The Cooper Standard: Why It’s the Current Benchmark

The Cooper Standard became the de facto fitness test for law enforcement after several landmark lawsuits (e.g., Lanning v. SEPTA, United States v. Pennsylvania State Police) highlighted the need for defensible, scientifically validated tests. Courts ruled that fitness standards must be directly tied to the job and not disproportionately exclude certain groups, unless proven necessary for the role.

The Cooper Standard offered:

1. Uniform Guidelines: It provided clear benchmarks for age and gender, which helped departments avoid disparate impact claims.

2. Validated Data: Research linked general physical fitness (aerobic capacity, muscular endurance) to overall job performance, making it defensible in court.

3. Ease of Implementation: It’s simple to administer and doesn’t require specialized equipment or facilities.

But here’s the catch: Is general fitness the same as job readiness?

The Limitations of the Cooper Standard

While the Cooper Standard measures overall fitness, many argue it doesn’t reflect the actual physical demands of policing. For example:

• Running 1.5 miles might indicate aerobic capacity, but how often does an officer need to sustain that level of cardio in real-life scenarios?

• Push-ups and sit-ups test endurance, but they don’t mimic tasks like subduing a resisting suspect, scaling a fence, or dragging a wounded person to safety.

The PSP case made this clear: their test, while measuring general fitness, didn’t prove a direct connection to job-specific tasks, leading to its revision. Courts have since emphasized the importance of job-related and validated tests.

Functional Fitness: A Better Alternative?

A functional fitness test focuses on the real-world physical tasks officers encounter on the job. These might include:

• Obstacle courses simulating foot pursuits or chasing a suspect through urban environments.

• Weight drags to mimic pulling a wounded person to safety.

• Wall climbs to simulate scaling barriers during a pursuit.

• Stress-based scenarios combining physical exertion with decision-making to reflect high-pressure situations.

Such tests better align with the actual demands of policing and can be designed to meet legal defensibility requirements by linking specific tasks to job performance.

Balancing the Two Approaches

• The Case for the Cooper Standard: Its simplicity, established validity, and widespread acceptance make it a practical baseline for assessing general fitness. It ensures officers meet a minimum standard without over-complicating the process.

• The Case for Functional Fitness: Policing isn’t about general fitness; it’s about handling unpredictable, high-stakes physical challenges. Functional tests bridge the gap between fitness and field readiness.

What Should Be Done?

1. Combine Both Approaches:
   Departments could implement the Cooper Standard as a baseline for overall fitness, supplemented with functional fitness assessments tailored to real-world police tasks.

2. Periodic Reviews and Validation:
   Regularly review and validate fitness tests to ensure they align with job-specific demands and withstand legal scrutiny.

3. Encourage a Culture of Fitness:
   Fitness testing alone isn’t enough. Agencies should invest in wellness programs, incentivize fitness improvement, and offer resources like gym memberships or on-duty workout time.

4. Reevaluate Testing Frequency:
   Treat fitness like firearms qualifications—with annual or biannual testing to ensure officers remain physically ready throughout their careers.

What do you think? Should departments stick to the Cooper Standard, shift to functional tests, or find a way to balance the two?