Understanding the physical fitness standard,recruitment,and retention of Canadian Emergency Response Teams

Abstract

Canadian police services rely on their Emergency Response Teams (ERT) to respond to diverse calls for service, requiring ERT members to meet physical fitness standards aligned with the physically demanding components of ERT responsibilities. In the current article, we explore the different physical testing components of Canadian tactical teams to better understand the physical testing standards for ERT. We do this by investigating how members of the Association of Canadian Critical Incident Commanders respond to closed and open-ended survey items related to fitness testing for ERT members, consequences of not passing ERT physical testing standards, and how fitness standards are perceived as creating barriers to member retention and recruitment to ERT. We center our discussion on the need for a physically capable police service to ensure security, reduce risk, and enhance public safety and suggest potential avenues for policy changes tied to physical testing standards as ways forward.

Introduction

Police officers are essential service providers in Canada, occupationally mandated to respond to potentially psychologically traumatic and/or physically dangerous situations (McCormack and Riley, 2016; Papazoglou, 2013; Stearns and Moore, 1993). Members of specialized response teams, like Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) or Emergency Response Teams (ERT; which we use to refer to such teams throughout the article), are trained, selected, and specialize in responding to potentially high-risk situations to protect and reinforce public, officer, and criminalized persons safety (Calgary Police Service, 2021). ERT operations do differ from those of traditional law enforcement officers—often because ERTs are deployed in high-risk situations—and, in response, require specific skill sets (e.g., negotiation, use of force). However, ERT composition and training regimes vary in their composition across Canada, with some jurisdictions having full-time ERT programs (e.g., ERT is sole policing function the officers do) versus part-time ERT programs (e.g., officers do ERT as a collateral duty in addition to a substantive policing role). Nonetheless, all ERT members have enhanced training obligations and must demonstrate physical aptitude beyond that expected of frontline constables (NTOA, 2018).

The elevated physical and physiological stress that ERT members endure creates the need to better understand how ERT members maintain and achieve high levels of physical fitness to consistently perform their ERT responsibilities (see Anderson et al., 2016; Orr et al., 2018). Vickers and Lewinski (2012) found the increased training ERT operators undergo allows them to possess increased critical thinking and concentration skill sets when making decisions about discharging weapons. Placed against a backdrop of the physiological stress ERT operators endure, Andersen et al. (2016) found that ERT officers operate at the top of the “ideal arousal range” of 146 bpm and could increase to 160–180 bpm when operational (Andersen et al., 2016: 6). In the current article, we look at the role of physical fitness testing in the selection process of Canadian ERT teams as situated within the diversity in ERT composition and their resourcing across services. Recognizing ERT membership requires a specific skill set, which includes physical aptitude above that expected of patrol officers, we sought to understand differences in physical fitness requirements across ERT in Canada, and how requirements constitute a need versus hindrance to ERT membership, selection, and tenure, always recognizing recruitment is often a struggle for team members (Cyr and Ricciardelli, 2022). By illuminating the need for a physical fitness standard that is operationally informed and evidence-based, we help explicate the retention of ERT officers by showcasing the consequences of not passing physical fitness testing.

We structure the article to begin with a review of the literature on police tactical teams and the types of physical fitness ERTs require. Next, we present our current study and our method, specifically how we administered a 44-item online self-report survey to ERT team leaders across Canada. We follow by presenting our findings in four areas for consideration: recruitment, selection, tactical training, and ERT retention. We conclude with a discussion exploring the differences across standards in physical testing requirements of Canadian police services, highlighting the consequences of not passing the physical testing requirement, and the need for an operationally informed physical testing standard.

Context of ERT

The National Tactical Officers Association (NTOA) is a professional organization of ERT officers in the United States, with international allies and members, who outline that ERT teams must be “mission capable” in hostage rescue, barricaded gunman, sniper operations, security operations and terrorism response (NTOA, 2018). This is consistent with academic understandings of the traditional role of ERT as violence specialists, who are a reactive team of specialized officers that respond to the most severe types of calls for service—such as sniper situations, barricaded persons, and warrant work (Kraska, 2007). Despite their crucial role in public safety, reports released by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2014 highlighted how police tactical teams have transcended their original function of dealing with hyper-aggressive call types towards other policing functions like executing search warrants (ACLU, 2014). Supported by Canadian literature, as Roziere and Walby (2018) highlight a normalization of ERTs as proactive units, relied upon for routine policing activities such as warrant work, traffic enforcement, community-based policing, domestic disturbances, and mental health calls for service. Declaring the normalization of ERTs into mainstream policing should be considered “a failed public policy that should be scaled back immediately” (Roziere and Walby, 2018: 46).

Other scholars challenge the assumption that police ERTs have become normalized and suggest that police services rely on ERTs to perform different policing activities as part of resource management. den Heyer (2014) challenged the notion that the increase in “call-outs” of tactical units was not an indication of police services militarizing, but rather the “the rational utilization” of expensive and well trained police resources (p. 354). Jenkins et al. (2020) too had similar findings, arguing the use of ERTs has expanded to understand that ERTs are deployed to calls for service that are “beyond the capabilities of patrol to resolve optimally,” “reduce threat to officer and public safety,” or “to remove strain on general patrol” suggesting a shift in resources as opposed to a normalization (Jenkins et al., 2020: 532).

Relatedly, Jenkins et al. (2021) found that relying on call types to determine the normalization of ERTs into mainstream policing may be misleading, stressing the need for context surrounding categories of call types, where factors that may conceal the potential risk factors that elevate the likelihood of danger may be missing. Appearing on the surface as benign, or suggesting ERT has become routine in purpose of militarization, call type fails to capture the potential danger of situational risk factors (Jenkins et al., 2021)—where physical fitness may be crucial in the preservation of lives/life. Moreover, when contextual information is provided to explain why ERT was deployed, benign calls are not indicative of levels of risk posed to officers—there is no way of knowing the situation behind a call such that safety precautions require regimented, potentially physical, responses—which justifies the need for ERT intervention to preserve health and safety (Jenkins et al., 2021). Or, how initial call-takers can categorize a call for service as something viewed as “routine” but the presence of elevated risk factors warrants ERT intervention, thus appearing as “routine” but the intervention of ERT was necessary (i.e., the involvement of rifle at a traffic stop) (Jenkins et al., 2023). However, to be effective, ERTs should meet a physical fitness standard across the membership.

On average, ERTs are mission capable and trained to use a variety of specialized equipment (e.g., weapon systems, handguns—with holster and magazines— submachine guns, communications equipment, robots, night vision goggles, restraint devices, uniforms appropriate to the local climate, fortified vehicles, and ballistic vests/helmets) (Kraska, 2007; NTOA, 2018). The degree of standardization in capabilities and equipment for ERTs across municipal, provincial, and federal police services is, however, publicly unknown. The NTOA defines three potential “tiers” of ERTs, from a fully operational hostage rescue capable team on the high end to a team focused on barricaded persons and high-risk warrant service on the low end. The lack of standards related to team size, unit utilization, and meaningful determination as to levels of capability was similarly discussed by the California Attorney General (2002), which also concluded that SWAT teams exist on a spectrum of sophistication that can generally be placed in three tiers (CAG, 2002). The different standards across police services lead to ambiguity in the material and human resourcing standards of police tactical teams. The NTOA, for example, recommends that a hostage rescue capable team be comprised of 26 officers and the lowest tier “barricaded person” capable team be comprised of 15 members.

In Canada, the variation in composition of tactical teams is based on the adequacy standards and standard operating procedures (SOP) that vary based on police service, typically outlined or revised based on the Police Chiefs discretion. In Ontario, policing regulations stipulate that every tactical team be comprised of a minimum of 12 officers. Whereas the Support Section of the New Brunswick Policing Standards Act articulates the expectations of Police Chiefs about the roles and procedures of tactical teams for high-risk incidents—(a) active shooter, (b) hostage taking, (c) barricaded people, (d) bomb threats and disposal, etc.—however, details on the expectations and compositions of tactical teams (e.g., regarding team size, physical fitness requirements) is minimal. ¹ Ambiguity is left to the Chief to create SOPs—or abstract best practices passed down through oral tradition—about team size, gender of officers, time allotted for physical fitness, or monthly training hours based on a Chief by Chief basis. California, when conducting their review of ERTs, were silent on the size and composition of the various tiers of teams. Therefore, a lack of a clear standard adds to the uncertainty of variances in topography and operational tempo in various police jurisdictions. Said otherwise, a tactical team in a remote area is less in need of a mission ready rappelling team in comparison to urban teams, which evidences the different needs of ERTs based on jurisdictions. Variations in team composition are impacted by a variety of factors, including part-time teams being disadvantaged in comparison to full-time teams because of funding and monthly training hours, officer demographics (e.g., gender, sex, occupational tenure), and access to more advanced technologies (e.g., night vision, drones, robotics, equipment).

Similarly, available information on ERT member selection, including physical standards, is very limited in Canada. For example, in the Ontario Police Services Act (2016), the existence of an ERT is mandated by section 21(1) of Regulation 3/99, yet no stipulations define selection processes or criteria. The NTOA policy recommendations are equally silent. As such, the specialized skill sets required for ERT are, at least in part, determined by individual police services and recruitment is a localized endeavor. Each municipal, provincial, and federal police service with an ERT relies on their own physical testing standard, which a recruit must pass to move forward in the application process. Conversely, in this article, we respond to the lacuna in scholarship focused on the nuances of retention and explore the consequences of not passing the physical testing standards on retention and ERT expansion, recognizing ERTs serve a public safety purpose in society that exists beyond debates about ERT normalization and police militarization which inform perceptions of expansion.

Physical standard in ERT

In a study to determine the ideal fitness requirements of ERT operators to perform job related tasks, Pryor et al. (2012) identified sporadic and inconsistent deployments of part-time tactical teams may not allow them to achieve similar levels of operational readiness in comparison to larger teams in bigger cities. Full-time tactical teams receive more funding from their police service, allowing them to be on a full-time ERT rotation and not have collateral policing responsibilities, mandating them to physically exercise while on shift. Part-time ERTs have additional policing responsibilities on patrol or in other specialized units (i.e., property crimes), and their rural environment leads to inconsistent activation of their ERT, potentially creating a less physically fit team, and impacts their operational duties. Pryor et al. (2012) also determined that the necessity for physical testing, and the need for a physically fit ERT, is related to the specific operational duties ERT operators are required to perform. Actions such as “trunk rotation, overhead upper extremity use, isometric upper extremity actions for firearm and shield use, explosive movements in formation, kneeling and long waiting periods while wearing equipment” are tasks that require ERT officers to be physically fit to complete safely and with success (Pryor et al., 2012). Although not an exhaustive list, ERT responsibilities require officers to have a blend of aerobic fitness, extremity strength, core strength, muscular power, and flexibility. The Pryor et al. (2012) study highlights how the ideal training requirements for ERT operators should focus on their aerobic capacity, flexibility, and lower body strength.

Orr et al. (2018), in the United States, studied the physical measures associated with successful selection into police ERTs, finding aerobic fitness measures were not significantly associated with successful team selection. They empirically attribute this finding to the already high levels of aerobic capacity of police officers applying for ERT positions and suggest relative strength and endurance of the upper body and trunk area are more conducive for success among ERT applicants (Orr et al., 2018). Supporting their attribution is that the ERT recruits undergoing selection in their study had an aerobic capacity of 52 mL (Kg-1.min-1) which is notably higher than general constables who recorded aerobic capacities of 37.5 and 44.9 mL (Kg-1.min-1) (Orr et al., 2018).

The NTOA (2022) created a recommended SWAT Physical Fitness Qualification (PFQ) Test for ERT members. Their recommended standard would “implement functional movement, regulation and recovery, and capacity of training and performance using skills that are constantly varied and of high intensity.” The test consists of a series of events separated by a 3 minute rest period between events. Those events are an 800 m run, a 400 m run while wearing a 20 lb vest and gas mask and while carrying two 25 lb weights, maximum number of burpees in 3 min, maximum number of squats in 2 min, and maximum number of pull-ups in 1 min. Candidates are required to meet a performance threshold for each event but must also achieve a cumulative score that requires them to surpass the minimum performance on at least some of the events. The test requires the 800 m run in less than 4:30, the 400 m run in less than 3:45, more than 37 burpees, more than 63 squats, and more than 11 pull-ups. However, merely achieving those metrics does not result in enough points for an overall passing score.

Some Canadian police services are very upfront about how passing ERT physical standards testing is, and should be, difficult. The Peel Regional Police, for instance, released a news detail titled “It’s Tough to Make Tac” outlining that the Tactical and Rescue Unit recruits must complete a two part physical fitness test on the same day with a rest period in between tests (Peel Regional Police, 2019). The first part of the test is from the Police Fitness Personnel of Ontario, consisting of a 2.5 km run, push-ups until failure, curl-ups until failure, and a flexibility test (sit and reach and hurdle stretch). Recruits must score a minimum of 75% to move forward to the second part of the test—a tactical themed obstacle course—which must be completed in 9 minutes and 30 s while wearing a tactical vest (20 pounds), duty belt, and boots. The test consists of a six part obstacle sequence:

(1) While wearing a gas mask, scale the rappel tower (8 flights of stairs) then back down to the Tactical garage, remove the gas mask, scale a six foot wall, grab a 150 lb mannequin, located on the other side of the wall, and drag it to the far end of the garage (40 m).

(2) While in a seated position, grab a rope attached to a 75 pound sled and pull it 50 feet along the floor.

(3) Run to a set of ladders, climbing the first then descending the second.

(4) Pick up the one-man ram next to the ladders, climb up and over a 4 ft × 4ft wooden box then hit the box until it moves past a marked line. Climb back over the wooden box and hit it back to the starting position.

(5) Exit the garage, pick up a shield from the tactical vehicle and scale the rappel tower. When at the top, drop the shield, return to the vehicle, pick up the ram, climb the rappel tower. Once at the top, drop the ram, return to the garage and climb over a six foot wall, run a 200 m lap of the parking lot.

(6) Grab the 150 lb mannequin and, using a fireman’s carry, carry it across the garage (40 m) and place it inside the tactical vehicle (Peel Regional Police, 2019).

The evolution of physical standards in ERT selection is apparent in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s (RCMP) report on how they developed their ERT physical standards test. First, from 1990 until 2008, the RCMP’s ERT physical standards required both ERT applicants and serving ERT officers to be able to complete all five components of the test, and failure to complete any one item would result in an overall test failure. The five components include: a 1.5 mile/2.4 km run in under 11 min, and a minimum of 40 continuous push-ups in 60 s, 40 continuous sit-ups in 60 s, 5 pull-ups, and 145 lb bench press (RCMP, 2014). The policy, further, required the serving ERT members to pass the physical standard every 6 months, however, ethnographic experience (i.e., Author 3) between 2002 and 2008 reveals physical standards were rigidly enforced for applicants trying to join ERT, but not necessarily enforced for serving members. Further, while these may have been the minimum standards for ERT applicants according to policy, an author’s ethnographic experience in joining the ERT program in 2002 was that successful application to the ERT program required applicants to far exceed these limits. This empirical experience is consistent with the academic findings of Orr et al. (2018), who found the general threshold of the physical testing requirements was the minimum score needed to pass the physical testing requirements for consideration of selection. As the successful ERT applicants in their study completed more push-ups and sit-ups than the minimum amount required (Orr et al., 2018).

While this experience may have had some variability depending on the ERT being joined (at the time, British Columbia had nine part-time RCMP ERT teams), on the team the author joined, the minimum standards were a 1.5 mile run in under 10 min, 50 push-ups, 50 sit-ups, and 10 pull-ups. What is evident from the literature on physical standards testing for ERT, is how different units rely on different standards across the country. Ultimately, the RCMP abandoned these criteria due to the recognition that the tests over-sampled some physical attributes including physical strength and endurance, and under-sampled others including agility, balance, and mobility. In essence, the RCMP standards were a “fitness test” as opposed to an “occupational physical abilities test.” Further, because the test inevitably favored male applicants over female applicants (see Cyr and Ricciardelli, 2022), the RCMP needed to firmly link the test to ERT job functions for the test to be deemed a bona fide occupational requirement that justified any discriminatory outcome (British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) and B.C.G.E.U. (Meiorin), Re, 1996 CanLII 20,258 (BC LA). ² Given difficulty in assessing ERT job functions and distilling them into physical requirements, the RCMP could not establish that their existing physical test was a bona fide occupational requirement.

Orr et al. (2021) highlight how occupational fitness measures for tactical officers should be used to ensure that ERT personnel entering and retained by the police service are able to perform the expected tasks regardless of sex or age. Given ERT responsibilities do not change because of personal characteristics, the physical standards measures should be “age and sex neutral” (Orr et al., 2021: 110). The physical testing standards used by ERT could serve as a “return-to-work performance indicator” or for job realignment, whereby unsuccessful members could be reallocated to different positions with less demanding requirements. Alternatively, this shift toward the occupational standard could follow the traffic light system which is different from the rigid pass/fail system (Orr et al., 2021: 110). This occupational standard allows for personnel to be deemed as acceptable (fit enough to pass the physical standards testing of ERT recruitment), uncertain (below the desired physical fitness standard but could reach threshold), and unacceptable (below physical standard and not expected to be able to complete it) (Orr et al., 2021). This approach allows police services to have a prospect pool of ERT officers, who could receive additional supports through strength and conditioning programs or coaching, which would help them meet the physical standards level necessary for ERT.

In response, at least in part, the RCMP more recently developed the ERT PARE as their physical fitness standard, with the intention to create a test that “discriminates solely on the basis of physical abilities [i.e., running speed, upper and lower body strength, motor coordination, agility, controlled speed, and endurance] required for the job, and not on other factors such as age, gender, height, weight or race.” The RCMP ERT PARE is an obstacle course run in a standard gymnasium. The course is comprised of four lanes each 22 m long and targeting the different physical fitness components. Specifically, the first lane tests lateral agility and strength (running zig zag around cones, a 5 foot horizontal jump, and carrying a 60 lb bag). The second lane tests vertical agility (belly crawling, stooping, and hurdling over barriers of varying height), while the third lane tests absolute and relative strength, balance, and agility (scaling a 6 foot wall, carrying a ram over stairs, navigating a balance beam while wearing a 20 lb vest). The fourth lane tests memory (at the start of the course, candidates are given instructions where a color or shape is either right or left), where the candidate has to run zig zags around cones in directions based on the instructions they were given at the start of the test. In between each lane, the candidate runs around the perimeter of all four lanes. After the fourth lane, the candidates must complete an 80 lb push-pull machine and drag a 180 lb dummy for 15 m. The candidates must then immediately complete the full circuit a second time and complete the entire test in under 11 min.

What was consistent through the RCMP physical testing requirements is the expectation that the ERT PARE requires recruits to perform more physically demanding fitness testing in comparison to the regular RCMP PARE. As highlighted above, the regular RCMP PARE tests officers for a scenario representing a suspect chase (340 m obstacle course), physically controlling the situation, and carrying the suspect away from the scene. The regular RCMP PARE expects successful applicants to complete the course in under 4 minutes for consideration. In comparison to the physical standards of RCMP ERT PARE which must be completed in under eleven minutes for “consideration of, and continuation in, ERT duty” (RCMP, 2012). The ERT PARE requires ERT members to perform fifteen critical tasks through a 1460 m obstacle course, which is almost four times longer than the regular RCMP PARE. Thus, failing the physical test often disqualifies one from ERT team membership. RCMP Policy clarifies these standards and states that ERT members who fail the ERT PARE will be given a 6 week remedial period after which they may retest. A subsequent failure results in another 6 week remedial period and a final retest. A third failure can result in removal from ERT at the discretion of the Commanding Officer (RCMP, 2012). However, the enforcement of physical standards and failure to maintain physical fitness, as it relates to ERT membership, seems to carry more drastic consequences for ERT officers in comparison to general patrol. The physical aptitudes for patrol constables is not enforced in a similar way as for ERT officers, both in relation to organizational consequences and success in the field.

Conversely, with the more recent movement to the ERT PARE as the physical fitness standard for RCMP ERT, adherence to testing standards is much more enforced. The ERT PARE, which may be arguably less difficult than older PARE tests, has increased adherence to testing protocols which may, in fact, result in a more physically capable service because the testing is being enforced. As outlined in the NTOA PFQ course, again designed to simulate a variety of ERT physical fitness tests across the United States, the physical fitness of tactical officers lessons their chances of injury or sickness and helps control “agency funded health-care costs and Worker’s Compensation expense claims” (NTOA, 2022). Reductions to illness as the result of physical fitness is supported by Orr et al. (2021) as physically fit tactical officers can perform ERT responsibilities at a lower percentage of their “maximal capacity” therefore reducing fatigue, increasing recovery time and increasing their ability to perform the tasks longer.

Overall, a major limitation of physical testing standards for ERT to date is how it deductively influences the decision making of police services when selecting new recruits, as the “worker” must fit the job as opposed to making the job more accessible to the worker. Similarly, there is no universal physique that makes one ERT candidate better suited for ERT responsibilities in comparison to others. In the Thomas et al. (2019) study, their findings suggest that successful candidates for ERT recruitment were on average shorter and lighter than unsuccessful applications. In comparison, Orr et al. (2018) found that successful ERT applicants in their study were on average taller and heavier than unsuccessful applicants. During the RCMP’s research of their physical standards, they found that many ERT members believed intuitively that the selection process was designed to select the “best.” However, those ERT members also acknowledged that some serving ERT officers were not the best in each category and that some ERT members made up for a lack of fitness with “greater experience and well-honed skills” (RCMP, 2012). Thus, elements of ERT recruitment may be deterrents to otherwise valuable candidates.

Current study

In Canada, the RCMP is a federal police service and there are three (arguably) provincial police services (i.e., in Quebec, Ontario, and Newfoundland & Labrador), as well as over 150 municipal services (Conor et al., 2020). However, not all services have ERTs. Moreover, most North American studies of the physical standards testing for ERT recruits are from the United States, little is known about the physical standards testing of ERT members in Canada—including the potential consequences of ERT recruits and ERT members failing the physical standards test. Drawing on data from a survey of 30 ERT leaders from 39 ERTs in Canada, in the current study, we examine the physical fitness standards as part of the ERT recruitment processes, to analyze the relationship between the physical standards and organizational characteristics of several police services. By doing so, will illuminate the nuances in differences of physical testing standards between Canadian ERTs, highlighting the repercussions of failing the physical testing requirements, and perceived challenges to recruitment more broadly. Potentially creating more conversation within the criminological literature, that has yet to focus on the differences across physical testing requirements of Canadian ERTs.

Methods

Our data is drawn from a mixed-methods online survey that we administered to 36 members of the Association of Canadian Critical Incident Commanders (ACCIC) using the software Qualtrics. The ACCIC is an independent organization for ERT commanders from across Canada who are qualified Critical Incident Commanders through the Canadian Police College. To qualify to attend the Critical Incident Commander course, applicants must be associated with an ERT that has a “hostage rescue” capability, representing the highest echelon of police emergency response capability, and consistent with the higher level tier ERT described by the NTOA. ³ These leaders were asked, in English, to participate in a study of ERTs. If interested, they were provided a computer-generated code which served to provide repeated access to the web-based self-report survey across multiple seating if required. Of importance, some police services can have more than one ACCIC member, as it is not tactically possible to have one member responsible for the oversight of critical incidents on a 24/7 basis. We also note that from the survey data, there were 30 ERT leaders from 39 ERTs, mainly because multiple RCMP detachments participated in the sample. Prior to recruitment, we received ethics approval from Memorial University of Newfoundland (No. 20201027) and participants provided informed consent online.

The survey is composed of 16 open-ended and 22 close-ended items, to which participants respond. Topics covered include: gender/sex of officers, organizational structure (full-time vs part-time ERT members), physical training standards, size of city served, armored vehicles, and challenges for recruitment. For the current study, we rely heavily on answers provided to items on the physical standards testing for ERT recruits and members. For example, questions included “Do your tactical officers have to regularly pass a physical standards test” (n = 36), “How often do tactical team members have to pass a physical standards test?” (n = 31), “please describe the type of physical testing tactical team members in your agency must pass” (n = 32, selected choice), and “what is the consequence of not passing physical testing?” (n = 31, open ended). For a full list of participating agencies, see Appendix A.

We present frequencies for quantitative items and analyzed responses for open text fields using a multi-phase, semi-grounded emergent theme approach to draw out similarities and differences between responses (Ricciardelli and White, 2014 Charmaz, 2014; Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Through this grounded theory approach, we did not engage the data with any preconceptions or hypotheses, and rather, let the construction of themes emerge through analysis. Coding was done with support of Excel (given the size of the dataset, NVivo was not employed) an initial inductive coding process that ensures themes emerge from the data. Our hope was for a theory of why to emerge with the data rather than perceived understandings about physical testing standards and ERT membership. We first grouped excerpts thematically into inclusive but mutually exclusive codes, each code representing a theme. At this time, dense sentences (i.e., that touched multiple themes) were coded under multiple codes (i.e., in multiple nodes). We then engaged in focused coding using a deductive approach by drawing on the knowledge from previous scholarship regarding ERT physical fitness standards toward the occupation to draw out more nuanced themes about physical fitness and ERT membership. Thus, our analysis is a synthesis of the themes emergent from our grounded approach, and findings identified in existing literature, to unpack underlining potential causal factors. To ensure the reliability of our coding for this project, and to have confidence in our findings, all coding was independently verified by another member of the research team.

Results

Respondents reported the selection for an ERT, generally, is comprised of three distinct components: recruitment (i.e., garnering interest and applications), meeting standards and the selection of the “best” candidates, and training candidates for tactical procedures. In the results that follow we first speak to the “selection” process or “course” to demonstrate the process ERT members must complete for successful team selection.

Our results are structured to first present frequencies of testing, when appropriate, and then contextualize frequencies within open-ended responses from the 36 responding services, understanding that not all services from the sample elected to conclude with an open-ended comment. We present recruitment challenges as informed by the selection processes and need to meet non-physical standards to qualify for the selection course. We then present the role of physical standards testing in shaping ERT selection, recruitment, and retention (i.e., consequences of not passing physical testing).

Component 1 and 2: Recruitment and selection

There exists a high degree of variability between agencies in how candidates are identified, the necessary prerequisites needed before applying, and eventual successful selection. In the case of the RCMP, variance between different provinces and territories prevailed, revealing the diverse ERT standards explicit across services. For example, although we did not ask for a list of prerequisites for applying officers, some responding ERT leaders reported that applicants were expected “base level of years of police service” before officers could apply to ERT. Some services were satisfied with “minimum 1st class constable” (Saskatoon Police Service) or “minimum 3 years’ service” (Regina Police Service) while others demanded a “minimum five years sworn service” (London Police Service). An RCMP leader, for example, stated that the RCMP requires ERT applicants to have a minimum of 2 years of service, whereas Calgary Police require their officers to have a minimum of 3 years of service (Calgary Police Service, 2021). Thus, beyond a certain amount of experience serving as a police officer being an ERT prerequisite, the length of experience is at the service’s discretion.

A few services reported a less intensive recruitment process, where membership resulted from members responding to a “posted expression of interest” or, as the leader from the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary explains, “when vacancies are anticipated we request applications from all officers interested and list the physical and job requirements in the call for applications.” More commonly, services described a multi-stage selection process that included a physical test, a firearms test, and some sort of shorter “selection” course approximately a week in duration. A leader from the Toronto Police Emergency Task force explains that candidates complete “First level testing (Firearms competency, fitness testing). Top candidates proceed to an interview process and shadowing process,” while another describes that recruits proceed through an “application process, physical standards test, interview process, psychological evaluation.” Basically, after the aforementioned physical standards testing and firearms testing are completed with success, “there is a board interview, resume review, and psychologist interview.” Thus, beyond passing physical testing and firearms, potential ERT members must also be successful in a series of interviews and with their psychological evaluation. However, they must also successfully complete the selection course.

Some leaders identified how ERT recruits must pass physical testing requirements such as the PARE/PIN tests as part of the selection course. The majority of respondents wrote their tactical team used an obstacle-type course that is similar, but longer or more difficult than the regular police service test or some sort of multi-stage fitness test. A few services use a combination of physical testing metrics such running tests, bodyweight calisthenics (e.g., push-ups, sit-ups, and pull-ups), and weightlifting tests (bench press, deadlift, squat, dumbbells, and barbells) as part of their selection course. Leaders from the British Columbia RCMP (North District), Winnipeg Police, Saskatoon Police Service, Regina Police Service, Edmonton Police Service, and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary self-report that they use multiple testing requirements:

Multi-stage fitness test (e.g., ERT PARE)

Running test, Bodyweight calisthenics (e.g., push-ups, sit-ups, pull-ups)

Obstacle-type course that is the same as the physical standards of the rest of the police agency (e.g., PARE, POPAT, PREP)

Obstacle-type course that is similar, but longer or more difficult than the regular police agency test (e.g., ERT PARE), Multi-stage fitness test (e.g., ERT PARE)

Running test, Weight lifting requirements using barbells or dumbbells (e.g., deadlift, bench press, squat), Bodyweight calisthenics (e.g., push-ups, sit-ups, pull-ups).

In comparison to leaders from the Toronto and Ottawa Police Services who only self-reported that their ERT recruits are required to pass “Multi-stage fitness test (e.g., ERT PARE).”

The “selection” course, in most services, appears to be the crux of the application process—but, most often, a recruit is only invited to attend the selection course after they satisfy, with success, the firearms and physical standards criteria for ERT membership. Said differently, a recruit must qualify to attend the selection course, which was described as rather arduous:

4 day selection process—various scenarios and fitness challenges that are designed to determine the candidates ability to work in a team and make decisions in stressful situations. (York Regional Police Service)

1 week of 7/24 [sic] testing physical and scenario based (about 50% success). (Ottawa Police Service)

1 week selection course (including two types of physical testing they must pass). (Barrie Police Service)

48 hours task specific “Selection” period. (Durham Regional Police Service)

Participants’ words support there is diversity in different services’ ERT selection courses, however, what remains consistent is a need to endure an intensive selection period and process over at least a few dedicated days. For the RCMP’s largest full-time tactical team in British Columbia, the selection process entails an optional information session where the candidates can learn about what the work in the unit is like as well as details on the selection process and tips on how to properly prepare. The candidates are also provided an opportunity to attend optional range sessions to improve their firearms abilities. The candidates must then pass a mandatory physical test (the ERT PARE, as aforementioned) and have 2 years of policing experience to qualify to attend the selection week. The selection week includes passing mandatory firearms benchmarks, performing well on use of force scenarios, and presenting a positive attitude, unwavering work ethic, and an ability to work cooperatively with others during several days of physically and mentally arduous tasks. Selection cadre look for officers with high emotional intelligence, maturity, decision making skills, and an ability to remain calm under pressure. Following the selection week, successful candidates are invited back for another 2 weeks of firearms and tactical training to prepare them for the 8-week tactical officer’s course. Only after successful completion of that course is the officer a fully qualified ERT officer and able to be deployed in an ERT function.

Component 3: Tactical training

Regardless of recruitment and selection process, almost all participating services reported successful candidates in components 1 and 2 had to attend a tactical officer course that varied, depending on the service, from 2 to 12 weeks (e.g., 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks, 11 weeks, and 3 months). For instance, a respondent from the Manitoba (RCMP D Division) describes:

Yearly ERT selection process. After the selection process, the members are then expected to attend training with the team in a development capacity and attend yearly ERT selection processes. When they are ready for the training, they are sent on the National ERT Course.

The National ERT course requires 8 weeks in Ottawa, mandating an organizational commitment from members that includes time away from family and their normative activities of daily living. Several respondents stated that the course had to be passed (e.g., “Successful candidates then complete a Basic Operators Course and the top candidates are selected,”) and applicants could be removed from the course at any time, indicating that successful completion of the course was not a forgone conclusion. Services reported how only the top performers from the tactical officer’s course were offered a position on the team, rendering the course a competitive endeavor, particularly in agencies with large applications pools.

The general consensus among respondents was that prospective ERT members are placed under weeks and sometimes months of observation in a highly competitive environment to ensure tactical officers possess the skills and attributes necessary for those specialized duties. That said, attrition rates through the selection processes were not collected and could be an area of further study.

Recruitment challenges

For ERT, recruitment challenges were noted generally—for both male and female members—as a perceived disinterest in ERT was pronounced among our respondents. Participants here explained that the “Candidate application pools tend to be low in numbers,” the “number [of] interested [members] is dropping significantly for all specialized sections” (Ottawa Police), and that “there does not seem to be as many people interested as there once was.” Respondents lamented that “application numbers were down,” some ascribing the disinterest to the size of the division, where, for example, the RCMP in the Yukon are “small Division, [there are] only 140 members to draw from,” thus the pool of recruits are quite few. In other services like the Abbotsford Police Department, the change in interest in ERT was pronounced such that there are no longer “an eligible list of trained candidates waiting for spots on the team” despite, for instance, “running three basic ERT courses in the last four years.” Overall, there has been a marked change in the demand for ERT membership, which is only exacerbated by the need to qualify for the team. Conversely, a select few organizations expressed an abundance of applicants to ERT: “Not for our Police Service at this time” (Sudbury Police Service) and “We have been fortunate to have decent numbers during the application process” (Peel Regional Police).

Turning to recruitment challenges, beyond disinterest, respondents further noted difficulty in finding people who could both shoot with accuracy and pass the physical fitness tests. Outlined by the Manitoba RCMP as “Finding physically fit members with shooting ability can be challenging.” Respondents noted a “steady decline of members able to meet the physical standards.” For the ERT recruits, in comparison to serving members, failing the physical testing ensures they will not become ERT members (e.g., “Not allowed on the Team to start [if they] fail the entrance”) although existing members can try again in the following competition to remain active on the ERT.

Other challenges included, for some respondents, the greater situational context around ERT memberships which hindered interested members from being successful, specifically resources and the impact of a lack of resources on member releasability for training. Similarly, some responding police services highlighted how staff resourcing for tactical team recruitment creates strain on both frontline rotations and tactical team resourcing:

ERT work is off the side of most members desks and police work is challenging enough without having a second duty. Many detachments are short staffed and have many members already on ODS/Sick leave requiring other members to stay behind. The standards for ERT members are very high and members have difficulty in achieving them. Mandatory 40 hrs/month training for ERT is difficult to permit at most detachments and units, let alone the 6 weeks basic training in Ottawa.

Here, the respondent’s words demonstrate how recruitment is limited by resources and organizational factors preventing the releasability of members for training and other elements of ERT selection and participation. Others agreed, explaining that “Overall resourcing levels at detachments affect member release-ability for recruitment and retention” and the “Commitment, operational pace vs personal time away from job and position/promotional opportunities” are barriers to recruitment. Particularly, the release of members from occupational responsibilities as frontline constables for ERT training and testing were daunting barriers, for instance, in RCMP (E Division), British Columbia, “supervisors [are] hesitant to release [members] given monthly training commitments.” Releasability in this regard, references an executive supervising officer granting permission to the constable to participate in ERT training or call outs because of the constables collateral responsibilities on patrol. The RCMP divisions that identified “releasability” as a challenge, also report that the composition of teams consists of both “full-time and part-time tactical unit officers” but are still mandated to possess a mission capable ERT that trains (40 h per month) and meet the same deliverables as urban full-time teams. When teams have a combination of full- and part-time members, it results in ERT work being “pushed to the side of most members desks” and creates additional stress to police services when the standards of ERT are already so high and members “have difficulty achieving them” (RCMP—Division [district not stated]).This releasability then, for teams who have a combination of officers, is difficult because the “Mandatory 40 hrs/month training for ERT is difficult to permit at most detachments and units, let alone the 6 weeks basic training in Ottawa” (RCMP—Division [district not stated]).

Of note, some services also talked about the reputation of the ERT as being a deterrent for members who perhaps would otherwise be interested in joining the team. Here, an ERT leader from the Halton Regional Police explains:

We have the stigma of tactical being a closed process and perceived as not everyone has a chance to become a member. We have addressed that through information sessions and orientation blocks to give interested members an idea of what is required to be a member.

Thus, the dogmatic views about ERT reputation have historically been a challenge evidenced by this respondent that the selection process appears to favor some applicants and disfavor others. A seeming politic appears to inform member intention to act on interest in ERT membership, given interest is felt to be trumped by favoritism and networks.

Moreover, across many organizations, a dominating recruitment challenge voiced was recruiting women to the ERT (e.g., “having difficulty recruiting women,” “We have limited females apply but some do and hopefully soon they will make the team,” “Never for Male Officers. It has been challenging to recruit interested female officers” (see Cyr and Ricciardelli, 2022). The experience of recruiting officers, including female officers, to ERT appears challenging for teams across Canada.

ERT retention

We asked participants if their full/part-time ERT members were required to regularly pass physical testing through closed ended questions. The total number of responses was n = 36, with n = 32 respondents confirming that all ERT members must regularly pass a physical test, though frequency of the test varied. Four respondents noted that once an officer is on the team there is no ongoing testing. These four services appear to fall outside of the majority of Canadian police agencies in both tactical training time and ongoing physical testing requirements. For most respondents, physical testing was annual (n = 22), though some reported testing was to be completed more than annually (n = 9).

In addition to physical training, ERT teams also conduct regular occupational tactical training. Most services reported their monthly tactical training allotment as 40 h or more per month (n = 22). However, other teams reported 0–19 h (n = 4) of training per month and 20–39 h per month (n = 5). There did not appear to be any correlation between the amount of monthly tactical training each service completed and the frequency with which they had to pass physical testing.

Retention of ERT members is also difficult because of the combination of planned operations and on-call requirements. A leader from the Peel Regional Police highlights that one of the requirements for full-time rotational ERT members is that they must make themselves available “for callouts at all hours of the day and night which negatively impact work/life balances.” The Peel Regional Police leader also highlights how the chronic responsibility of ERTs to be on-call at all hours also impacts officer retention, stating that “our service [Peel Regional Police] also provides Tactical coverage 24 hours a day and 7 days a week which does not make it appealing for personnel seeking better work/life balance.” Consistent with the lack of publicly available information toward the standardization of ERTs in Canada, an ERT leader from the Saskatoon Police Service highlights that “we [Saskatoon Police ERT] are continually lobbying for Provincial or Federally mandated oversight on tactical team size, composition, tactics and deployment (Currently not in existence).”

For members who are already on the team, the primary consequence of not passing the physical testing for participants is often a “re-evaluation of the member’s status on the team.” In most ERTs, a retest is possible, within a specified timeframe. The time frame varies, in some organizations being as low as a month or 30 days (e.g., “Fail to pass the annual physical—a month to re-do the test”) and others offering upwards of 6 months to complete the retest with success (e.g., “The member will have 6 months to qualify upon a second attempt”). However, most organizations require a successful retest within a period of 3 months (90 days) or less. Failing the physical test can result in, first the re-evaluation of a members position on the ERT or their suspension from the team, often leading to being “removed from operational call-outs” while undergoing “remedial training to meet minimum test standards.” In some cases, as explained by the leader of the Manitoba RCMP ERT, “repeated failed attempts will ground the member from operations” or “if required suspension from ERT duties,” while the RCMP ERT in British Columbia highlights “if the member is unable to meet the physical metrics after reasonable opportunity to re-test they would be removed from the team.”

According to the York Regional Police’s tactical team “if a full time member fails the test they are given three months to re-do the test. If they subsequently fail the second test, they are removed from the team.” In some organizations, a failure goes through the chain of command prior to the removal of a person from the team, where in others the removal is automatic as per policy, for instance, the Ottawa Police Service explains: “3 months to prepare to retake it once while still active on the team, if unsuccessful they are suspended and reviewed by S/Sgt. A successful test is required prior to returning.” However, in some organizations, the number of retests is restricted (e.g., “Officers are allowed one re-test. Failure to pass a second time without extenuating circumstances can result in removal from tactical unit”). In addition, an organization did mention penalizing the member who fails the testing, explaining that a member endures the “loss of 20 hours of awarded additional leave time.”

Discussion

The current study revealed challenges for ERT recruitment, which affected the police services ability to recruit ERT members. However, most ERT standards appear necessary. For instance, the physical testing standards test the maximal capacity of ERT officers to ensure officers are capable of performing their ERT responsibilities effectively and without exhaustion when called to service. Physical standards testing needs to be performed by all officers and recruits regardless of sex, gender, or age, as the ERT responsibilities do not change because of personal characteristics. Although these standards are essential for public and personal safety, standards still present a challenge for recruitment and the retention of ERT officers. The average ERT recruit has an aerobic capacity higher than the mean average of police constables (see Orr et al., 2018), yet the demanding nature of the physical testing standards of ERT requires ERT members to maintain physical aptitudes beyond that expected of frontline constables year round. Moreover, some police services test ERT members more frequently than annually, such as the RCMP (K Division) Alberta, Ottawa, Toronto, and Durham Regional, meaning some police services place more stress on ERT officers to maintain higher levels of conditioning for longer frequencies. Based on the consequences of not passing the physical fitness standards, such as removal from the team, physical testing is an added stressor for tactical police officers even more so than regular police fitness tests (ERT PARE/PIN) and yet still occupationally necessary. Although only noted by one respondent, “shame and humiliation” can also accompany failure to pass the testing, an area we encourage future researchers to explain. Specifically, future research may wish to study the mental health impacts and effects on organizational commitment of not passing the physical testing component, especially for services who rely on part-time members who do not have the occupational privilege of working out on shift.

Moreover, the onboarding and continuous testing of ERT personnel also requires them to go above and beyond the expectations of patrolling constables, often requiring long travel for training or testing, which results in time away from their family and loved ones. As aforementioned, part of the selection process of ERT is to complete basic training that could range from 2 to 12 weeks (e.g., 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks, 11 weeks, and 3 months) that may occur locally or, in the case of the RCMP, require an extended duration stay in Ottawa. Part of ERT selection is the “releasability” of officers with collateral responsibilities to tactical units, which officers from the current sample highlight is an additional occupational stressor. This releasability of members for ERT seems to be a particular dilemma for some RCMP divisions (D Division—Manitoba; E Division—British Columbia; K Division—Alberta; E Division [not stated]; E Division [all but Lower Mainland]; M Division—Yukon; E Division [unknown district]). No other service from the survey data identifies the releasability of members as a challenge to recruitment, presenting an interesting position, as the RCMP is Canada’s national police force with a plethora of resources. Recruitment to ERT is then impacted by the collateral demands of officers, a problem from the current study that seems to be isolated to RCMP detachments serving diverse provincial communities (Village or Hamlet (∼1–200 citizens), Small Town (∼200–800 citizens), Town (∼800–7000 citizens), Big Town (∼7000–20,000 citizens), Small City (∼20,000–100,000 citizens), City (∼100,000–300,000 citizens), or First Nation community. The 6–11 week operator course in Ottawa once recruits pass selection processes also seems to place occupational stress on detachments who have ERT operators with collateral duties, despite the crucial need to have a mission capable ERT for public safety.

Similar to fitness standards, the expectations placed on ERT members to be available 24/7 during their ERT rotation places additional stress on them, affecting ERT officer retention and may act as a deterrent to recruitment or continued team membership. Highlighted by a leader from the Peel Regional Police, the 24/7 on-call nature of ERT negatively shapes work/life balance for ERT officers. The reliance on ERT officers to be “on-call” after working full-time rotations, is against a backdrop of disinterest in ERT membership identified by services like Ottawa, the RCMP and the Abbotsford Police Department. Creating an increasing demand for already qualified officers to fill the workload gap. The decrease in ERT interest is against the backdrop of higher tier physical and recruitment standards, as the sample size of interested officers decreases, the arduous standards remain the same—as they should. But results in occupational strain, where the small sample of interested officers diminishes the possibility of finding officers that match ERT qualifications.

Growing concerns about police militarization could also impact ERT recruitment/retention, as a politic continues to emerge surrounding tactical policing. Police tactical teams are at the heart of public trepidation regarding police militarization, and as the concerns of police militarization continue to increase surrounding equipment and funding, services must address the training concerns associated with ERT equipment. Civil society groups continue to put forward arguments that seek to “demilitarize” the public police by removing weapons and technology, as a suggestion for increasing community safety and well-being. An example is The No Pride in Policing Coalition who put forward public demands in 2020 as a “public call for immediate action,” to remove all ERTs and remove their “military grade weapons and surveillance equipment” (NPPC, 2020). Recognizing the empirical realities that civil society groups face is crucial for contextualizing the contests of police militarization, but it is equally significant to understand that training ERT recruits/officers is necessary for ensuring the safety of personnel and civilians during ERT deployments. The current article, along with many other police militarization scholars (Alvaro, 2000; Cyr et al., 2020; Cyr and Ricciardelli, 2022; den Heyer, 2014; Kraska, 2007; Jenkins et al., 2020) recognizes police tactical units are a necessary component of policing, essential for responding to the most dangerous calls for service. Therefore, this creates the occupational necessity to ensure the safety of ERT officers and provide them with the necessary tools and training for tactical deployments, operating specialized equipment, and maintaining good physical health for performance on testing standards.

Implications

Highlighted in the literature and supported by the current study is the size, composition, and monthly training hours of ERTs vary based on police service and geographical location. As highlighted by Clark et al. (2000), police services that are better funded have ERTs that can train more often. Even though the recommended number of monthly training hours for Canadian ERTs is 40 hours, the ERTs from the current study struggle to achieve standards in training (accounting for the difficulties in recruitment/retention, physical standards testing, and selection criteria). What is missing from the contests of police militarization and supported from the variation in ERT composition from the current article, is an ERT physical standard that outlines the operational policies Canadian ERTs must adhere and meet. If police services are mandated to have ERT (supported by the Ontario Police Services Act (2016), section 21(1) of Regulation 3/99) what distinguishes them from being “trained for ERT” (constables that have full-time rotations but part-time ERT responsibilities but must adhere to the same monthly training hours) versus larger police services who can better support full-time ERT—who have more full-time officers, more access to newer technology, more monthly training hours and more activation for calls for service? In the case of some RCMP detachments, with officers who have collateral policing responsibilities and less time to work out on shift like full-time ERTs, are still required to meet 40h/month of training. This monthly training requirement of 40 hours, was evidenced by the current study as the upper tier of training requirements, but yet, some RCMP detachments still expect ERTs with part-time and collateral officers to maintain physical fitness and be operational. These teams are put at a unique disadvantage creating more occupational stress, especially when it comes time to test physical fitness.

Moreover, if two separate ERTs across Canada are expected to perform the same degree of potentially dangerous tasks, where is the standard to ensure the well-being of a “trained for ERT” in comparison to a full-time ERT member? Or, what is the governance to ensure that both forms of ERT (smaller vs larger, part-time vs full-time, etc.) have the necessary training and equipment to perform the same dangerous and potentially high-risk tasks? Given the indication from the current study that the practices of many services are not occupational physical abilities tests, creating an evidenced-based standard would promote an upper echelon of officer fitness, while also providing direction for services where releasability is difficult. Standardization of physical abilities test would provide more direction to operators who do not have the occupational privilege of working out on shift and are only operationalized during times of crisis (but still expected to pass physical fitness and train operational requirements 40 h/month), which would only aid officers who are already struggling to pass current ERT fitness requirements due to collateral responsibilities.

From the current study, services like Saskatoon have lobbied for national oversight, hoping governments could mandate team size, deployments, and team composition. Our data suggests that services who rely on part-time teams/members, who use a combination of full-time/part-time members or deal with understaffing issues want more oversight such that governments are also mandated to provide them with the resources to staff ERT. Whereas this sentiment was never brought up by well-resourced ERTs, like the Toronto Police who have 75 tactical officers, whose police service provides them funding for full-time teams. This is against a backdrop of “out of date” adequacy standards like the Ontario Police Services section 21(1) of Regulation 3/99, that states ERT should have minimum of 12 officers, but yet “best practice” for full-time ERT effectiveness, in terms of number of full-time officers, is much higher than this. Thus, ERT standardization would provide direction to ERTs in terms of team size, equipment, training, physical standards, and member aptitude. Thus, bridging a gap in variation across tactical teams, that see well-resourced teams (like larger metropolitan areas) have more access to officers, technology (drones, thermal vision/radars, repelling, sniper, and robots), and training thereby elongating the difference and disadvantaging less resourced teams.

Based on the results of the current article, we can begin to understand that some of the findings from the data are similar, but distinct, from the attributes and physical standards testing from previous literature. Mainly, some Canadian tactical teams use a combination of physical testing measures such as aerobic capacity training through obstacle style courses, bodyweight calisthenics such as push-ups and sit-ups and weightlifting requirements such as barbells and dumbbells, to test ERT officers. Variation in adequacy standards (that determine team size, calltype, and calls that meet standards for ERT activation) across tactical teams is often attributed to the needs of ERTs on a service-to-service basis. Mainly that some tactical teams have different mission profiles based on geographical locations, like the Toronto Police Emergency Task Force requiring a repelling team due to its urban infrastructure in comparison to rural services like the Cornwall Emergency Response Team. Although this may satisfy adequacy standards, the need for a physical testing standard that is operationally informed and evidence-based, similar to the PARE for constable recruits, would fill a gap in ERT recruitment. The lack of physical standards across Canadian tactical teams demonstrates a variance in organizational policies regarding physical training, such that physical testing standards are different across police services. A fruitful area of future study would be to assess universal exercises Canadian ERTs value most for deployments, and create a national testing standard or a recommended training program that reflects these operational requirements, that officers can use to train physical fitness on shift or on their own time. A starting point from the current study is that many responding services valued calisthenics (pull-ups, push-ups, and sit-ups), cardiovascular (running and obstacle course), and weight training (bench press and squat) in their selection process. Although adequacy standards can and should vary based on the police services operational goals (full time vs collateral teams) and demographics (rural vs urban infrastructure), physical fitness requirements reflect call-type requirements, as an ERT in British Columbia typically responds to similar physically demanding calls as one in Ontario, and testing standards should be less ambiguous to reflect these similarities across Canadian tactical teams. A form of guidance, by way of a national standard, would make ERT fitness more equitable.

Limitations

The study is limited in that it was impacted by COVID-19, which caused data collection to pause temporarily at the pandemic’s onset. The study was placed on “hold” until approvals were reinstated that we could continue without making a significant institutional footprint. The study is also limited in that we did not have opportunities to probe participants for additional information regarding their qualitative commentary, nor were we able to ensure representation from all SWAT in Canada. In addition, we are unsure of our sampling frame as the exact number of ERT teams in Canada is unknown. The current study relies on the survey responses from 39 participants across 30 separate police services across Canada. We do not know how representative our sample is and this is also informed by unclear understandings of the criteria involved in determining if a team constitutes an ERT (i.e., ERTs are quite different across the country). The current study primarily investigates how physical testing standards impact ERT recruitment and retention. The current study is limited, as we cannot speak to the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA’s) that tactical teams value the most in a “good” ERT applicant beyond descriptive statistics. Future research is needed to understand why tactical teams value tactical officer recruits’ ability to make good decisions under pressure and how these teams structure testing. The current study, however, reveals information about possible compositions of a testing process. Future research should explore the constitution of the 1 week testing training for ERT in greater detail. The study was also limited as it did not extrapolate the gendered component of ERT selection or physical testing standards (see Cyr and Ricciardelli, 2022 for such a discussion).

Conclusion

The physical testing standards of ERT follow similar ERT trends across Canada, that there is a need for standardization in terms of equipment, training, physical standards, and member aptitude. Currently, ERT leaders report that they use a variety of physical testing measures including; running, obstacle style courses and bodyweight calisthenics (e.g., push-ups, sit-ups, pull-ups) as part of the selection process. However, the role of physical standards testing in shaping ERT selection, recruitment, and officer retention varies based on the police service. Consistent with previous literature, current ERT physical fitness standards require ERT officers to have better physical fitness in comparison to patrolling constables, however, monthly training hours, on-call requirements, lack of ERT standardization (between part-time and full-time), and political contests could impact ERT officer retention. Overall, we contribute to knowledge on ERT recruitment and retention and add context to the debates that lace societies on police militarization.