FAQs
There has been little research conducted on the effect of body-worn cameras (BWC) on criminal prosecutions. In Phoenix, AZ, researchers found that domestic violence cases involving a camera-wearing officer were more likely to be initiated by the prosecutor’s office (40.9% vs. 34.3%), have charges filed (37.7% vs. 26%), have cases furthered (12.7% vs. 6.2%), result in a guilty plea (4.4% vs. 1.2%), and result in a guilty verdict at trial (4.4% vs. 0.9%) (Katz et al., 2015).
The Plymouth (England) Head Camera Project reported that the technology increased officers’ ability to document that a violent crime had occurred, and the incidents recorded by BWCs were more likely to be resolved through guilty pleas rather than criminal trials (Goodall, 2007). In Renfrewshire, Scotland, BWC cases were 70-80% more likely to result in a guilty plea, compared to other court cases. A more recent report from Essex, Scotland, that focused specifically on domestic abuse calls also found that criminal charges were more likely to be filed in cases where an officer was wearing a BWC (Owens et al., 2014).
Anecdotal evidence from the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) interviews of law enforcement executives (PERF, 2014) also suggests that BWCs may affect prosecution of cases through improved evidence collection. Chief Parker of the Dalton (GA) Police Department reported that BWCs have enhanced evidence collection at accident scenes, as officers work to secure a scene, interview witnesses and victims, and provide emergency medical care as needed. Several chiefs also indicated that BWCs are useful in domestic violence cases when it is difficult for a victim to participate. In these cases, BWC policies regarding victims, to include children and other vulnerable persons, must be carefully crafted.
For more information, see:
- Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned: http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/472014912134715246869.pdf
- Phoenix, Arizona: http://cvpcs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/content/projects/PPD_SPI_Final_Report%204_28_15.pdf
There are a handful of useful resources on body-worn cameras (BWC). The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office published a report in 2014 that examines key issues and offers policy recommendations. The report is based on survey responses from 254 agencies, interviews with 40 law enforcement executives who have implemented BWCs, and outcomes from a one-day conference held on September 11, 2013, that included more than 200 law enforcement executives, scholars, and experts. In April 2014, the Office of Justice Programs Diagnostic Center published a report that describes the core issues surrounding the technology and examines the state of research on those issues (White, 2014). In March 2014, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) published a market survey that compared BWC vendors across a range of categories. There is also a growing number of published evaluations that examine the implementation, impact, and consequences of body-worn cameras. This web site and toolkit is intended to be a clearinghouse of the latest available research, reports, and knowledge on the technology.
For additional information, see:
- National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) for the National Institute of Justice, Primer on Body-Worn Cameras for Law Enforcement: https://nccpsafety.org/assets/files/library/Primer_on_Body-Worn_Cameras.pdf
- System Assessment and Validation for Emergency Responders (SAVER) for the Science and Technology Directorate, Body-Worn Video Cameras for Law Enforcement Assessment Report: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Body-Worn-Cams-AR_0415-508_0.pdf
- National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology (NLECTC) for the National Institute of Justice, Body-Worn Cameras for Criminal Justice: Market Survey: https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/body-worn-cameras-criminal-justice-market-survey-version-10
- Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned: https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/472014912134715246869.pdf
- Police and Crime Standards Directorate, Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices: https://www.bodycamera.co.uk/pages/body-worn-camera-recording-guidance-for-use
- Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Canada’s Guidance for the Use of Body-Worn Cameras by Law Enforcement Authorities: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/surveillance/police-and-public-safety/gd_bwc_201502/
For additional evaluations from around the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, see:
- Phoenix, Arizona: http://cvpcs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/content/projects/PPD_SPI_Final_Report%204_28_15.pdf
- Mesa, Arizona: http://issuu.com/leerankin6/docs/final_axon_flex_evaluation_12-3-13-
- Isle of Wight, U.K.: https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/evaluation-of-the-introduction-of-personal-issue-body-worn-video-cameras-operation-hyperion-on-the-isle-of-wight(aa564df2-ffda-4b72-b0b6-7f9cb823aa77).html
- Paisley & Aberdeen, U.K.: http://www.bwvsg.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/BWV-Scottish-Report.pdf
- Plymouth, U.K.: https://www.bodycamera.co.uk/pages/body-worn-camera-recording-guidance-for-use
- Edmonton, Canada: http://www.cacole.ca/confere-reunion/pastCon/presentations/2014/maryS.pdf
- Los Angeles (CA) Police Department and Las Vegas (NV) Metro Police Department: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/research-body-worn-cameras-and-law-enforcement
Or view BWC Toolkit Research Resources with the category of Implementation Experiences
There is little empirical evidence on the impact of body-worn cameras (BWC) on community member complaint investigations. In Phoenix, AZ, researchers reported that camera-wearing officers who received a complaint were significantly less likely to have the complaint sustained, compared to non-camera-wearing officers and other patrol officers (Katz et al., 2015). Evidence from the United Kingdom also suggests that BWCs may result in quicker investigation of community member complaints against law enforcement (Goodall, 2007). The video evidence may also be used to provide members of the public with additional information that helps them understand the law enforcement officer’s behavior during a particular encounter (e.g., educational value). Legal scholar David Harris stated, "If citizens can see that they were, perhaps, mistaken, or that they did not understand the situation from the officer’s point of view, or that they did not have all the facts, they may come away with a better grasp of the situation, and feeling that they need not continue with the complaint process." (Harris, 2010: 7)
There is also some evidence to suggest that BWCs can assist with the investigation of critical incidents, including officer-involved shootings. Former Chief of Police Miller of the Topeka (KS) Police Department stated that a local district attorney cleared one of his officers of any wrongdoing during a critical incident after reviewing the BWC footage of the deadly shooting (PERF, 2014).
For more information, see:
- Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned: https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/472014912134715246869.pdf
- United Kingdom Home Office, Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices: https://www.bodycamera.co.uk/pages/body-worn-camera-recording-guidance-for-use
- David A. Harris, University of Pittsburgh, Picture This: Body-Worn Video Devices as Tools for Ensuring Fourth Amendment Compliance by Police: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1596901
The decision by a law enforcement agency to implement a body-worn camera (BWC) program represents an enormous investment of time and resources. The following are some of the concerns related to BWC programs:
- Buying the hardware and managing the data: In January 2015, the acting Chief of the Phoenix (AZ) Police Department announced that it would cost the department $3.5 million to outfit its 3,000 officers with body-worn cameras and manage the BWC program. Overall, the costs vary depending on the type of camera, type of storage, IT support, and use of video. Agencies have been able to save money by joining with other agencies to purchase cameras and storage.
- Privacy considerations: Privacy rights of the public are a primary concern. BWCs have the potential to impinge on community members' expectation of privacy. The technology may also present concerns for vulnerable populations such as children and victims of crime. Law enforcement agencies should fully investigate state privacy laws and engage relevant stakeholder groups (e.g., victim advocacy groups) before adopting BWCs. Officer privacy should also be addressed. Some law enforcement unions have opposed BWCs, arguing that adoption of the technology must be negotiated as part of the collective bargaining agreement. Also, at the February 26-27, 2015 Bureau of Justice Assistance BWC Expert Panel, some of the audience expressed concerns about BWCs because the technology gives supervisors the opportunity to go on "fishing expeditions" against officers in their command. Discussions among law enforcement executives and line officers are an important aspect of the policy development for implementing a BWC program.
- Prosecution: Prosecutors and defense attorneys will want to review BWC video related to their cases, but they too have an obligation to protect the privacy of community members captured in the video. Therefore, it is important that the impact on prosecutorial and defense bar resources is taken into account when implementing a BWC program.
- Policy development: During the BWC Expert Panel, participants shared very specific concerns and examples about BWC policy. For instance, Maggie Goodrich of the Los Angeles Police Department discussed her agency's concerns about ensuring officers always consider safety first and not put themselves in danger because of any additional distraction caused by the cameras. Assistant Chief Michael Kurtenbach of the Phoenix (AZ) Police Department walked through an example of a video used in a prosecution that resulted in an assault conviction of the officer. Triggered by the egregious behavior in the video, the agency reviewed three months of prior video to discover a pattern of inappropriate behavior. Upon the officer’s termination, the police union expressed concerns about evaluation of prior video, because the department had said it would not use video for administrative purposes. Kurtenbach suggested this illustrates the need for thoughtful consideration of policies even though, in this example, "once the videos were seen everyone agreed the officer should be fired."
- Training considerations: Law enforcement agencies should plan for additional training on camera use, video review, and video expungement and redaction.
- Advocacy considerations: Cynthia Pappas from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reminded BWC Expert Panel participants that "95% of youth and juveniles commit non-violent offenses so there should be great precautions made to protect them, including protections from public screening" of the video. Krista Blakeney-Mitchell from the Office on Violence Against Women went on to describe how victim confidentiality should be addressed during a call for assistance for domestic violence. If an officer is entering the home of a domestic violence victim, the victim is exposed. "We need to consider how that plays out later in recordings. Will the video be used against the victim based on her demeanor near the time of the incident? Will she be re-victimized?" Another concern is the use of BWCs when dealing with sexual assault victims and the need to decide how video will be used in these situations. Lastly, Blakeney-Mitchell explained that it is "hard for victims to come forward when everyone will know their story based on video footage…there is a concern that victim reporting will go down."
For more information, see:
Departments vary in how they have implemented body-worn camera (BWC) programs. However, there are two common themes.
First, the vast majority of departments have implemented their BWC programs with officers assigned to patrol. The rationale for deploying the technology with front-line patrol officers is that officers on patrol have the most contact with the public. Some departments have also expanded their use of BWCs beyond patrol into specialized units such as K-9, SWAT, specialized driving under the influence teams, and investigations.
Second, many departments have adopted an incremental approach to deployment by restricting use to a small number of officers for an initial pilot period. Departments have found that this type of approach helps to overcome potential officer anxiety and resistance and enables a department to make mid-term revisions as it learns how this technology affects the community as a whole. Such a strategy also allows other units in the department the time to adapt to the new technology. In many cases, the initial group of officers assigned to wear cameras are volunteers who often become "internal champions" for the technology.
Lindsay Miller from the Police Executive Research Forum stated, "The decision to implement a BWC program should not be entered lightly–once implemented it is hard to scale back from that course. Agencies need to thoughtfully examine the idea of a BWC program and have written policies in place (something not all agencies do)."
This toolkit is community-sourced. That is, most of the material in this clearinghouse was contributed by your colleagues representing various disciplines from across the country and the world, and it is available for your use, education, and consideration. If you use content from the toolkit, we only ask that you attribute the material to the web site or the original author of the material. This toolkit does not endorse any one resource but asks you to evaluate the appropriate resources for your communities’ needs as you work your way through the National Body-Worn Camera Toolkit Law Enforcement Implementation Checklist. And, if you have something to contribute, just email us at [email protected].
The answer to this question depends on how you measure officer daily practices.
With regard to paperwork, the research is mixed. In Plymouth, England, body-worn cameras (BWC) led to quicker resolution of cases, which produced a 22.4% reduction in officer time devoted to paperwork and file preparation; and to a 9.2% increase in officer time spent on patrol (an extra 50 minutes per nine-hour shift) (Goodall, 2007). But in Victoria, Canada, and in Phoenix, AZ, officers spent significantly more time on paperwork following the deployment of BWCs (Laur et al., 2010; Katz et al., 2015).
With respect to evidentiary quality, research conducted in Plymouth and Essex, United Kingdom; Victoria, Canada; and Phoenix, AZ, suggests that the use of BWCs increases the quality of evidence (Goodall, 2007; Laur et al., 2010; Owens et al., 2014; Katz et al., 2015). Related to these results, in Phoenix researchers reported that domestic violence incidents where an officer was wearing a BWC were more likely to result in charging and conviction. Specifically, they found that when compared to non-camera cases, camera cases were more likely to be initiated by the prosecutor’s office (40.9% vs. 34.3%), have charges filed (37.7% vs. 26%), have cases furthered (12.7% vs. 6.2%), result in a guilty plea (4.4% vs. 1.2%), and result in a guilty verdict at trial (4.4% vs. 0.9%) (Katz et al., 2015).
If officer performance is measured by the number of contacts with members of the public, the evidence is limited. In Rialto, CA, there was an increase in the number of contacts between law enforcement and the public after BWCs were deployed in the field (3,178 more contacts after BWC deployments, compared to the prior year) (Ariel, et al. 2014). We do not know why there was this increase but intend to do further research to find out if an increase is consistent with what is happening with other departments and why.
More generally, a number of law enforcement executives interviewed indicated that they had used BWCs to identify and address larger structural issues in their department and to develop solutions to those problems. This includes weaknesses in training, policy, and law enforcement officer field behavior (e.g., using video footage to investigate racial profiling) (PERF, 2014).
For more information, see:
- Phoenix, Arizona: https://cvpcs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/content/projects/PPD_SPI_Final_Report%204_28_15.pdf
- Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned: https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/472014912134715246869.pdf
There is currently no evidence from the United States documenting any sort of health and safety risks associated with body-worn cameras. The United Kingdom Home Office guide provides a comprehensive list of potential hazards to officers who wear head-mounted cameras, rates the risk level for each hazard, and discusses strategies to mitigate risk. Many of the hazards are deemed to be low-risk, such as being targeted for assault because of the camera, neck injury from the weight of the camera, and electrical shock. However, several hazards are rated as medium-risk, such as strangulation with the lead (or wire) by an offender; head injury through impact of the camera by an assailant; and soreness, discomfort, and headache from the headband. Most of the cited health concerns are mitigated by wearing the camera on other parts of the uniform (e.g., the torso, not the head). The lack of evidence regarding the health and safety concerns does not mean there are no risks. Departments should explore potential risks as they adopt the technology.
For more information, see:
- United Kingdom Home Office, Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices: https://www.bodycamera.co.uk/pages/body-worn-camera-recording-guidance-for-use
There is potential to integrate body-worn cameras (BWC) with facial recognition systems. The use of facial recognition and BWCs may pose serious risks to public privacy. Agencies that explore this integration should proceed very cautiously and should consult with legal counsel and other relevant stakeholders.
The acquisition, implementation, and use of body-worn camera (BWC) video in state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies can be a costly and complex process. This toolkit was developed by the Bureau of Justice Assistance in partnership with an expert panel of criminal justice practitioners with BWC experience to provide law enforcement agencies with the resources necessary to implement officer BWCs in an efficient, equitable, and effective way. This toolkit seeks to help you become familiar with a broad array of considerations to include:
- Defining concrete steps to follow for successful planning and implementation of a BWC program.
- Identifying personnel and internal organizational challenges to an agency when implementing a BWC initiative, to include training and labor management considerations.
- Discussing technical issues associated with the implementation of BWCs.
- Assessing the impact of BWCs and the evidence they collect on a law enforcement agency and the entire criminal justice system, including courts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and victims.
- Recognizing privacy and legal issues as they relate to members of the public, a law enforcement agency, and the accused.
It is vitally important for the chief to take an active leadership role in implementing agency-wide strategies to deal with persons coping with mental health issues or intellectual/developmental disabilities.
Police leaders need to focus on data-driven strategies to find effective solutions. There are many questions a chief needs to answer before moving forward, including the number of calls for service involving people with mental illnesses, available resources, training, information-sharing and privacy issues, and more.
To have successful interactions, the chief must be at the forefront as a leader on this issue, along with ensuring successful buy-in from officers throughout the agency, and strong, effective partnerships with mental health professionals. The PMHC program must be incorporated into agency goals and made an operational priority, taking its place on the chief's "dashboard." Support from all staff, top-to-bottom, is necessary for the efficacy and success of the PMHC program.
Issues related to people with mental illness need champions within the police agency, or else they run the risk of falling through the cracks. Some police agencies appoint an officer or commander to oversee the planning and implementation of the initiative. In addition, they serve as the agency's primary liaison with mental health providers and other stakeholders. These liaison officers can be particularly effective for problem-solving location-specific issues to reduce and prevent crimes, disorder, and calls for service at current and potential hot spots.
For additional information, see:
Approximately 1 in 5 adults in the U.S.—43.8 million, or 18.5%—experiences mental illness in a given year, and approximately 1 in 25 adults in the U.S.—10 million, or 4.2%—experiences a serious mental illness in a given year that substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities (National Alliance on Mental Illness).
The number of contacts law enforcement has with people with mental illnesses varies by community, and can be hard to document if the calls are not properly identified and coded. An estimated 7 percent of police contacts in jurisdictions with 100,000 or more people are with individuals with mental illness (Deane, et al.). The majority of these encounters are with individuals suspected of committing low-level, misdemeanor crimes, or who are exhibiting nuisance behavior. Many communities report that the number of contacts has been increasing, sometimes precipitously, in recent years (San Diego Association of Governments).
People with mental illnesses, most of whom have co-occurring substance use disorders, are over-represented at every stage of the criminal justice system. Researchers documented serious mental illnesses in 14.5 percent of males in jail and 31 percent of females in jail (Steadman, et al.); these rates are more than three to six times those found in the general population (Kessler, et al). Generalized to the fact that almost 13 million jail admissions occur annually, more than 2 million bookings of people with serious mental illnesses occur annually (Snyder, et al).
For additional information, see:
- National Alliance on Mental Illness, "Mental Health by the Numbers."
- M. W. Deane, H. J. Steadman, R. Borum, B. M. Veysey, J. P. Morrissey, "Emerging Partnerships between Law Enforcement and Mental Health," Psychiatric Services, January 1999 Vol. 50 No. 1.
- H. J. Steadman, F. C. Osher, P. C. Robbins, B. Case, and S. Samuels, "Prevalence of Serious Mental Illness among Jail Inmates," Psychiatric Services 60, no. 6 (2009): 761-765.
- R. C. Kessler, C. B. Nelson, K. A. McKinagle, M. J. Edlund, R. G. Frank, and P. J. Leaf, "The Epidemiology of Co-Occurring Addictive and Mental Disorders: Implications for Prevention and Service Utilization," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 6 (1996): 17–31.
- H. N. Snyder, W. J. Sabol, T. D. Minton, "Arrest in the United States, 1990–2010," (Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012).
- James D. Livingston, M.A., Ph.D. "Contact Between Police and People With Mental Disorders: A Review of Rates," Psychiatric Services 67, no. 8 (2016): 850-857.
Though tragic and violent incidents involving people with mental illness are rare, they draw intense media and public attention. This creates misperceptions about the relationship of mental illness to violence and unfortunately increased stigma and discrimination. There is no doubt that many individuals with mental illnesses who commit violent crimes must be held responsible for their actions. However, it is important to remember that most violence in this country is not committed by people who have a mental illness, and most people with mental illnesses are not violent.
The risk of violence statistically attributable to serious mental illness is estimated to be 3 to 5 percent; this is comparable to rates among persons without mental illnesses (Friedman). Because serious mental illness affects a small percentage of the population, it makes— at most—a very small impact on the overall level of violence in society. In fact, people with serious mental illnesses are anywhere from 2.5 times to nearly 12 times more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of violence (Choe, et al; and Hiday, et al.).
For additional information, see:
- Richard A. Friedman, "Violence and Mental Illness—How Strong is the Link?" New England Journal of Medicine 355 no. 20 (2006), 2064–2066.
- J.Y. Choe, L. A. Teplin, and K. M. Abram, "Perpetration of Violence, Violent Victimization, and Severe Mental Illness: Balancing Public Health Concerns," Psychiatric Services 59, no. 2 (2008): 153–164.
- V.A. Hiday, J.W. Swanson, M.S. Swartz, R. Borum, and H.R. Wagner, "Criminal Victimization of Persons with Severe Mental Illness," Psychiatric Services 50, no. 4 (1999): 62–68.
When discussing people with mental illnesses in criminal justice settings, it is important to keep in mind the heterogeneity of this group. They differ in their demographics, seriousness of their mental illnesses, charge levels, access to community supports, and criminogenic risks (i.e., the factors that affect how likely they are to engage in criminal behavior). There are three primary factors that drive law enforcement encounters with people with mental illnesses: homelessness and visibility, substance use, and limited access to mental healthcare.
First, people with mental illnesses are over-represented in homeless populations and, as such, they are more visible to law enforcement. Their problematic behaviors (e.g., public disturbance, panhandling and public intoxication), which stem from lack of treatment, attract attention. As an indicator of how visibility may play a role in their arrest: incarcerated persons with mental illnesses are much more likely to have been homeless at the time of their arrest than those without mental illnesses (Ditton).
Second, people with mental illnesses are about three times more likely to develop a co-occurring substance use disorder than the general population (Reiger, et al.). This increased prevalence of substance use disorders over the course of their lifetimes, combined with an overall increase in arrests for drug-related offenses, means that more people with mental illnesses will be arrested. Research has found that nearly three-quarters of men and women with mental illnesses in jails also have a co-occurring substance use disorder (Abram and Teplin).
Third, the limited access to over-burdened community-based treatment may make individuals with untreated symptoms more likely to be arrested. Individuals with mental illness who encounter police are too frequently incarcerated—often for misdemeanant or non-violent infractions—rather than connected with treatment services, simply because of a lack of community resources. If there are no alternatives to incarceration for people with a serious mental illness, officers feel that their only option is to book that person into jail to ensure their safety.
For additional information, see:
- Paula Ditton, "Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers," (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999).
- D. Hasin and B. Kilcoyne, “Comorbidity of psychiatric and substance use disorders in the United States: current issues and findings from the NESARC,” Current Opinion in Psychiatry 25 no. 3 (May 2012): 165–171.
- K. M. Abram and L. A. Teplin, "Co-Occurring Disorders among Mentally Ill Jail Detainees: Implications for Public Policy," American Psychologist 46, no. 10 (1991) 1036-45.
- German Lopez, "How America's Criminal Justice System became America's Mental Health System," Vox.com, March 1, 2016.
A thorough program evaluation will require the allocation of resources to analyze the data collected. Agencies with planning and research divisions may want to identify agency staff and allocate a percent of their time during the program design phase to coordinate or conduct these evaluations. Agencies without research capacity may benefit from outside assistance in aggregating, deciphering, and interpreting the data to determine program effectiveness.
Because of the challenges associated with data collection, as well as the difficulties in analyzing often incomplete data, many law enforcement agencies partner with a local college or university to assist with this process. Academic partners may require compensation for which law enforcement agencies may need to find sources of support, including submitting joint grant proposals. If the agency chooses to engage an external research partner, these outside teams will need to work closely with law enforcement and their collaborators during the evaluation process, and this staff time commitment should be considered at the planning stage.
Law enforcement agencies should designate a staff person who will work with a subcommittee on evaluation issues. In addition to helping to ensure that all agencies that are contributing data are using sound and accurate collection and reporting practices, this group can determine how the evaluation results will be used, how they will be disseminated, and who should review interim reports and the interpretations of the data.
For additional information, see: