The Quarterly
will keep our law enforcement agencies and their partners and supporters informed of developments, trends, and news within the body-worn camera (BWC) field and encourage involvement in our ongoing activities.
The Quarterly
provides the most up-to-date tools and technical assistance materials for your continued success in navigating and implementing a long-lasting, successful BWC program.
|
|
In this Issue:
- BWC TTA Team Spotlight
- 2018 BWC TTA National Meeting
- Featured BWC TTA Resources
- Latest Research on BWCs
- Special Feature: Body-Worn Camera Outcome Directories
- In Case You Missed It!
- Practices from the Field
- BWCs in the News
Quick Links
|
|
The BWC TTA Team Spotlight
|
|
|
|
Craig Uchida
Senior Advisor
Dr. Craig D. Uchida is the president of Justice & Security Strategies, Inc., where he leads a team overseeing research projects that innovate cities, counties and foreign nations, as well as leading nonprofits and foundations. Dr. Uchida and JSS have served as the research partner for several policing and prosecution innovation grants under the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), and he is currently conducting research on body-worn cameras with the Los Angeles Police Department. A former senior executive within the U.S. Department of Justice, he has shaped policy, programs, and funding impacting violent crime, homeland, security and social services at a variety of major organizations. Dr. Uchida started his career in criminology as Director of Research at the National Institute of Justice and later as Assistant Director for Grants Administration and Senior Policy Adviser for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office). His efforts at the COPS Office resulted in two major U.S. Department of Justice Awards – the Attorney General’s Distinguished Service Award in 1995 and the JustWorks Award for innovation in government in 1997.
Meet the rest of the BWC TTA team
here.
|
|
2018 Body-Worn Camera Training and Technical Assistance National Meeting
|
|
On March 27-28, 2018, the BWC Training and Technical Assistance (TTA) team, in partnership with BJA, held the 2018 Body-Worn Camera Training and Technical Assistance National Meeting in Arlington, Virginia. This meeting was intended for the designated FY 2017 BWC Policy and Implementation Program (PIP) grant points of contact from the funded sites, as well as their key partners in local project implementation (e.g., police executive and command staff, technology and IT representatives, researchers, police agency project 'champions', and important partners such as prosecutors).
Copies of the materials provided at the 2018 BWC TTA National Meeting can be found
here
.
|
|
Featured BWC TTA Resources
|
|
|
|
Sample Policies of BWC PIP Sites
An agency's BWC policy is essential to the success of its BWC program. To view example policies from BWC PIP sites, click
here
.
These policies are provided with the permission of the agencies. Please note that these agencies strive to continuously review and update their policies to ensure that they meet the needs of the departments and communities they serve.
|
BWC Policy Review Scorecard
As part of the BJA BWC Policy and Implementation Program, a TTA team—composed of members of CNA, Arizona State University, and Justice and Security Strategies, Inc.— created a BWC Policy Review Scorecard, which assesses the comprehensiveness of an agency’s BWC policy, captures local issues that influence policy (e.g., specific state regulations), and identifies areas for policy enhancement. Interested agencies can access the scorecard
here
. Instructions for completing the scorecard can be found
here
.
|
BWC TTA Podcast Series
The BWC TTA Podcast series provides a unique opportunity for law enforcement officers, researchers, and the law enforcement community to learn about a variety of topics related to BWCs. Listen on our website at your own convenience, and please don't hesitate to contact us with questions or requests for additional information.
|
|
Latest Research on Body-Worn Cameras
|
|
Many have suggested that placing body-worn cameras (BWCs) on police officers improves the civility of police-citizen encounters and enhances citizen perceptions of police transparency and legitimacy. In response, many police departments have adopted this technology to address public concerns over the quality of policing in their communities. The existing program evaluation evidence on the intended and unintended consequences of outfitting police officers with BWCs is still developing, however. This study reports the findings of a randomized controlled trial involving more than 400 police officers in Las Vegas, Nevada. The findings of this randomized controlled trial raise the possibility that planning for the placement of BWCs on officers should consider the competing effects of improvement in civilian perceptions of police generated by reductions in complaints and use of force incidents and of public concerns about increased enforcement activity.
|
This brief describes the results of the Urban Institute’s evaluation of the Milwaukee Police Department’s body-worn camera program, which was supported by funding from the BJA Strategies for Policing Innovation program. From October 2015 to December 2016, the Milwaukee Police Department deployed body-worn cameras in a phased rollout to all of its roughly 1,100 patrol officers. Through a randomized controlled trial of 504 officers, the Urban Institute found that those who wore BWCs conducted fewer subject stops and were less likely to receive a complaint than officers that did not receive cameras. However, BWCs had no effect on whether officers engaged in use of force during the study period.
|
|
More and more police departments are equipping their officers with body-worn cameras. To maximize the utility of body-worn cameras, designers have considered issues such as camera-mount position, camera-mount stability, methods of activation, and data transfer methods. The human factors/ergonomics community can make important contributions to the design of body-worn cameras and identify and address issues that could arise from the introduction of new technologies (e.g., biometric identification and automatic detection of concealed weapons). Engaging with this ever-expanding technology will benefit law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve and protect.
|
In January 2015, the Boston Police Department (BPD) committed to implement a pilot body-worn camera program for its officers. This pilot was intended to help answer policy questions about how the system would operate if and when fully implemented across the department’s 2,100 officers and to address concerns of officers and community members on the use of the technology. Boston Mayor Martin Walsh and Boston Police Commissioner William Evans committed to a rigorous evaluation of this pilot program. The BPD implemented its BWC pilot program in September 2016. This pilot involved the random allocation of 100 BWCs to officers who wore these cameras for a twelve-month intervention period. The preliminary findings of the randomized controlled trial suggest that the placement of body worn cameras on Boston Police officers may generate small benefits to the civility of police-citizen civilian encounters. Relative to control officers, treatment officers received fewer citizen complaints and generated fewer use of force reports. Statistical analysis revealed that the impact of body worn cameras on complaints was small but statistically-significant at a less restrictive statistical threshold. The results suggest a reduction of one complaint per month for 140 treatment officers relative to 141 control officers. The analysis indicated body worn cameras generated a small reduction in officer use of force reports that was not statistically-significant, suggesting no meaningful difference between the treatment and control groups.
|
|
Special Feature:
Body-Worn Camera Outcome Directories
|
|
Dr. Michael D. White, Dr. Janne E. Gaub, and Kathleen E. Padilla
The research base on the impact of police body-worn cameras (BWCs) has grown rapidly, and over time, the results have become increasingly mixed. This development poses two problems:
1. It is difficult to keep track of the quickly growing evidence base
2. It is difficult to make sense of the sometimes competing findings across studies
Moreover, studies can vary widely in terms of their methodological rigor. We have developed the Body-Worn Camera Outcome Directories to address these two problems. The directories provide a comprehensive, up-to-date overview of the existing research by outcome
(use of force, citizen complaints).
Importantly, each study’s entry has been approved by the primary researcher to ensure accuracy (when the primary researcher could not be reached, an independent reviewer was tasked with peer-reviewing the interpretation of the study’s findings). Each directory is presented in two formats: a summary version and a detailed version. Both versions contain, for each study, the agency being evaluated, the agency’s state or country, the researchers conducting the study (with a link to the study), the year in which the study was published, an assessment of the study’s methodological rigor using the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale, and summaries of the study’s findings using visual indicators (green down-arrow, red up-arrow, or yellow dot). The detailed version of the directories also includes the percent change for between- and within-group comparisons and study sample size. More detailed instructions for interpreting the directories are included in each document.
To view the BWC use of force directory of outcomes, click
here
.
To view the BWC citizen complaints directory of outcomes, click
here.
|
|
Webinar
Beyond Patrol 2: Courtroom Personnel, School Resource Officers, and University Police
On Friday May, 18, 2018 from 1:30 PM - 2:45 PM ET, BJA and the BWC TTA team hosted a webinar on body-worn camera use within courtrooms, schools, and university settings. This webinar focused on the use of BWCs beyond the police patrol function. In addition to police patrol functions, BWCs are being implemented in a variety of contexts including courtrooms, city services agencies, schools, and university settings. During this webinar, BWC TTA partner Arizona State University (ASU), reviewed the findings from their report on the use of body-worn cameras in environments outside of the law enforcement setting. Representatives from BJA Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program sites discussed the challenges and benefits of deploying BWCs within these environments.
To view the entire webinar recording, click
here
.
|
|
Practices from the Field:
Hogansville, Georgia
|
|
Body-Worn Camera Program:
Hogansville, Georgia, Police Department
Commentary from Sergeant Jeff Sheppard
The Hogansville, GA, Police Department first implemented body-worn cameras in the middle of 2008 when former Chief of Police Moses Ector purchased two body cameras for a trail run at an International Chiefs of Police Conference. When we first deployed the cameras, there were two that were shared by the shifts. The cameras were not able to keep up with the charging requirements to remain functional so they were briefly decommissioned and spent a few months shelved. Chief Ector reissued one camera to me full time as a test subject to gauge the effectiveness of the BWC. At the end of the research period, the camera had proven itself an invaluable tool not only in documenting the actions of officers and subjects, but also in evidence gathering, interviews, and court proceedings, both criminal and civil.
The department ordered cameras for all mandated officers and built an in-house server to store video footage. We demonstrated the effectiveness of the BWC video to our prosecutors in the municipal, state, and superior courts. It did not take long at all for prosecutors to become accustomed to getting BWC footage with their case files. Over the ten-year period that we have deployed the camera systems, our DA has become reliant on the footage and requires BWC footage with each case file or a statement in the file by the prosecuting officer explaining why there is no BWC video. It has become one of the first items that defense attorneys request in court cases as well.
Some of the differences that we have seen with the deployment of BWCs from the beginning are astounding. In the beginning, officers were resistant to the cameras; they were viewed as a management tool for “keeping an eye” on patrol officers. As the officers began to use the footage for scene recollection, suspect identification, and evidence in traffic court to support citations and arrests, they began to understand that the cameras were a tool. This tool was deployed for the benefit of the officers and for the community in the department's Community Focus initiative. In researching footage over the years, we have seen a decrease in officer-subject negative interaction. The officers are aware that they are on camera and have become comfortable when interacting with the community. As the community began to see the outcome of the BWC video footage in court proceedings and in press releases by the Chief of Police, they too began to act a little nicer and more cordial. The footage from BWCs has reduced court time in several instances where an officer would have had to go to trial. After providing the footage to prosecution and defense a plea deal would be made. Now our officers do not want to patrol without a BWC. Officers use BWCs for field interviews, scene diagramming tools, surveillance, and many other applications. We also use the videos obtained for in-house training and scenario reconstruction.
Departments considering BWCs are concerned with three main things: what camera to use, how to store the video, and what charging system to (use docking station or individual). We chose our cameras because of their ability to do in-house storage, and we issue individual chargers with each camera. The officer carries his or her camera home as issued equipment and is responsible for maintaining a proper charge. We utilize a central server at our department for video download, and each officer has a unique password that allows them to download and access their videos. Departments with multiple precincts or stations will have to consider this when determining a storage system. For some, the cloud system may be best and for others, multiple in house storage stations. We learned that simplicity of operation is important. Officers learn through muscle memory to activate and deactivate the cameras. Our cameras have a simple slide bar. We felt that the simple motion would cut down on reaction time when activating under stress. The one aspect forgotten in general is maintenance, not of the electronics but of the external hardware such as clips, on/off switches, screen lenses, housings, and charging cords. We learned the hard way over time to have spare parts available for our officers. After losing an entire camera, we attached retention lanyards to each of them. Officers will lose cameras in struggles, foot chases, house searches, rescues, and sometimes just getting out of their vehicle. The lanyards have saved thousands of dollars in potential losses.
In closing, body-worn cameras are no more or less than a tool. How you choose to use the tool will determine how valuable it is to you. If you use it the right way, it will become one of the most valuable tools, not only in your box, but also in your prosecutor’s box and in some instances in the box of the attorney defending you and your department against a false allegation.
To learn more about the Hogansville, Georgia, Police Department, visit their
website
.
If your agency would like to be
featured in the next issue of The Quarterly,
please
contact us
.
|
|
Body-Worn Cameras in the News
|
|
Connecticut State Police are about to be equipped with body cameras. The State Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection says it used an $895,000 grant from the Justice Department to purchase 800 cameras for its officers. Some municipal police departments in Connecticut, including Stamford and New Haven, already have body cameras.
|
|
The Pennsylvania District Attorney's Association releases 'Best Practices on Body-Worn Cameras.' This comes less than a year after new rules were put in place for when police can film using the cameras. Thirteen pages detail the 'Best Practices on Body-Worn Cameras.' One of the suggestions is that police departments should come up with a clear policy on which duties or functions body cameras should be recording.
|
|
More police and resident interactions will be captured on video by the end of the year as eight area police departments work together to equip officers with body cameras.
The departments in St. Louis County landed a federal grant to equip about 260 officers with body cameras, hoping that working together will help their smaller departments control costs for the devices and pricey storage beyond the life of the grant, Bellefontaine Neighbors Police Chief Jeremy Ihler said.
|
|
The City of Syracuse is set to hold two public meetings to get input on the addition of 100 body-worn cameras, the city announced in a statement. Meetings were held on June 6 at 7 PM at the Institute of Technology at Syracuse Central and June 7 at noon in the Community room of the Onondaga County Public Library Central Library.
|
|
Body camera vendors are expected to begin vying for testing slots in the city's police body camera program, officials said.The city police department is moving ahead with plans to outfit all officers with body cameras by the end of the year, and officials are in the process of setting policy and ensuring the purchase of the right cameras for the city's needs.
|
|
Don't forget to follow us on social media!
Click on the icons below to stay up to date on all that
BWC TTA has to offer!
|
|
Points of view or opinions in this content are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
|
|
This project was supported by Grant No. 2015-DE-BX-K002 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the SMART Office. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Points of view or opinions in this content are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
