1. Background
“Police officers have the authority to use force to ensure that laws are upheld and public safety and security maintained (Hoffman 2004).” It is the “authority to use force [that] separates law enforcement officials from other members of society and the reasonable use of force is central to every officer's duties (Hoffman 2004).”
The authority of law enforcement organizations to use force carries with it the responsibility of applying the amount of force required to maximize public safety, as well as that of the suspect(s) and the officer(s) involved.
Research on the use of force and policing in North America has frequently been driven by high profile incidents where there are assertions that the use of force has not been properly applied. This has resulted in a pattern of research, and subsequent data collection, which has been tailored to a particular issue with regard to the use of force. Examples of this specificity include the issues of the application of neck restraints (Hall and Butler 2007), the use of conduct energy weapons (CEW) (CPC 2012), officer actions that result in serious injury or death, the phenomena of excited delirium syndrome (Vilke et al 2012) or use of force choices related to other mental health issues (Morabito et al 2010). While there has been a priority given to responding to high profile incidents, there has been a tendency for research and data collection to have proceeded only secondarily on a solid theoretical basis or with the full range of operational or research requirements in mind (Travis et al 1999).
In 2007, under the direction of the ADM Committee on Policing Issues (ADM-PI), the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Conduct Energy Weapons Working Group (Working Group) began sharing information and best practices on CEWs. National guidelines for the use of CEWs and a national CEW research agenda were approved by FPT Ministers Responsible for Justice and Public Safety in 2010. In 2011, the Working Group expanded its mandate to include sharing of information on broader use of force policies and practices and, where appropriate, coordinating the development of guidelines on broader use of force issues. One of the responsibilities of the Working Group is to improve use of force reporting and data collection through research and discussion. Methods for use of force reporting, and the need for an evidence based training curriculum, are issues that have also been raised by other law enforcement stakeholders who recognize the need for empirical research that is grounded in solid data.
2. Project Objectives
The objectives of this project are two-fold:
1) to develop a map of policy and operational data needs related to use of force; and
2) to build on national use of force frameworks, in order to develop a weighting tool to allow for the refined analysis of use of force data and to inform training related to the use of force.
Specifically, as part of the first objective (1) the project will:
A) identify the research and management questions that have been posed by Canadian academics, jurists, policy makers and police leaders regarding the use of force by police services;
B) identify the quantitative data that is required to answer these questions, cross-referenced to individual questions; and
C) describe the format in which the data must be collected in order to reliably answer these questions.
As part of the second objective (above), the project team will consult a selection of front-line police officers and police use of force trainers to develop a scale to provide estimate weights of the relative severity of all use of force options that may be used by police and suspects (including the threat, display and application of the force options). (See Appendix B for some use of force options that might be included in such a scale.)
3. Approach
This study should be conducted by undertaking a systematic literature review and undertaking a number of structured key informant discussion groups that are purposively representative of front line police officers and police use of force trainers in Canada.
The study will be completed over a fourteen week period, approximately, with all scheduled deliverables being finalized by March 21, 2014.
Throughout the performance of the work the Contractor shall apply the ethical principles of the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans and privacy legislation, where applicable.
4. Project Schedule
The period of the Contract is from date of contract award and to be completed on or before
March 31st, 2014.
5. Evaluation Procedures:
Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the Evaluation Procedures and Criteria specified in Part 5 of the RFP.
(a) Bids will be assessed in accordance with the entire requirement of the bid solicitation including the technical and financial evaluation criteria.
(b) An evaluation team composed of representatives of Canada will evaluate the bids.
The evaluation team reserves the right but is not obliged to perform any of the following:
a) Seek clarification or verify any or all information provided by the Bidder with respect to this RFP;
b) Contact any or all of the references supplied and to interview, at the sole costs of the Bidder, the Bidder and/or any or all of the resources proposed by the Bidder to fulfill the requirement, on 48 hours notice, to verify and validate any information or data submitted by the Bidder.
Contractor Selection Method is outlined in Part 5 Section 2 of the RFP
