Vanguard Magazine

www.vanguardcanada.com FEBRUARY/MARCH 2017 17 securItY s telligence, improvement of training, and refinement of judicial processes. In the U.S., the demand for body-worn cameras and rapid adoption have ramped up as a result of increased racial-conflicts and race-related shootings in interactions with police. In in the U.S. in 2013, about 95 per cent of the 17,500 state and local law enforcement agencies were either committed to body cameras or had completed their implementation, although 75 per cent of those were not at full implementation and 5 per cent had decided not to implement them at all. Making this rate of adoption pos- sible was substantial federal support with President Obama com- mitting 1 $23 million in funding to body-worn camera programs for law enforcement in 2012 and another $75 million in 2014, part of a broader three-year, $263 million initiative aiming to strengthen community policing. Many of these pilots have produced anecdotal data indicating high success rates, but what does the research say? Generally, the case for adopting body-worn camera technology in law enforce- ment almost always points to three landmark studies — Rialto, Mesa and Phoenix — and now a recent study out of Cambridge in UK that was modelled on Rialto and authored by the same academic who led Rialto's study. Lauded as massive successes with substantial reductions in complaints and use of force, all four of these studies have revealed areas of concern in the post-analysis of their raw data — some presenting more questions than answers. Compounding this is that all of these studies differ in method- ology, control criteria and organization characteristics, community size and community relations, making comparative assessments dif- ficult. And so far, none have broached the sociological and behav- ioural aspects: do body-worn cameras modify behaviours, is it the behaviour of the officer or member of the public (or if they are synchronous or symbiotic) that improves, and what are the subjec- tive conditions that apply? This is not to suggest that the existing research is unimportant or that body-worn cameras are ineffective, but serves to reiterate that body-worn camera research shows only a preliminary correlation — not actual causality — between use and outcomes. Rialto Police Department's year-long pilot and study in 2013 suggested that body-worn cameras did improve complaints and interactions, but further examination of the data also suggested that the effect of being observed during the experimental shifts may have encouraged preemptive moderating and the 'spill-over' effect, such as when officers downloaded and viewed their own body-worn camera footage. Officers who wore cameras only half of the time may also have been susceptible to a similar psychologi- cal awareness effect that influenced and improved future interac- tions. Closer examination of the raw data showed that the 59 per cent reduction in use of force in all treatment shifts and 87 per cent reduction in public complaints were formulated from a small number of incidents — only twenty-five — and that the reduc- tions in complaints were seen across both camera and non-camera groups. The Mesa Police Department pilot in 2012 revealed a reduction of 48 per cent in "citizen complaints against camera officers for mis- conduct" during the study period and a 75 per cent reduction in use of force complaints, 2 noting that many complaints were resolved quickly due to the accessibility of video evidence. But the Mesa proj- ect also revealed concerns over discretionary activation policies, un- intended bias of volunteer and mandated officers, supervisory and punishment implications, and lack of design controls to address avoidance factors. Overall, the body-worn cameras did appear to be effective when worn in situations where there were verbal warnings of body-worn camera use, 3 however, it was unclear why and in what instances — bias management was suggested to influence some of Recently several other cities — Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg and Vancouver, as well as the RCMP — have put their body-worn camera implementation efforts on hold, mostly due to data storage costs.

• Cover