim 8 11 7 12 % other 3 9 16 12 88 77 87 ' 91 12 23 13 9 %violent 60 30 45 38 % under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol 15 12 21 19 % mentally unstable, unpredictable 11 10 10 6 % emotional, upset, abusive 8 22 3 13 % calm, reasonable, cooperative 6 26 21 25 % below average fitness and abilities 15 16 26 12 % average fitness and abilities 50 58 55 71 % above average fitness and abilities 34 27 19 18 % suspect . I%femal~ . . . .~u~jects' Gender o/orriale · ·· Subjects' Mental State Subjects' Physical State I * all figures rounded. Results from Section A, Background Information, Critical Incident Survey Form. Page34 Table ·s.s. ·Relative size and age Qf subjects involved in critical incidents reported. Issue Considered Officer Subject 0/o (where applicable) Weight average weight (without armor and equipment) 84kg 76kg average weight .(with armor and equipment) 94kg 76kg . . maximuni weight of subject 140kg % .of subjects weighing more than 84 kg 32% % oftime subject is heavier than the officer involved (without armor) 39% Height average height 179cm 176cm 195 cm maximum height of subject % subjects taller than 179 cm 25% % of time subject is taller than the officer involved 41 % Age average age 36 29 * all figures rounded. Results from Section A, Background Information, Critical Incident Survey Form. Page35 Physical Demands of Critical Inddents Given the characteristics of the suspects involved in the critical incidents reported, it is not surprising that these incidents are also reported to be very physically demanding. Indeed, to gain control. of such incidents officers are likely .reqUired to engage in a broad range of physical activicy, and in doing so they can expect to exert considerable effort (see Table 5.6). Obviously, the primary reason that the physical demands are so great is that the suspect is resisting .c ontrol in a variety of ways. As Table 5.7 shows, the suspect is likely tQ pull Qr pm.ich on the officer to-resist, and otherwise fight during the incident. The cirgUmstances can also be extremely dangerous as suspects may also use (or threaten to use) a club; knife, or gun, and even attempt to take the officer's weapon Once the officer has control of the critical incident, significant physical demands commonly continue in removing the suspect. Specifically, as Table 5.8 shows, the officer will often be required to lift, pull, drag, and push the suspect - and in doing so be required to exert considerable effort. It is also worth noting that half the time (54%) the officer is required to run to get to the incident, make sharp turns in the process, and do all of this exerting considerable effort (see Table 5.9). As well, the officer may be required to climb, vault, or jump objects - although most officers don't report these as requiring considerable effort. Finally, the results showed that the critical incidents reported were generally not over quickly. Specifically, while 20% were over in less than five minutes, 65% lasted ten or more minutes, and n,early 15% lasted an hour or more (see Table 5.10). Pagel& Table S.6. Physical activities and effort required in controlling critical incidents reported. Activity Performed 0/o of Officers 0/o Citing Citing Activity Maximum Effort Used verbal control tactics 76 52 Pulled and pushed a per~on 76 56 Twisted and turned controlling a person 76 53 .. .. ~andcuff~d a person 72 52 Applied control holds 67 57 Wrestled a person 47 73 Used a wrist I arm lock 44 53 Used a take-down 40 66 Lifted and carried a person 40 52 Struck a person 33 61 Twisted and turned using equipment 27 31 Pulled and pushed on object 25 29 Blocked a punch or kick 23 56 Lifted an catried an object 18 25 Used OC spray 17 42 Used a firearm 10 34 Used a baton 7 50 Other 6 62 .. * all figures rounded. Results from Section C, Controlling the Problem, Critical Incident Survey Form. Page37 Table 5.7. ·Types of resistance use(\ by subjects in critical incidents reported. Resistance Used Subject Subject Subject Subject 1 2 3 4 Pushed or pulled an officer to resist -57% 34% 42% 24% Grasped officer's clothing to resist 28% 17% 16% 18 % Wrestled officer using holds 26% 15 % 6% 18% ~~-o~ject to· resist control . 23% 9% 23% 12% Struck officer (punch, kick, knee ...) 23% 9% 16% " 6% Used other resistance 14% 19% 10% 29% 4% 2% 0% 0% Threatened or seized a gun 4% 2% 3% 6% Threatened or seized a club 2% 4% 3% 6% Attempted to take officer's weapon 2% 2% 3% 6% -· Threatened or seized a knife ·- * all figures rounded. Results from Section C, Controlling the Problem, Critical Incident Survey Form. Page38 Table ·s.a. · Physic31 activities reql;lired in removing the problem in critical incidents reported. 0/o of 0/o Citing Officers· Citing Activity Maximum Lifting I carrying below. shoulder level 46 44 22 ·Plilling a person or object .. 40 50 23 Pushing ·a person or object 36 43 8 Dragging a person or object 22 50 22 6 50 42 Activity Performed Lifting I carrying above shoulder level .. Effort Average Distance Involved (meters) * In over 80% of these instances it was a person who was lifted, carried, pulled, pushed, or drug. * all figures rounded. Results from Section D, Removing the Problem, ', Critical Incident Survey Form. Table 5.9. Physical activities and effort required in getting to critical incidents. Citing Activity D/o Citing Maximum Effort Walking 56 6 Running 54 75 Climbing over objects 17 53 Vaulting over objects 13 45 Jumping down from objects 11 38 Jumping over objects 9 38 010 of Officers Activity Ferformed ' •·, .. * all figures rounded. Results from Section B, Getting to the Problem, Critical Incident Survey Form. Page39 Table S.10·. Time elapsed during the officers' involvement in the critical incident. O/o of Officers c;ting Time · Elapsed· #of Minutes 0-4 20% 5..;.,_9 15% 10-14 .. 16% 15-19 9% 20-24 8% 25-29 · • 1% 30-59 15 % 60 plus 15 % * all figures rounded. Results from Section B, Getting to the Problem, Critical Incident Survey Form. ·. Page40 CHAPTER&: OBSERVATIONAL DATA The purpose of this chapter is to describe the results of the ride-a-long component of the.study. As disctissed in the m~thodology chapter, this component involved performing ride-a-longs with 121 officers, during which work activities were observed and recorded. Activities were recorded in one-minute intervals with as many as nine activities being recorded for any single minute. Accordingly, the data collected could be described in terms of what officers do on average in every minute of every shift. For our purposes here, however, the focus will be on describing how often officers perform various activities over the course of an average shift. ; i To begin this chapter we will present some background information on the sample of officers involved in the ride-a-long component. This information will be followed by a look at activities related to the time officers spend communicating, time they spend in their patrol cars, time they spend performing various physical activities, and time spent on activities related to firearms and use of force. The findings concerning physical activities performed and use of force are particularly relevant to the assessment of the POPAT as a selection criteria (the topic of Chapter 7). Background The Observed Data was collected during 121 ride-a·longs with the data collected over a 12 month period spanning dates in both 1998 and 1999. The total observational period included 75,867 minutes, representing 1265 hours of observation. In considering the sample of officers involved in the ride-a-long component it is important to remember that while we started with a random selection of officers, we also had to be attentive to the logistics of scheduling research assistants to complete a representative range of shifts over the course of a year. Further, over the year, officers moved out of patrol or were otherwise unavailable on shifts scheduled for study. Accordingly, we replaced some originally selected officers with others in our larger Page41 sample, and not all shifts were covered to the exact proportions as they occur over the days, weeks, and months of the year. Still, we came close to our original intentions and are completely confident that the resulting sample of officers involved and the shifts involved constitute a very good representation of the officers and work activity involved in municipal policing-in British Columbia. The reader can have some degree of confidence in this regard a8 ·supported by the data provided concerning the nature of the shifts involved and the characteristics of participating officers. In terms of the o°fficers involved, as Table 6.1 shows, they are remarkably similar to .C?_ur_ larger sample of officers. Further, their distribution across individual police de{jaitmertts is the same as it is for officers in our large sample (Table 6.2). In terms of the shifts ·involved, it can be seen by Table 6.3 that the day of the week for the group of shifts was Wednesday (with Sunday as the start of the week), the mean day of the month was the 15th, and the mean month of the year was June. Also note that a wide range .of shift start times were covered. mean In considering the findings presented it should be noted that observations began on each shift after each officer's briefing (within five minutes). The observations then continued through to the point when the officer returned to the station and logged-off sh1ft. While observations were immediately recorded on minute by minute tracking sheets (see Appendix D), on some occasions they were recorded on tape as activity occurred and later transcribed on to tracking sheets. Page42 .•· ·.. Table ·6 .1. Characteristics of offic.ers sampled. Characteristic Considered Overall Sample Officers Participating in Ride-a longs Age 36 yrs (24- 55) 34 yrs (24-51) 19% 21 % 179 cm (155- 198) 178 cm (160- 198) 84 kg (50- 140) 82 kg (50- 113) Weight of Duty Belt 7.3 kg (2- 16) 7.1 kg (2- 16) Weight of Body Armor 2.5 kg (0.5 - 12) 2.5 kg (0.5 - 10) Months in Current Position 53 mo (1 - 353) 46 mo (1 - 228) Always Worked With Partner 37% 41% Sometimes Worked With Partner 28% 26% Work a Full Shift Rotation 87% 94% 11 hrs (10- 12) 11 hrs (10 - 12) 91 % 97% Female .. Officers Height Weight .. . Length of Shift Work in Patrol Division *All figures rounded (range in brackets). Page43 Table 6.2. Police departments of ~pled officers. O/o of Overall ··Sample Police Deparbnents 0 /o of Officers Participating in Ride-alongs 52% 51 % 9% 7% 6% 7% 3% 2% Esquimalt 3% 2% Central Saanich 2% 3% Nelson 1% 2% Saanich 6% 6% Delta 7% 9% Vancouver Victoria : .. . . . Abbotsford Port Moody New Westminster .. . ·• 5% ... 5% Oak.Bay 2% 2% West Vancouver 4% 4% * All figures rounded. Page44 Table 6.3. Characteristics of shi~ sampled. Characteristics Considered ) Overall Sample .. Average month June Ayerage day of the month 15th Average day of the week Wednesday Weather at start of shift -Rain - Clear -Cloudy 30%oftime 30 % of time 39 % oftime Start times -5 am -7am -9am -NOON - 2pm -4pm -5pm - 7pm Minutes observed per shift Length of breaks taken 4% 19% 2% 1% 22 % 14% 12% 25 % 627 min (474-740) 73 min (2 - 205) *All figures rounded (range in brackets). Overall, 75,867 minutes (1265 hrs) of shift activity observed. · Page45 Driving Activity .. . . ~ In addressing driving activity we observed and recorded the number of minutes per shift that each officer spent driving and simply idling the patrol car. Further, driving and idling were categorized as follows: · .; ., Driving ... .. ... ... ... Normal driving Driving Code 1 - responds to a call Drivmg Code 2 - responds as fast as possible in normal traffic or minor pursuit ·· Driving Code 3 - resj>onding as fast as possible or major pursuit ·Total driving Idling ... · ... ... ... Idling - for reasons of watching Idling - for reasons of a traffic violator stop Idling - for reasons of a suspicious vehicle check Idling - other As Table 6.4.a shows, officers do a considerable amount of driving per shift. Specifically, of those who drove (92%) they averaged 220 minutes (or 3.7 hrs) of driving during their shift. Further, 29% of officers were required to drive "Code 3" during their shift, and these officers spent an average of 5 minutes per shift driving at that level. ·' Translated into what we should expect in any given month, we can see from Table 6.4.b that (on average) an officer will be required to perform most levels of driving during most shifts. The only exception is "Code 3" driving, but even this will be _ performed (on average) 4 shifts per month. Overall, in terms of time spent driving, an officer will be required to spend 39 .1 hrs in normal driving, 4.4 hrs driving "Code 1", 1.4 hrs driving "Code 2" and 18 minutes driving "Code 3" each month. Accordingly, it is fair to say that all levels of driving are "necessary" and clearly more than occasionally performed. On the matter of time spent idling it is interesting to note that officers :spend an average of 14.9 hrs per month in this activity and almost a third of that time (32%) is due to watching, traffic violator stops and suspicious vehicle stops (see Table 6.4.b). Finally , on the matter of driving, we observed that, on average, officers get in an out of their patrol cars 21 times per shift (i.e. 21 "in" and 21 "out"). While we did not record these instances as "twisting and turning", each of course would be. Page46 Table ·&.4.a. Per~entage of officers observed in various forms of driving activity each shift and number of minutes involved in each form. 0/o of Activity Considered. officers observed Performing activity Average # Median # The range of minutes of minutes over which the activity the activity the activity was was was performed performed performed Idling - w~t~hing 57% 13 8 1- 59 Idling - traffic stop 55% 16 12 1 - 79 1 - 31 .. Idling - suspicious vehicle stop 42% 9 6 Idling - other 98% 44 39 1 - 174 Normal Driving 92% 182 179 1 - 383 Code 1 Driving 79% 24 21 1-62 Code 2 Driving 65% 9 7 1-43 Code 3 Driving_ 29%. 5 3 1-22 ·. Totai Driving 92% 220 13 1 -406 I * All figures rounded. Observation results: recorded information from ride-a-longs. Page47 Table 6.4.b. Es~ted number of shifts and number of minutes (hours) each officer will be required to perform various driving activities. # of shittS per Activity Considered month where activity is required Idling - watching . : # of minutes per month the activity is required 8 102 (1.7 hrs) Idling - traffic stop 8 125 (2.1 hrs) Idling - suspicious vehicle stop 6 51 (0.9 hrs) Idling - other 14 609 (10.2 hrs) Normal Driving 13 2344 (39.1 hrs) Code 1 Driving 11 265 (4.4 hrs) Code 2 Driving 9 82 (1.4 hrs) Code 3 Driving 4 18 (0.3 hrs) 13 2834 (47.2 hrs) ." ·- ~ Total Driving .. *All figures rounded. Figures assume an average of 14 shifts per month and represent observed data (results from ride-a-longs). Page48 Communicati()n Activity , In addressing communication activity, we observed and recorded the number of minutes per shift that each officer spent talking to complainants, suspects and other officers. We also reco~'ded the amount of time officers spent on the phone, using the computer and writing. Additionally, we recorded all incidents where officers used the radio or a mobile data terminal (MDT). In all instances we only recorded the activity if the content of the communication involved was directly related to the officer's work. As Table 6~5.a shows, at least 90% of officers talked to complainants, suspects and.o.therpushinWPulling Rtming Sitting Sq\J8ttinw'Kneeling Standing Talking Twisting/Tuning Typing WaJking Writing Other J mpi ng nl lut1 1f c1 · Ju11 1nio Li \in ab1 1ve .ifli hu II ~OVI L fiin be ow Pus ~hw uPul inl! P 1shi1 11,/P ~Iii ll ' Rt nnir~ Sitti I~ S~uat ingl ~nee ing Ru1 nini Sit ina ISqui ~tin~ Kne1 lin1 DlaOI inu · alki ng S ltin1 Squ: ttin 1/Kn1 el.in 5tar din ·1 vpin ~ Ti\ istin Tai kin~ wri nin w ilkil I! . <>the Tvr 'n2 Wa kin Wi •lkii I! w itin Wri ina 0 her 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 IS 14 13 12 11 10 (~her 9 8 7 6 s 4 3 2 I Idling In I Out ofcar Jmnping Lifting above Lifting below J>ushinWPulling Running Sitting SquattinglKneeling Twisting I Turning Typing Walking Writing Other Tf\isti 11!/T min• · rvnil II! Handling ·objects Standing Talking St ndi ll! Tall ing 1 T\\ 1Sti111 TurI ii1g 'I l.riti ll! H ndli Ill• ( :o1icc s l lim Li Hni! belo w Rmni ~g F~ Fo ~e In I >ut of car Pus ninu. Pull 111! Fireann Fir arff · fonc lin1 obj l>Cts bov~ Lit ing oclo~ Driving l rivh g .um1 inu: Lil inu l..l'a~ling . . Crl wli1~ ldli nil Break Climb up slain Climb'.ms downstais Climbing on Objeds -'ire 11m1 Jn Ou ot\ ar Balancing Bending Clin bin on bhje ls Fore IJlini 0 'lin bin1 dm~ ll!llll ~ffl 1 'rm li111 Hai dlh1 .? ob ect1 1 B·eak lmb ng1 J\\111 stai ~ (' imh ng< lnot eel :irel rm 2 IJalt tch .i. Dri "ing Fincc 3 Clir ~bin l w:i lstai1_ ~ ( Craw inu c ivit g s 4 B -eak ~lin lbin1 Upi tair Cl mbi1 gd~ vn s airs Clirnbina down stairs Climbing on objects Cli 1bi1 go1 obj ~cts 6 Be ndir iz Bre ak c mb ng1 p st ~irs 8 7 lJalE nch u. Ben ~ing J~enc, ng Crawling 9 0