The importance of external stakeholders for police body-worn camera diffusion

Abstract

Purpose The diffusion of innovations paradigm suggests that stakeholders’ acceptance of a police innovation shapes how it spreads and impacts the larger criminal justice system. A lack of support by external stakeholders for police body-worn cameras (BWCs) can short-circuit their intended benefits. The purpose of this paper is to examine the perceptions of BWCs among non-police stakeholders who are impacted by the technology as well as how BWCs influence their daily work processes. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted interviews and focus groups (n=41) in two US cities where the police department implemented BWCs. The interviewees range from courtroom actors (e.g. judges, prosecutors) to those who work with police in the field (e.g. fire and mental health), city leaders, civilian oversight members, and victim advocates. Findings External stakeholders are highly supportive of the new technology. Within the diffusion of innovations framework, this support suggests that the adoption of BWCs will continue. However, the authors also found the decision to implement BWCs carries unique consequences for external stakeholders, implying that a comprehensive planning process that takes into account the views of all stakeholders is critical. Originality/value Despite the recent diffusion of BWCs in policing, this is the first study to examine the perceptions of external stakeholders. More broadly, few criminologists have applied the diffusion of innovations framework to understand how technologies and other changes emerge and take hold in the criminal justice system. This study sheds light on the spread of BWCs within this framework and offers insights on their continued impact and consequences.

Body-Worn Cameras and Internal Accountability at a Police Agency

“…In the case of body-worn cameras, this technology addresses a need for police agencies who seek to improve transparency and community relations in an environment that has been critical of the police (Coudert et al, 2015;Cubitt et al, 2017;Harris, 2010;Tankebe & Ariel, 2016;White, 2014). Research suggest that citizens are generally in favor of police body-worn cameras whether they are community stakeholders or "frequent-flyers" (Taylor, Lee, Willis, & Gannoni, 2017;Todak, Gaub, & White, 2018) as the presence of the cameras (if recording) make citizen encounters more transparent and thus can help ensure that individual, citizen rights are protected (Koen et al, 2018;White et al, 2017).…”

Understanding Body-Worn Camera Diffusion in U.S. Policing

“…Also using a diffusion of innovations framework, Todak et al (2018) conducted focus groups and interviews with a range of stakeholders impacted by the adoption of BWCs in Spokane (WA) and Tempe (AZ). Stakeholders voiced reservations about BWCs based on their positions in the community.…”

Body-Worn Cameras and Transparency: Experimental Evidence of Inconsistency in Police Executive Decision-Making

“…BWCs are now part of policing and we can expect that they are here to stay. Research demonstrates that both police and citizens support the use of BWCs (Gaub et al, 2020;McClure et al, 2017;Todak et al, 2018;White & Malm, 2020). However, supporting their use is different than supporting the release of BWC footage.…”

“…Indeed, with a few exceptions (Ariel, Farrar, & Sutherland, 2015;White et al, 2018), most studies have demonstrated that officers wearing BWCs received significantly fewer complaints than officers not wearing them (Ariel et al, 2017;Braga, Sousa, Coldren, & Rodriguez, 2018;Katz et al, 2014). On the other hand, community surveys indicate that the public is supportive of agencies outfitting their officers with BWCs because they see it as a way to hold police more accountable for disparities in stops, arrests, and uses of force (Sousa et al, 2018;Todak et al, 2018). Interestingly, then, both parties see BWCs as a way to hold the other more accountable (White & Malm, 2020).…”