“…For example, are they intended to improve evidence gathering and provide efficiencies, improve the public's sense of police legitimacy, or change public/police behavior (and if so, when, where, and how)? Recent works by Piza (2018) and Malm (2019) critique current approaches to using BWV, highlighting the inconsistent, unclear causal mechanism(s) through which cameras are intended to simultaneously address multiple, competing goals. It is likely that future BWV camera interventions would benefit from additional pre-implementation focus on determining the context-specific mechanisms by which BWV is a part of the solution to existing problems.…”
Objectives We report the results of a randomized controlled trial of police body-worn video (BWV) cameras in an Australian context, with a focus on how cameras influence evidence gathering, court processes/outcomes, and police/public behavior. Methods The 6-month trial undertaken by the Western Australia Police Force involved a sample of officers (N = 498) acting as their own controls with camera use ("treatment") randomly allocated across shifts. A range of parametric and non-parametric tests were conducted to explore the influence of BWV on interview efficiency, rate/timing of guilty pleas, conviction rates, sanction rates, police use-of-force, assaults against police, and citizen complaints against police. Results The trial generated mixed results in support of this technology within this Australian context. BWV recordings did result in evidence-gathering benefits by producing cost/time efficiencies when taking field interviews. BWV footage had limited impact on court processes/outcomes, with indication that camera evidence encouraged earlier guilty pleas but no corresponding increase in the rate of guilty pleas or convictions. BWV did influence police operational decision-making, with increased sanction rates and use-of-force on treatment days. The extent to which officers engaged with the trial compounded these patterns. There was no evidence that BWV prevents problem behavior, with citizens' complaints increasing on treatment days and no influence of BWV on rates of assaults against police. Conclusions These findings highlight the need for additional context-specific clarity about why police use BWV cameras. In particular, BWV users should clearly specify the causal mechanisms through which cameras will achieve administrative, evidentiary, operational, and/or problem-prevention goals.
“…For example, are they intended to improve evidence gathering and provide efficiencies, improve the public's sense of police legitimacy, or change public/police behavior (and if so, when, where, and how)? Recent works by Piza (2018) and Malm (2019) critique current approaches to using BWV, highlighting the inconsistent, unclear causal mechanism(s) through which cameras are intended to simultaneously address multiple, competing goals. It is likely that future BWV camera interventions would benefit from additional pre-implementation focus on determining the context-specific mechanisms by which BWV is a part of the solution to existing problems.…”
Objectives We report the results of a randomized controlled trial of police body-worn video (BWV) cameras in an Australian context, with a focus on how cameras influence evidence gathering, court processes/outcomes, and police/public behavior. Methods The 6-month trial undertaken by the Western Australia Police Force involved a sample of officers (N = 498) acting as their own controls with camera use ("treatment") randomly allocated across shifts. A range of parametric and non-parametric tests were conducted to explore the influence of BWV on interview efficiency, rate/timing of guilty pleas, conviction rates, sanction rates, police use-of-force, assaults against police, and citizen complaints against police. Results The trial generated mixed results in support of this technology within this Australian context. BWV recordings did result in evidence-gathering benefits by producing cost/time efficiencies when taking field interviews. BWV footage had limited impact on court processes/outcomes, with indication that camera evidence encouraged earlier guilty pleas but no corresponding increase in the rate of guilty pleas or convictions. BWV did influence police operational decision-making, with increased sanction rates and use-of-force on treatment days. The extent to which officers engaged with the trial compounded these patterns. There was no evidence that BWV prevents problem behavior, with citizens' complaints increasing on treatment days and no influence of BWV on rates of assaults against police. Conclusions These findings highlight the need for additional context-specific clarity about why police use BWV cameras. In particular, BWV users should clearly specify the causal mechanisms through which cameras will achieve administrative, evidentiary, operational, and/or problem-prevention goals.
“…To date, more than 70 studies have tested these claims (Lum et al., 2019). While the evidence is mixed, it suggests that in some contexts, BWCs offer benefits for both police and citizens (Malm, 2019).…”
By 2016, approximately one half of American police agencies had adopted body-worn cameras (BWCs). Although a growing body of research has examined the impact of BWCs on outcomes such as use of force, complaints, and perceptions of police, few have considered how and why some agencies adopted BWCs, while others have not. With guidance from the diffusion of innovations paradigm, this study explores variation in BWC adoption by police agencies. Drawing on a survey administered to a national probability sample of 665 municipal police executives in the spring of 2018, we found agency size, region, and the demographic composition of municipalities were associated with BWC usage. We then examined executives’ support for (or opposition to) legislation that would require BWC footage to be released publicly. Results suggest (a) a variety of environmental factors were associated with support and (b) the correlates of support varied across agencies of different sizes.
“…In her policy essay, Aili Malm () takes a decidedly more optimistic view of the available evidence. Malm's innovative use of the Effect, Mechanism, Moderators, Implementation, Economic Cost (EMMIE) framework (Johnson, Tilley, & Bowers, ) provides an important foundation for explaining and even expecting the mixed findings: There are no absolutes.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Malm () also includes useful tables that effectively display the differences across studies. The visuals are simple, efficient tools that both practitioners and researchers can use to assess quickly the evidence on an outcome.…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
