The Uniforms of Police Emergency Response Team's: A Research Note

Abstract

The primary role of Canadian emergency response teams (ERTs) is responding to dangerous, violent, and high-risk calls for service (CFS) as a patrol support unit. To unpack how ERTs are deployed in Canada, most often to support frontline patrol beyond full team deployments, in the current study we rely on survey data from n = 35 critical incident commanders from across Canada and highlight the variations in ERT uniforms when supporting patrol. Jenkins et al. suggested ERTs are used during CFS that are beyond the capabilities of patrol to resolve optimally or deployed to calls that lack patrol resources. In policing generally, the police uniform is central for recognizing the police, symbolizes membership to an organization, and provides officers with the clothing necessary to perform their duties safely. Existing research suggests the color of police uniforms can affect citizens’ perceptions of the police organization generally, and the individual officer specifically. Yet, little empirical research exists to reveal variations in ERT uniforms and why police services rely on their ERTs to assist patrol beyond full team deployments.

Emergency response teams (ERT; also referred to as special weapons and tactics (SWAT)) are a highly specialized group of police officers who attend high-risk, violent, and physically dangerous calls for service (CFS), and thus, require specialized uniforms that differ from general duty or patrol officers. For instance, ERTs consist of a team of police officers who are trained in the use of special weapons and equipment, like high-powered rifles, drones, pistols, communications equipment, night vision goggles, restraint devices, fortified vehicles, ballistic vests, and helmets (Drinkwalter, 1989; NTOA, 2018). Existing literature on police ERTs suggests their uniform requires versatility, considering ERT operations can unfold in “special environments” (i.e., cold, heat, high-angle repelling, marine environments) that create unique outfitting needs that are beyond the needs of general duty (Jenkins et al., 2021a, p. 533). However, the colors of police uniforms generally, and ERT uniforms specifically, have raised public (Issawi, 2020; MacDonald, 2020) and academic concerns (Kraska, 2007; Roziere & Walby, 2018, 2020), particularly around discussions of policing being militarized. For police services, uniforms are discussed from the position of safety (i.e., being visible) and need (i.e., flame resistant). For example, the Ottawa Police Service switched to a grey no-melt no-drip uniform for their ERT following an explosion during a hostage-taking training exercise in 2014 that left officers and paramedics injured. No-melt no-drip uniforms are manufactured to “crumble away from the skin” in the event they are exposed to a flame or hot flashes in comparison to the material used for regular patrol uniforms that “can melt onto the skin, causing serious injuries” (CBCnews, 2014). Collectively, scholarship laced in interpretations of public perceptions warrants an analysis on the variation in Canadian ERT uniform color, including what services rely on their ERTs during non-full team deployments and their potential effects on police legitimacy.

The patrol uniform, generally, is a symbol of police legitimacy and similar conclusions can be drawn about the ERT uniform (Durkin & Jeffery, 2000). According to Tyler (1990), police legitimacy has two overarching factors, including the public's general support for legal authorities and a citizen's obligation to obey the law. Tankebe et al. (2016) then nuanced Tyler's (1990) concepts of police legitimacy to account for a four-factor model which includes: police lawfulness (i.e., acting in accordance with the law), distributive fairness (i.e., objectively allocating police resources), procedural fairness (i.e., fairness in decision making and treatment), and police effectiveness (i.e., if police can adequately do their job). Research from Fagan and Tyler (2004) suggests police legitimacy predicts citizens’ perceptions and confidence in the police and citizens’ potential behavioral intentions toward officers. Like arguments presented by Urbanik and Greene (2020, p. 3), outlining how trust and confidence in the police contribute to citizens’ “assessments of police legitimacy, such that low trust and confidence in the police are associated with low levels of police legitimacy” (see also Gau & Brunson, 2010).

Uniform variations and colors are argued to be linked to police militarization, yet, little is known about ERT uniform variations across Canadian police services. Concerns about the use and application of ERTs result in a unique impasse in how public safety can be realized and achieved, as police services’ must balance fully operationalizing their ERTs during high-risk calls for service (CFS) to maintain safety with concerns surrounding their police legitimacy and the police militarizing. For example, Madsen (2020) argues the green-colored ERT uniform of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) (i.e., in combination with other insignia like armored vehicles and assault weapons) contributes to the perception of increased militarization of policing. Kraska and Kappeler (1997) argue tactical teams equip themselves in “battle dress uniforms; BDUs” that are typically black or urban camouflage with a resemblance to paramilitary special forces’ units. Kraska (1996) writes ERTs are highly secretive about their operations, and expressions like uniforms, tactics, and weaponry, are obvious forms of militarism. Yet, black/darker-colored uniforms have been linked to minor tactical advantages. Abbate (2000) argues black uniforms provide slight concealment in lower light conditions and Johnson (2005, p. 59) argues darker colors “are easier to clean, help [to] hide stains, and help [to] conceal officers in tactical situations.” Also finding that darker uniforms were rated “mean, cold forceful, unfriendly, aggressive and corrupt” and lighter colored uniforms were given more positive impressions. In Canada, Blaskovits et al. (2020) in their examination of Canadian residents’ perceptions of certain police uniforms and equipment found officers who were shown in more militarized attire were perceived to be less professional and less suited for policing; more likely to be perceived as stronger, more confident and more prepared for danger; and participants were more likely to be intimidated by militarized appearing officers. Similarly, Jenkins et al. (2021b) found mixed results about frontline police uniform manipulations when sampling 392 university students. Participants associated darker uniform shirts with a perceived increased likelihood of an officer using excessive force and a potential “reduction in the likelihood that participants would try to talk their way out of a ticket” but also “an increase in ratings of confidence” suggesting measures of police legitimacy far exceeded any affect of the manipulations to the police uniform (Jenkins et al., 2021a, p. 9).

Conversely, the diverse ERT profiles that occur in highly variable environments create unique outfitting needs for ERTs; the ERT uniform must be able to meet occupational health and safety requirements being “no-melt no-drip” while concurrently durable enough to withstand the operational tempo and high physical demanding components of ERT work (Jenkins et al., 2021a; Towns et al., 2024). In the Canadian context, ERTs undergo different procurement processes than American ERTs when accessing and purchasing material resources like uniforms or equipment, potentially rooted in the different command and control structures between Canada and the United Sates, causing certain forms of equipment to be customized and earmarked for domestic policing, such as tactical armored vehicles (TAVs), rather than procuring existing military equipment (Cyr et al., 2020; Towns et al., 2023). Specifically in relation to uniform variations, competing arguments surrounding police militarization are rooted in their appearance, or what Kraska (2007) writes as the material component of police militarization. However, some scholars contest the existing models of police militarization, like Bieler (2016), who argues police services who receive the same amount of “military” equipment may not share experiences in how the equipment is used, the experiences of citizens in those communities, or the experiences shared by operators.

Simpson and Sargeant (2023a) highlight how police uniforms can be interpreted differently by citizens depending on the situational context the officer is observed within. Although uniform needs are necessary for the dangerous and high-risk specific tasks ERTs perform, wearing specialty uniforms when ERT officers are engaged in non-ERT duties, such as during patrol support, may impact police legitimacy and the “perceived appropriateness of the officer's aesthetics” (Simpson & Sargeant, 2023a, p. 2). With similar findings suggesting uniform manipulations, including adding or removing certain accoutrements from the police uniform itself (i.e., civilian uniform versus police uniform, color of the uniform, reflective vests, body-worn cameras) may impact police officers’ perceptions of their own safety (Simpson & Sargeant, 2023b). Simpson and Sargeant (2023b) further explicate how police officers’ perceptions of their own safety may be tied to feelings of power and comfort, suggesting changes in officer appearance may lead to changes in perceptions which could lead to changes in officer behaviors.

Relatedly, Volpp and Lennon's (1988) findings suggest manipulations or modifications to the police uniform, including color variations, can influence public perceptions of the officer. Echoed by the findings of Bickel (2013) who also argues tactical uniform color can influence the wearer, with tactical teams who wear black producing more aggressive tendencies. Supported by Simpson and Sargeant (2023a), considering one uniform perceived as appropriate in one context, may not be perceived appropriately in another. Such as “an officer dressed in a more tactical-style uniform may be perceived more negatively when engaged in a routine foot patrol compared to when dealing with a barricaded person” (Simpson & Sargeant, 2023a, p. 2). Our goal in this research note is to elucidate the wider variety of uniforms worn by police ERTs to understand the implications they can have on police legitimacy when deployed on “non-full team deployments” outside of their respective situational contexts.

Current Study

Although existing literature in Canada has focused on the general patrol uniform (Bennell et al., 2023; Jenkins et al., 2021b; Simpson, 2017, 2020; Simpson & Sargeant, 2022, 2023a), and the use of ERT to assist patrol when patrol resources are scarce (Jenkins et al., 2021a, 2023), little is known about the uniforms ERT members wear when assisting patrol during non-full team deployments. Moreover, less is known about the variations in ERT uniforms across Canada, and the variation in municipal, provincial, and federal services that rely on their ERTs to support patrol in this regard. Providing nuance to the criminological gap outlined in Jenkins et al. (2021b, p. 1712), in the current preliminary study, we explore “various styles of tactical uniforms” across Canadian ERTs and explicate which services use these uniforms to support patrol beyond full team deployments—or the uniforms they wore in 2020.

Methods

We conducted a web-based self-report survey, administered through Qualtrics, to members of the Association of Canadian Critical Incident Commanders (ACCIC), an independent organization of ERT commanders from across Canada. In total, 35 participants representing 30 distinct police services across Canada responded to the survey. We analyzed close-ended survey responses to answer our two primary research questions: (a) what are the differences across municipal, provincial, and federal police ERTs in how they provide support to patrol? And (b) do police ERT uniforms change when they support patrol during non-full team deployments? The project was approved by the Research Ethics Board (No. 20201027) and participants provided informed consent online.

Initial recruitment was done by emailing ERT commanders in English to participate in the study, and if interested, were sent a computer-generated code and provided repeated access to the survey across multiple sessions if needed. Participants included 30 ERT leaders from 35 ERTs because the responding RCMP divisions have multiple detachments participating in the sample. Questions consisted of 16 open-ended and 22 close-ended items. Topics included gender/sex of officers, organizational structure (full-time ERT officers whose only job function is ERT duties vs. “part-time” ERT members who have substantive policing roles and do their ERT function as an additional duty on an as-needed basis), physical training standards, size of the city served, armoured vehicles, and challenges for recruitment. In the current study, we focus on four items associated with non-full team deployments and type of ERT uniforms worn. Questions included: “what is the composition of officers in your tactical unit?” (n = 34), “When not engaged in full team deployments, do your full-time tactical officers attend other calls for service?” (n = 31), “what uniform do your full-time tactical officers wear” (n = 32), and “What color of uniform do your tactical officers predominately wear while on duty in their tactical roles?” (n = 32). The analysis includes descriptive statistics from close-ended survey items using a deductive approach that incorporated knowledge from previous scholarship about ERT patrol support and police officer uniforms to help draw out more nuanced themes.

Results

ERT Uniform

ERT leaders were asked: “what uniform do your full-time tactical officers wear” to reveal if full-time members change uniforms depending on call type. In total, there were n = 32 responses to the item, with 24 stating their full-time members “always wear tactical uniforms (i.e., even when not on tactical deployment),” and eight responded their officers “wear their tactical uniforms only when they are engaged in a tactical deployment (i.e., otherwise they wear a patrol uniform or plain clothes).” Of the 24 agencies whose full-time members always wear their ERT uniforms, 15 had full-time ERTs, eight used a combination of full-time and part-time members, and one team functioned part-time. Of the eight services whose officers only wear their uniforms when operational, five were part-time ERTs, with the remaining three using a combination of both full-time and part-time members. Five of the 24 teams were RCMP divisions who do not assist patrol beyond full-team deployments, two services report that full-time ERT members always wear their uniform and respond to routine calls, and one agency with a full-time team reports officers to assist patrol only for high-risk calls (uniform not stated).

ERT leaders also responded to the item “What color of uniform do your tactical officers predominately wear while on duty in their tactical roles?” Respondents were given a selected choice between black, grey, Monochromatic earth-tone (e.g., Ranger Green or Brown) or other. Of the n = 34 responding agencies, n = 32 provided a response to this item. At the time of our survey, four responding agencies still had tactical teams that wore black uniforms, and three of these teams reported being part-time teams, with part-time officers who take on ERT as a collateral role on top of their primary policing duty. Conversely, the fourth team to report wearing black uniforms reported having 33 full-time ERT officers whose primary job placement is on the tactical team (i.e., the sixth-highest number of full-time team members from the survey). Based on the third author's ethnographic experience, this team is now transitioning away from black uniforms and is currently in the process of procuring Ranger Green colored uniforms. A total of 14 respondents reported their ERT wears Monochromatic earth-tone, with 11 of them being RCMP and the other three being municipal or provincial police agencies.

Non-Full Team Deployments and Their Uniforms

ERT leaders were also asked about their tactical teams’ involvement in non-full team deployments, where full-time members may assist as a supporting role for patrol officers. Of the 35 responding services, 33 responded to this item. Of the 24 services who report full-time officers always wear their ERT uniform, 16 report full-time ERT members only assist patrol outside of full team deployments for high-risk calls only. The number of full-time members employed by the police service seemingly impacts their ability to support patrol outside of full-team deployments. The two largest full-time ERTs, with 75 and 55 members, respectively, reported not assisting patrol beyond full team deployments.

Of the municipal responding services, 18 stated their full-time members do attend other CFS, mainly high-risk calls in a supporting role for patrol officers. Of these 18 services, they all reported having “full-time tactical unit officers (i.e., their primary placement is on the tactical unit)” or “a combination of full-time and part-time tactical unit officers” and 17 state their ERT members “always wear their tactical uniforms.” Only one municipal agency did not report ERT patrol support.

Three police services report ERT members “attend routine calls serving the same function as a patrol officer for those calls.” Two teams report that their officers “always wear their tactical uniforms” even when “serving the same function as patrol officers.” While only one team from the survey report tactical officers only “wear their tactical uniforms when they are engaged in a tactical unit deployment” suggesting they wear plain clothes or have an additional patrol uniform when they attend routine calls. With the full-time team employing 12 full-time ERT members (with no part-time members), while the other two part-time teams only employ one full-time member (19 part-time) and number of full-time members not stated (13 part-time), respectfully.

Discussion

Our findings reveal that four Canadian police ERTs dress their officers in black uniforms. In total, three of the four teams self-reported being part-time, with only one full-time ERT still wearing black uniforms (but ethnographic experience confirms some teams are in the midst of changing to Ranger Green). Our findings suggest 14 services reported wearing grey uniforms, consistent with recommendations from the Toronto Emergency Task Force report following the hostage-taking at Toronto Union Station in 2004. All 14 police services wearing grey uniforms are municipal forces in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Noteworthy, 12 out of the 14 services who wear grey uniforms are in Eastern, Ontario. Of the 14 services wearing grey uniforms, 12 were full-time teams and reported their officers “always wear their tactical uniform (i.e., even when not on tactical team deployment),” two were not in Ontario and were part-time teams who only wear their tactical uniform when they are engaged in a tactical deployment. The geographic population and police service density of the Greater Toronto and surrounding areas may stress the need for these ERTs to wear similar colored uniforms in the event they need to be interoperable.

All 12 of these Eastern Ontario ERTs who wear grey uniforms are also full-time ERTs, which is consistent with Ontario policing regulations which mandate teams to be full-time teams comprised of a minimum of 12 members. O. Reg. 3/99, s. 23 (1). 23. Stipulates that (a) a tactical unit or hostage rescue team, whether provided by a police force or (b) on a combined or regional or co-operative basis, shall consist of a minimum of 12 full-time tactical officers, including the supervisor. A “full-time tactical officer” means a police officer assigned and dedicated to the tactical unit or hostage rescue team, but who, when not training or undertaking tactical or hostage rescue activities, may undertake community patrol (see also O. Reg. 3/99, s. 23 (6)). In answer to research question one, for police ERTs to act as patrol support outside of full team deployments, we find that police services must employ a minimum number of full-time officers. For instance, part-time teams or teams who employ two or fewer full-time ERT officers, report do not (i.e., or cannot) support patrol beyond full-time deployments. Suggesting municipal and provincial police services require two to 12 full-time tactical members as a best practice before ERT can serve as patrol support beyond full team deployments. Similarly, these full-time municipal teams also have larger annual operating budgets in comparison to the three part-time teams who still wear black, which may explicate the variation in uniform color. This would aver our existing research findings, that operational demands like operational tempo, training hours, variation between part-time and full-time ERTs, and organizational expectations like being on-call are reverberated by material and human resourcing (see Towns et al., 2024). Beyond the minor tactical advantages black uniforms provide, like concealment in lower light conditions (Abbate, 2000; Johnson, 2005), equipping both part-time and full-time ERTs with lighter uniforms can be expensive and may not be the top operational priority of some police services.

Out of the 35 responding agencies, 14 reported wearing Monochromatic earth-tone uniforms and 11 of those were RCMP teams. The consistency in RCMP ERT uniform is expected, considering one of the recommendations for RCMP ERTs from the Independent Inquiry of the shootings in Moncton, New Brunswick was to standardize the ERT tool kit. The three other services that wear Monochromatic earth-tone were municipal and provincial police agencies that work adjacent to RCMP jurisdictions. Without knowing definitively, a possible explication is the need to align with the RCMP in case of interoperability. The hypothesis is supported by the Edmonton Police Commission's report in 2017 stating their tactical team switched to ranger green colored uniforms to meet fire resistant ratings (i.e., no-melt, no-drip), to be interoperable with other teams in Alberta like the RCMP, and to meet all concealment needs in both urban (i.e., inner city) and rural (i.e., forests & deep trees) areas. Therefore, the use of green uniforms by municipal police services appears to be more prominent in provinces where municipal police forces have closer working relationships with the RCMP (i.e., British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Alberta) in comparison to provinces like Ontario (i.e., where the RCMP is responsible for federal policing) who predominantly wear grey uniforms and respond to calls for service within predominantly urban settings.

In response to research question two, 18 services rely on their ERTs to assist patrol (i.e., either for high-risk or routine calls) and report their full-time ERT members always wear their ERT uniform. The necessity for ERT operators to wear their ERT uniform is articulatable, particularly when providing support to patrol on non-full team deployments, especially for calls deemed “high-risk.” Echoing the findings of Moule et al. (2019), as perceptions of police legitimacy increase so do the beliefs that the police being/becoming more militarized will increase perceptions of police effectiveness. Thus, there is an increased likelihood that the use of ERT uniforms supporting patrol will have a negligible impact on those who already view the police as legitimate. However, these uniforms can still be identified by citizens as ERT and may elicit adverse reactions from citizens if the transgression fails to align with the situational context in which ERT is deployed. The use of ERT uniforms at calls for service to supplement patrol resources may reverberate perceptions of police militarization for community members who do not view the police as legitimate and are likely to view this application of ERT as problematic. Although ERT responding to routine calls may appear as just “a handful of police officers in a different colored uniform showing up to alleviate stress on patrol” (Jenkins et al., 2021a, p. 555), this does not intend to suggest police are not sacrificing components of their legitimacy if citizens interpret the ERT interaction as being an unfair distribution of police resources. Potentially delegitimizing the police collectively because of how tactical resources are allocated—the public may feel such resources should be reserved for high-risk CFS.

However, not using the ERT resources may place officers at increased risk, potentially failing to optimize the available resources—all key to policing and supported by public funds. When examining the relationships in use of force between ERT and patrol, Jenkins et al. (2024, p. 12) found using ERT (vs. patrol) to assist in calls for service may reduce the likelihood of deadly force being used by police because of their increased training. ERT is an emergency service relied upon to quell conflict that is beyond the capabilities of patrol to resolve optimally (Jenkins et al., 2021), the association of ERT with high-risk CFS that require ERTs specialized capabilities, may hinder understanding of the benefits of ERTs. Clearly, relying on ERTs, where their uniform colors are different than traditional patrol esthetics, may further influence the public's confidence in ERT effectiveness for duties within their mandates. Drawing on findings from Simpson and Sargeant (2023b), perhaps ERT members responding to routine calls in their ERT uniform contributes to their perceptions of power and safety and expecting ERTs to respond in patrol uniforms (i.e., or alternatives like plain clothes) during non-full team deployments to address trepidations surrounding police militarization or police legitimacy may reduce officers’ feelings of safety, power, or comfort.

Conclusively, although there are added benefits of using ERT for non-full team deployments, such as reducing risk factors because of their increased training; ability to calibrate use of force; and increased critical thinking skills (Jenkins et al., 2024; Klinger & Rojek, 2008; Towns et al., 2024; Vickers & Lewinski, 2012), police services must balance ERT capabilities with community expectations of ERT mandates or potentially compromise components of their legitimacy. Simply said—ERT deployment cannot win, considering police agencies have to balance fully utilizing their ERT resources while being wary of perceptions of police militarization.

Limitations

The data used for the current analysis stems from a descriptive survey administered to ACCIC members from across Canada. Since each service has more than one Critical Incident Commander and the survey allowed for multiple accesses due to the unpredictability of ERT activation, no demographic information was provided because we were interested in service details not participants. Relatedly, we are reluctant to suggest that our findings are generalizable outside of the Canadian context because the best practice and policy surrounding Canadian ERT uniforms stems from critical incidents and operational demands (i.e., rural and urban profiles) specific to the Canadian context.

Conclusion

More knowledge is required to determine if and how ERT increases safety. Given ERTs are already a contentious topic within policing and face public criticism due to trepidations about the police militarizing, more knowledge is required about the relationship between ERT and police legitimacy, and the effects of the rhetoric around police militarization. ERTs may make calls safer and increase police response times to calls in the queue, thus more knowledge is required prior to stating if police services should refrain from using these highly effective, expensive, and well-trained officers for traditional law-enforcement practices, beyond their focus on ERT specific mandates.