Panel Discussion Five:
Body-Worn Cameras Abroad
What Do We Know So Far & What Are the Issues Around
the Corner?
Tom Ellis
Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, University of Portsmouth, UK
http://eprints.port.ac.uk/16979/
http://tinyurl.com/h4r6ntr
Follow up study
Larger study on mainland city, approx. 250,000 pop.
Personal issue to all PATROL officers (effectively mandatory use)
• AIM:
o identify enabling and hindering features of
BWVC use affecting efficiency and
effectiveness
o report to operational managers
o recommend changes
o evaluate impact of changes
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
• DESIGN:
Utilization focused action research
• METHODS:
Human factors/contextual design
– secondary data analysis
– Focus groups and semi-structured interviews
THIRD STUDY: Promoting justice: Professionalizing frontline policing with an evidencebased Structured Interview Protocol
AIM: Enable front line/patrol officers to elicit high quality information from witnesses,
victims, and persons of interest, in order to improve quality of evidence, resolution,
prosecution, conviction etc.
DESIGN & METHODS: Based on psychological theory of strategic control of memory
reporting, and psychological developments in investigative interviewing, esp SelfAdministered Interview‘ (SAI - Gabbert, Hope et al) .
• Develop, test and train for on street 'Structured Interview Protocol' to strengthen
FIRST ACCOUNT
• Randomised controlled trials (RCT) of the interview protocol in the field, with the
College of Policing providing expert oversight and a quality assurance role.
• Double blind review of video camera footage to rate quality
• Correlate quality with CJ outcomes
WHAT WE KNOW SO FAR
IF YOU ARE SETTING UP/ROLLING OUT:
Your operational roll out determines your research design
• If you want to give all patrol officers BWCs, you cannot use RCT evaluation to
determine whether cameras ‘work’
• But you can use BWCs do carry out RCTs on all other patrol and CJ
developments (eg First account protocols)
• If you roll out on voluntary, pooled, staggered etc, basis, it limits the quality of
any evaluation
YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT THESE TOGETHER AT THE BEGINNING
WHAT WE KNOW SO FAR
Exploiting differences in emphasis in different countries
USA
•
BWV affect on police behaviour and
professionalism
•
Rialto: complaints and use of force
•
Mesa: reducing civil liability, complaints
& operational transparency
•
Both - enhancing criminal prosecution
CANADA
• Bureaucratic burden/FIDO
• Public perceptions of professionalism
UK/E&W
• Impact on crime and
incivilities
• Procedural justice, public
confidence/opinion
• Criminal justice process
outcomes
o
o
o
o
early guilty pleas
more successful prosecutions
better evidence
reducing paper work
WHAT WE KNOW SO FAR:
CAMERAS IN CONTEXT
The cameras require study per se (ease of use, capability, battery life,
durability, attitudes of officers, quality of use)
BUT they are relatively small part of implementing and managing BWV
use.
•
Popular with patrol officers who use them (and with public)
•
BUT Unpopular (esp. initially) with investigation teams
•
Joint link of with prosecutions and court systems
•
STORAGE & RETRIEVAL (exponential growth of data vs investment in exponential developments
in storage and data mining, bookmarking etc.)
CAN YOUR CJ IT SYSTEMS ROUTINELY PRODUCE THESE
DATA FOR ALL CALLS AND CRIME?
WHAT WE KNOW SO FAR
COSTS
• Short terms reductions in patrol officers’ paperwork, and therefore
more time on patrol
• IF your CJ process accepts video evidence to some extent
INSTEAD of paper/written electronic files
• AND CJ IT system linked to camera metrics/data
• Short term increases in investigation and processing of BWVC
evidence UNTIL training and protocols take effect
• Short term increases in IT and associated costs
• Long term savings in terms of unit cost of cases, but no. of cases
likely to increase
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
Factors we can & cannot (yet) include in RCTs
•
•
•
•
Gender
Length of service
Age
Type of incident
• Camera yes/no?
• (Camera switched
on?)
• (Disciplinary record)
•
%Camera switched on in all appropriate
encounters?
•
Leadership role & implementation factors
•
Amount/quality of BWV training
•
Technology acceptance measures (& change in
it)
•
Quality of use of camera narrative
•
Quality of evidence to prosecutors
•
Use of structured approach SAI
•
Avoiding ‘investigation’ questions on the front
line
Standardised Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
Validated method of assessing ‘culturally’ relevant information that identifies the gap between
behavioural intentions in relation to BWV cameras (in this case) and the actual use of them
• Control groups need to match on TA - & changes in it over time
• Relationship to training impact is variable
Whether BWVCs ‘work’ now overtaken by events
• Meanwhile:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Traffic wardens
Prison Officers
Youth justice supervisors
Special forces
Private Security Guards
Doormen/bouncers/
wellbeing wardens
Film or be filmed!
http://www.citylab.com/crime/2014/10/in-brazil-where-police-killings-are-commonplace-cellphone-cameras-play-a-powerful-role/381212/
• Do you want to rely on everyone else’s
(potentially partial/edited) footage?
• Or ensure you have your own, which is
high quality through training on
evidential value?
• Ambulance crews
• A&E crews
• Carers in homes for
elderly/others
• Fire service
• ASDA (Walmart) Home
Delivery
• AND CRUCIALLY?
3 options
• RCT – policing as quasi experiment to prove cameras ‘work’ (if
you have no BWV cameras already and have large numbers)
• Use of cameras alongside evaluation to develop Management
Information Systems and dashboards, upgrade IT to
incorporate other developments, digital files, smartphones,
etc. (if you can give every patrol officer a BWV camera)
• Just do what you have to, to comply!
Just around the corner
• Streaming to preserve evidence
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31558269
• Standalone cameras = poor quality, only docking into a back
officer system puts them above smart phones
• Cloud storage with smart data mining
• Combined with overhead drones for public order, chases,etc.
• Investigation issues:
– Officer view vs investigator follow up
– 360O cameras/infra red for investigations 360 camera
– http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/29/9066323/foals-mountain-gates-video-virtual-reality
– Officers viewing/cognitive interview contamination