Citation

Liu W, Taylor B. J. Occup. Env. Hyg. 2017; 14(11): 873-881.

Affiliation

b NORC at the University of Chicago , Bethesda , MD .

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/15459624.2017.1339163

PMID

28657501

Abstract

The life-saving benefits of body armor have been well-documented, and law enforcement agency (LEA) body armor wear requirements have been cited by police officers as one of the most important reasons for them to wear body armor. However, research on LEAs' policies and practices regarding body armor is scarce. This study examined whether there are different agency-level profiles of various body armor related policies, and related these body armor policy profiles to agency characteristics, size, location, etc. U.S. LEAs fell into four distinct profiles based on their body armor policies. Close to half of the LEAs had comprehensive coverage of body armor policies in all aspects. However, nearly one in five LEAs had very weak body armor policies in all aspects. The rest of the LEAs split into two groups, each with different strengths and weaknesses on selection, training, fitting, wearing and inspection policies. Sheriff's offices and smaller LEAs were found to have weaker policies. In contrast, LEAs with a community policing emphasis and those with body armor grants were found to have stronger body armor polices, especially when it comes to mandatory wearing polices.

FINDINGS from the study provide a portrait of the current state of LEA body armor policies, and provide guidance for improving LEAs' body armor policies and practices.

Language: en

Keywords

BVP; Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body Armor NIJ Standard; Police fatality; police agency policy; police injury; police officer safety