Liu Weiwei, Taylor Bruce
a NORC at the University of Chicago , Bethesda , Maryland.
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2017 Nov;14(11):873-881. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2017.1339163.
The life-saving benefits of body armor have been well-documented, and law enforcement agency (LEA) body armor wear requirements have been cited by police officers as one of the most important reasons for them to wear body armor. However, research on LEAs' policies and practices regarding body armor is scarce. This study examined whether there are different agency-level profiles of various body armor-related policies, and related these body armor policy profiles to agency characteristics, size, location, etc. U.S. LEAs fell into four distinct profiles based on their body armor policies. Close to half of the LEAs had comprehensive coverage of body armor policies in all aspects. However, nearly one in five LEAs had very weak body armor policies in all aspects. The rest of the LEAs split into two groups, each with different strengths and weaknesses on selection, training, fitting, wearing, and inspection policies. Sheriff's offices and smaller LEAs were found to have weaker policies. In contrast, LEAs with a community policing emphasis and those with body armor grants were found to have stronger body armor polices, especially when it comes to mandatory wearing polices. Findings from the study provide a portrait of the current state of LEA body armor policies, and provide guidance for improving LEAs' body armor policies and practices.
防弹衣的救生益处已有充分记录，执法机构（LEA）对防弹衣的穿着要求也被警官们视为他们穿着防弹衣的最重要原因之一。然而，关于执法机构在防弹衣方面的政策和做法的研究却很匮乏。本研究调查了不同机构在各种与防弹衣相关政策方面是否存在不同的特征，并将这些防弹衣政策特征与机构特点、规模、位置等联系起来。美国执法机构根据其防弹衣政策可分为四种不同类型。近一半的执法机构在各个方面都有全面的防弹衣政策覆盖。然而，近五分之一的执法机构在各个方面的防弹衣政策都非常薄弱。其余的执法机构分为两组，每组在选择、培训、合身性、穿着和检查政策方面各有优缺点。治安官办公室和较小的执法机构被发现政策较弱。相比之下，强调社区警务的执法机构和获得防弹衣拨款的执法机构被发现有更强的防弹衣政策，尤其是在强制穿着政策方面。该研究结果描绘了执法机构防弹衣政策的当前状况，并为改进执法机构的防弹衣政策和做法提供了指导。
