A Snapshot of Attitudes Toward Body-Worn Cameras

Public discontent with police behavior has crested in the wake of recent high-profile civilian deaths due to the excessive use of force. To address this issue, some have advocated the adoption of body-worn cameras (BWC) that officers wear as part of their uniforms. These cameras capture audio and video of police interactions with civilians. Supporters of BWCs reason that they would temper the behavior of police and civilians alike and improve the quality of evidence presented in court. Opponents claim that such a system would deter police from performing their duties as vigorously as they otherwise might, either because they object to the use of BWCs or because they fear that a problematic incident captured on tape could ruin their careers.

In May 2015, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) in the Department of Justice published the National Body-Worn Camera Toolkit, which included a best-practices guide for successful planning and implementation of a BWC program. The guide listed more than two dozen steps that include setting concrete goals for BWC programs, communicating extensively with internal and external stakeholders, and executing phased roll-outs to allow for real-time troubleshooting. In a study published in Criminology and Public Policy, authors Michael White, Natalie Todak and Janne Gaub partnered with the Tempe Police Department (TPD) in Tempe, Ariz., to implement a BWC program following these steps. The authors explained the program’s implementation process, as well as how it affected perceptions of BWCs and specific policing and criminal justice outcomes.

The authors worked with the TPD to structure a BWC roll-out in two waves: Half of the patrol force was randomly assigned to receive BWCs in November 2015 and the other half in May 2016. A series of six officer-perception surveys were administered pre- and post-deployment to measure attitudes toward BWCs over time. The first half of the force comprised the treatment group and the second half the control. The surveys aimed to capture officers’ degree of acceptance of BWCs and their expectations of the effects of BWC implementation by asking them to indicate their level of agreement with a series of statements.

The results of the officer-perception surveys showed strong support for BWCs, which increased over time. In the first survey wave, 88 percent of officers agreed or strongly agreed that BWCs would improve the quality of evidence, and by wave six, this figure had risen to 95 percent. The share of officers who agreed that the benefits of BWCs outweighed the disadvantages rose from 73 percent to 91 percent. While only 39 percent of officers reported that BWCs were well-received by their co-workers in wave one, by wave six, this figure had risen to 79.1 percent. The key exception to upward trends in officer perception involved citizen behavior: Officers grew more pessimistic over time that citizens would improve their behavior as a result of BWCs.

Although it appears that officers’ attitudes toward BWCs are overwhelmingly positive and that the BWCs themselves have tangible benefits, the authors noted that the existing literature presents a more mixed view. They hypothesized that this may be due to the difficulties of effective implementation, which the TPD mitigated by adhering closely to the BJA’s guidelines. Although BWC implementation is a complex task, the authors asserted that their test case demonstrates that close adherence to BJA implementation principles can correlate to more effective integration of and more robust support for BWCs.

Article source: White, Michael D., Natalie Todak, and Janne E. Gaub. “Examining Body-Worn Camera Integration and Acceptance Among Police Officers, Citizens, and External Stakeholders.” Criminology & Public Policy 17(3). (2018): 649-677.

Featured photo: cc/(LightFieldStudios, photo ID: 1007752898, from iStock by Getty Images)