The Miami-Dade, Florida, Police Department (MDPD) is the largest municipal police department in the Southeastern United States, with over 2,800 sworn officers and 1,500 civilian workers spread throughout eight district police stations.
Over the past five years, the number of research studies on BWCs has exploded, from just five in 2014 to nearly 120 as of December 2019. The studies address numerous outcomes including use of force and citizen complaints, officer and citizen perceptions, court outcomes, and officer activity measures (e.g., arrests and self-initiated calls). Some utilize “gold standard” randomized controlled trials (RCTs), whereas others use less rigorous methods.
The CNA Corporation, Arizona State University (ASU), and Justice and Security Strategies (JSS) provide training and technical assistance (TTA) to law enforcement agencies that have received funding for body-worn cameras (BWCs) through the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) BWC Policy and Implementation Program (PIP). Administrative policy review is a central feature of TTA. The TTA team developed a BWC policy review process to assess the comprehensiveness of BWC policies through a BWC Policy Review Scorecard.
Because the policy review process assesses comprehensiveness only and is not prescriptive, agencies vary in the way they deal with specific key issues. We recently completed an analysis of the BWC policies for 129 police agencies (covering 54 agencies funded in FY 2015 and 75 in FY 2016). Our analysis examined variation across five dynamic areas: activation, deactivation, citizen notification, officer authority to review, and supervisor authority to review. We examined two additional issues for FY 2016 sites only: camera wearing during off-duty assignments and activation during public demonstrations. The full report can be found online here.
We identified 17 key BWC policy trends across these 7 policy considerations. They are listed below.
(1) All agencies mandate and prohibit activation for certain types of encounters. No agency allows full officer discretion on BWC activation.
(2) Most agencies (60 percent) allow for discretionary activation under certain circumstances.
(3) All agencies provide guidance for BWC deactivation. However, officer discretion is more common for deactivation than activation.
(4) Officer discretion in the deactivation decision is more common in the policies of FY 2016 agencies.
(5) Less than 20 percent of agencies mandate citizen notification of the BWC.
(6) About 40 percent of agencies recommend, but do not require, citizen notification of the BWC.
(7) Mandatory notification is less common in the policies of FY 2016 agencies.
Officer authority to review
(8) Nearly all agencies allow officers to review BWC footage for routine report writing.
(9) Less than 30 percent of agencies allow officers unrestricted access to BWC footage during an administrative investigation.
(10) After a critical incident, more than 90 percent of agencies allow officers to review their BWC footage prior to giving a statement.
Supervisor authority to review
(11) Nearly all agencies permit supervisors to review BWC footage for administrative purposes, such as investigation of citizen complaints and use of force.
(12) Most agencies give supervisors authority to review line officers’ BWC footage to determine compliance with BWC policy and procedures. Nearly all FY 2016 agencies (93 percent) allow for BWC policy compliance checks by supervisors.
(13) Most agencies give supervisors authority to review line officers’ BWC footage for general performance evaluation. Nearly all FY 2016 agencies (93 percent) allow supervisors to access BWC footage to assess officer performance.
Off-duty assignment (FY 2016 only)
(14) The majority of FY 2016 agencies (69 percent) do not address BWC use during off-duty assignments.
(15) Twenty-eight percent of FY 2016 agencies mandate BWC use among officers on off-duty assignments.
Activation during demonstrations (FY 2016 only)
(16) The majority of FY 2016 agencies (71 percent) do not address BWC use during public demonstrations.
(17) Just under 20 percent of FY 2016 agencies require activation and recording during public demonstrations.
Though our sample may not be representative of police agencies nationally, the report provides insights into trends in key policy areas, as well as some benchmarks for agencies involved in BWC policy development and assessment. This analysis reinforces the idea that BWC policy should be responsive to local circumstances, as well as the needs of local stakeholders. Moreover, BWC policies should continue to evolve as evidence from research emerges, as states weigh in with policy requirements, and as BWC technology changes.
In FY 2015, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) funded the Body-Worn Camera (BWC) Training and Technical Assistance (TTA) program to help police agencies and communities implement their BWC Policy Implementation Program (PIP) initiatives and learn lessons from those initiatives for the benefit of other agencies and communities. Since then, the BWC TTA team has responded to over 200 TTA requests, conducted 15 webinars, held 3 regional meetings and 2 national meetings, developed new technical assistance resources, and provided direct technical assistance to over 176 law enforcement agencies across the country.
Through this work, the BWC TTA team has gained a deeper understanding of the complexities and challenges agencies face when implementing a BWC program. Below, we review some of the lessons learned from our BWC PIP agencies over the past two years. These lessons learned should serve as important considerations for agencies just beginning or in the midst of BWC implementation.
1. Have a plan.
As with any new equipment deployment or substantial policy change, agencies must operationally plan how to roll out a BWC program. Planning should be thoughtful, comprehensive, and collaborative, and the plan should include several key factors: identifying program goals, establishing a timeline for deployment, conducting pilot tests, establishing working groups with internal and external representatives, conducting fiscal reviews and preliminary meetings with external stakeholders, reviewing related state legislation, determining staff and technology infrastructure needs, and more (see the BJA BWC Toolkit for guidance on getting started with a BWC program). This planning is fundamental to the implementation process.
2. Be flexible.
Although planning is vital to the successful deployment of BWCs, BWC PIP agencies also stress the importance of remaining flexible throughout the entire implementation process. Plans will change, new state legislation may require policy changes, fiscal changes will occur, equipment may not be as interoperable as promised, and challenges in establishing the infrastructure to support the program will arise. Agencies must be ready to adapt to these uncertainties.
3. Engage internal stakeholders.
Many of the BJA BWC PIP agencies have noted the importance of engaging officers early in the process. Officers should be part of the policy development process, the pilot testing phase, and training development. Actively engaging officers early in the process ensures greater buy-in for the BWC programand greater overall likelihood of success.
4. Engage external stakeholders.
BWC programs must also engage external stakeholdersfrom the community, as well as local government and criminal justice partners such as the prosecutor, city manager, and representatives from the local court system. These stakeholders are essential to the success of the program. Agencies should engage them in the process from the very start.
Agencies seeking to implement BWCs should hold multiple meetings with the community to leverage partners such as the NAACP, ACLU, and victims’ advocates. BWC PIP agencies note the importance of seeking input from the community in the policy development phase and being transparent about each phase of the deployment process. Some agencies have tried various methods (e.g., postcards, online surveys, town hall meetings) to inform, engage, and gather input from their communities.
Criminal justice stakeholders are also vital to a BWC program. Prosecutors are, in many ways, an end user of BWC video. Agencies must work closely with prosecutors to create procedures for efficiently and responsibly transfering and sharing BWC video. Prosecutors and police agencies are beginning to understand the effect BWC footage can have on investigations and prosecutions. Working closely with these partners while implementing BWCs results in better processes and fewer challenges with program management.
Featured webinar: Beyond Arrest: Prosecutor and defense attorney perspectives. Click here to view the webinar
According to the BWC PIP sites, training is integral to ensuring that officers understand the policy and technology. Training should include related state legislation, how to activate, when or when not to activate, how to catalogue and tag videos, reporting requirements, the limitations of the camera technology, and departmental compliance and auditing.
Furthermore, agencies should consider using BWC footage for training. Agencies like the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the San Antonio, Texas Police Department, and the Sturgis, Michigan, Police Department frequently use BWC footage to showcase best practices and areas for improved tactics and decision-making skills.The BWC TTA team developed a Training Guide as a resource for law enforcement agencies seeking to develop or modify their BWC training programs. The guide provides police instructors with a standardized BWC training template that includes an introduction to issues surrounding the development of BWCs, BWC specifications and operations (which vary by vendor), key issues in policy and practice, and topics related to agency accountability.
Agencies should also consider including community representatives in these training sessions or conducting separate training sessions for the media and public. Not only will these sessions encourage transparency and community buy-in, they will also serve as a means for the public to get an up-close look at how police use BWCs in the field.
Featured webinar: A Spotlight on BWCs and Training. Click here to view the webinar
6. Engage with a research partner.
Though working with a research partner is not a PIP requirement, many funded agencies have engaged with research entities to conduct process evaluations, impact evaluations, or both. Research partners can be a valuable resource during program planning, implementation, and ongoing program management. They can also independently and rigorously assess the BWC program.
Finally, BWC PIP agencies stress the importance of auditing BWC footage. Once BWCs are deployed, agencies should periodically review and audit videos to ensuring officers use BWCs according to departmental policy. BWC footage can also be used to evaluate performance, highlight training opportunities, and identify areas for department-wide policy and procedure changes.
Featured webinar: Considering The Issues Around Assessing Officer Compliance. Click here to view the webinar
Recent years have seen a number of new research studies addressing the effects of body-worn cameras (BWCs). Several of these studies implemented randomized controlled designs, the strongest designs available to detect the effect of BWCs with high confidence. Under randomized designs, researchers randomly assign an intervention (in this case, BWCs) to a treatment group of officers (those with BWCs) and a control group of officers (those without BWCs). If they implement the randomization correctly, then there is no real difference between the treatment and control groups, except that one received the intervention (BWCs) and the other did not. As a result, we can confidently attribute any observed differences in the outcomes of interest between these two groups to BWCs.
Somewhat vexing is the fact that these rigorous studies have produced different findings. For example, a study in Rialto, California, found dramatic reductions in use of force incidents and complaints against officers after the introduction of BWCs.  Other studies in Mesa, Arizona ; Orlando, Florida ; Phoenix, Arizona ; and Spokane, Washington  produced similar findings regarding the direction of the influence of BWCs—use of force incidents and complaints were reduced—but the reductions were not so dramatic. These studies also found positive outcomes regarding citizen approval of BWCs and positive effects of BWCs on citizen views of police legitimacy. More recently, other studies produced different findings. A study in the United Kingdom found increases in assaults on officers wearing BWCs , and a recent study of BWCs in the Metropolitan Washington, DC, Police Department  found no differences between treatment and control groups regarding use of force incidents and complaints against police.
What are policy-makers and practitioners to make of these different findings, and why do rigorous scientific research designs produce such different findings? Here we provide some suggestions for how to interpret the recent findings on the effects of BWCs. We focus on three important issues: jurisdictional differences in context, contamination in randomized studies, and compliance with BWC policies.
Jurisdictional differences. Rigorous studies of BWCs do not always arrive at the same conclusions about the effects of BWCs because real differences exist among jurisdictions. Simply put, the implementation of BWCs is likely to be different in Rialto, California, and Washington, DC—the communities are different, the histories of police-civilian relationships are different, and the actual implementation of BWCs in each agency might have been different. For example, the implementation of BWCs in Washington, DC occurred after several years of scrutiny and improvements in police operations under a consent decree. This was not the case in Rialto. Thus, it is reasonable to expect more dramatic changes in police-civilian relations after the implementation of BWCs in Rialto than in Washington, where good relations may have already existed. If the baseline frequency of use of force incidents and complaints against police are low at the outset of an experiment with BWCs, large reductions after BWC implementation are less likely.
Contamination. One concern with randomized experiments is the contamination issue, which occurs when members of a control group become exposed to the treatment group intervention such that their behavior becomes more like the members of the treatment group. In the case of BWC experiments, if control group (non-camera-wearing) officers are frequently exposed to treatment group (camera-wearing) officers, the control officers will likely react to the presence of the BWCs and act more like they are wearing BWCs themselves. This occurs, for example, when a camera-wearing and a non-camera-wearing officer arrive at the location of the same call for service. In this instance, the non-camera-wearing officer, if he or she notices the camera-wearing officer (or if the camera-wearing officer lets the other officer know a camera is present), may change his or her behavior during the incident. If such contamination happens often, the conditions of the experiment—separation of the treatment and control group—are lost or diminished, and differences between treatment and control groups will be less likely. In the case of a recent randomized BWC study in Las Vegas, Nevada , researchers determined that contamination between treatment and control officers occurred less than 20 percent of the time, and they found significant differences between the groups. In the Washington, DC study, in which differences between treatment and control officers were not found, researchers reported up to 70 percent contamination. Thus, contamination is an important factor to consider when reviewing research results.
Policy compliance. Another important factor to consider when reviewing BWC research results is policy compliance. BWC policies typically provide guidance to officers on when to activate and when to deactivate BWCs, and whether officers are required to (or advised to) inform civilians that the incident is being recorded. If officers are required to turn their cameras on at certain times and notify civilians of the BWC, and they do not do so on regular basis, then there is a noncompliance issue—officers are not routinely following policy. If officers are noncompliant with BWC policy a majority of the time, the conditions of the experiment are again weakened. Either the camera is not operating, or the civilians do not know the camera is present, or both, in which case the hypothesized “civilizing” effect of the camera is negated. Thus, it is possible to implement an experiment with good randomization between treatment and control groups, and low contamination, but lose the desired effects of the cameras as a result of compliance problems. In our work with BWC technical assistance and through our involvement with BWC research, we have seen wide differences in BWC compliance in different jurisdictions— ranging from less than 40 percent compliance in one, to over 90 percent compliance in another. Recently, the Metropolitan Washington, DC, Police Department reported a compliance rate of approximately 65 percent for BWC activation. This too may have contributed to the finding of no differences between treatment and control groups in that study.
We have illustrated several important features of BWC programs and BWC research projects that readers and research consumers should keep in mind when interpreting BWC research results: jurisdictional differences, contamination issues, and compliance issues. To be sure, these are not simple, clear-cut issues. It is possible to have low contamination or low compliance and still find no differences between treatment and control officers, and it is possible to have high contamination and still find differences between treatment and control officers. Even if these factors are well managed and controlled for in BWC research, it is possible that jurisdictional differences (e.g., different use of force and complaint baselines) will drive the research results.
Complexities such as these make clear the need for replication in the sciences. Studies must be done repeatedly under different conditions in different jurisdictions to amass a large body of scientific evidence on which to base decisions and judgements. BWC research has not yet reached this point, though the limited body of evidence in existence points to the conclusion that BWCs are beneficial to the police and their communities. Still, research and analysis must continue, with strong scrutiny of the results, to sort out these confounding issues.
 Ariel, Barak, Tony Farrar, and Alex Sutherland, “The Effect of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Use of Force and Citizens’ Complaints Against the Police: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 31(2015): 1–27.
 Mesa Police Department, On-Officer Body Camera System: Program Evaluation and Recommendations (Mesa, AZ: Mesa Police Department, 2013)
 Jennings, Wesley G., Mathew D. Lynch, and Lorie Fridell, “Evaluating the impact of police officer body-worn cameras (BWCs) on response-to-resistance and serious external complaints: Evidence from the Orlando Police Department (OPD) experience utilizing a randomized controlled experiment,” Journal of Criminal Justice 43 (2015): 480–486.
 Hedberg, Eric C., Charles M. Katz, and David E. Choate, “Body-worn cameras and citizen interactions with police officers: Estimating plausible effects given varying compliance levels,” Justice Quarterly 34 (2017): 627-651
 White, Michael D., Gaub, Janne E., & Todak, Natalie, “Exploring the potential for body-worn cameras
to reduce violence in police-citizen encounters” (forthcoming), Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, doi:10.1093/police/paw057.
 Ariel, Barak, Alex Sutherland, Darren Henstock, Josh Young, Paul Drover, Jayne Sykes, Simon Magicks, and Ryan Henderson, “Wearing Body-Cameras Increases Assaults Against Officers and Do Not Reduce Police-Use of Force: Results from a Global Multisite Experiment,” European Journal of Criminology 13a (2016): 744-755.
 Yokum, David, Anita Ravishankar, and Alexander Coppock, “Evaluating the Effects of Police Body Worn Cameras: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” The Lab @ DC, Office of the City Administrator, Executive Office of the Mayor, Washington, DC, October 20, 2017.
 Sousa, William, James R. Coldren Jr., Denise Rodriguez, and Anthony A. Braga, “Research on Body Worn Cameras: Meeting the Challenges of Police Operations, Program Implementation, and Randomized Controlled Trial Designs,” Police Quarterly 0(0): 1–22.
 Office of Police Complaints, “Annual Report 2017,” Government of the District of Columbia, Police Complaints Board, 18-19.
This commentary represents a compilation of the thoughts and suggestions of a number of individuals involved in body-worn camera research and technical assistance, including the following: Michael White, PhD, Arizona State University; John D. Markovic, Bureau of Justice Assistance; Brett Chapman, PhD, National Institute of Justice; Denise Rodriguez, CNA; Craig Uchida, PhD, Justice and Security Strategies; and Anthony Braga, PhD, Northeastern University, among others.
Police cruisers across America; showcase such popular catch phrases as, “To Protect and To Serve” or, “Serving Our Community”. Perhaps replacing these phrases with a more tangible creed would be appropriate, such as, “Transparency, Accountability, and Officer Compliance.” With departments racing to outfit their officers with body worn camera’s (BWCs), there are not only concerns about transparency, accountability and officer compliance but also funding, training and policy. The question commonly asked is, “Is it worth it or not?” In the meantime, BWCs are being deployed to police departments all over the world. Dealing with the topics of transparency, accountability, and officer compliance should start with a sound policy. Almost every department deploying BWCs has a policy in place, primarily to tell the officers what they are allowed and not allowed to do regarding BWCs. The policies inform officers when they must activate, deactivate, mute, and so on. There are consequences for those who do not follow the rules, whether or not non-compliance is deliberate. Individual departmental policies vary considerable regarding the types of events where cameras shall or must be activated or deactivated. Clarity is important, but policies cannot anticipate every conceivable circumstance. So what happens when officers enter ambiguous situations that BWC policies do not address explicitly?
Keep Calm and Remember Your Training
Compliance begins with training and training should include a good mix of policy, state and Federal laws, and hands-on practice with the camera technology. It is critical that officers understand the importance of the BWC and why it is being used. Officers being taught BWC policy and laws will quickly learn what they can and cannot do under routine circumstances. Policy should address protocols such as; how and when to use the BWC, what to do when there is a malfunction or loss and what types of events to record. Each department will fine tune its own policies according to what works best for the communities its officers serve. Officers should also be trained on what their rights are when complaints or allegations arise regarding the use of BWCs. If a department has officers who work off-duty jobs regularly, the regulations regarding off-duty job should be clearly outlined as well. Hands on scenario training and written tests, can help determine whether the officer fully understands the BWC policy.
A Manager says, “Go”, A Leader says, “Let’s Go”
A well-trained and knowledgeable supervisor can help settle officers’ uneasiness regarding BWCs. Supervisors should be trained in the same manner as their officers, and should use discretion regarding minor noncompliance issues involving their officers. If it is determined that a willful and serious compliance violation has occurred, then the appropriate punishment should be administered as per departmental policy. For example, an officer loses his BWC during a foot chase and waits several weeks to report the loss, continuing his duties without a BWC. This could have serious repercussions for the officer and the department. Supervisors play a very important role in making sure that their Officers are in compliance and more important, that they stay in compliance.
Houston We Have a Problem
During a recent training exercise, an officer asked a question regarding accountability: “When I pull my firearm, my hands and forearms are in the way of the BWC and you are unable to see the video clearly. Do I move the BWC or my hands?” The very act of asking this question (though no questioning should be discouraged) could indicate a compromise of officer safety. Officer safety always comes first-so in this case, don’t worry about the camera. Is this a compliance issue? I suggest that it is definitely not. If an officer is approached by a member of the community in a non-threatening manner that quickly turns violent, the officer doesn’t have time to turn on the BWC, so this should not be a compliance violation. Policy should reflect that encounters such as these may happen. In the event of such an occurrence, officers and supervisors should have the confidence and understanding that it will not be considered a compliance violation. Some states such as Texas-in Senate Bill 158, allow that an officer may deactivate the BWC during any non-confrontational encounter with a person. For accountability purposes, the officer is required to document why he or she did not activate the BWC, for accountability. According to Senate Bill 158, justification for failing to activate includes “unsafe, unrealistic, or impracticable” circumstances. Senate Bill 158 also adds that officers are not required to keep the BWC activated for an entire shift, giving the officer some down time for personal reliefs and breaks. The law allows officers to access any recording of an incident involving the officer before a statement is given. Officer discretion pertaining to activation can be complicated and must be clearly outlined with a strong policy and/or laws, this can help towards a healthier work environment for officers to feel like they have rights too. Most situations happen with less than a moment’s notice, and officers need to know that they are not bound by impossible expectations but, protected by clear and concise BWC policies.
Let there be light
Some people feel an obligation to question every decision an officer makes, causing the officer to question himself. Sometimes, the reason for a decision comes down to “You just had to be there.” Officers are human, they make mistakes. By eliminating as much of the gray as possible, through sound policy and training, confidence in the BWC is boosted, willingness to comply increases and the ability to be in and stay in compliance is achievable. Officers want to serve the community they work and live in. Citizens want to trust and respect the officers they hired to do the job.
Following the intense public scrutiny of law enforcement since the summer of 2014, community members, politicians, and police executives alike have called for the adoption of body-worn camera (BWC) systems. There have been a variety of reasons offered in support of body-worn cameras, all of which coalesce around advancing three potential benefits: a signaling benefit, a behavioral change benefit, and a documentation benefit. Agencies and executives that are considering or implementing BWC programs may want to contemplate how different policies and procedures will advance or undermine thes
The recent review of the evidence supporting Pillar 3 Recommendations in the final report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing raises several important issues related to police body-worn cameras (BWCs). The first issue involves the small but rapidly growing body of research on police. When the President’s Task Force final report was released in May 2015, there were only a handful of studies available that empirically assessed the impact of police BWCs. In the last 18 months, law enforcement leaders and researchers have collaborated to quickly advance the knowledge base on BWCs. In that time a number of important studies have been published and dozens more are underway. This research has identified a number of important themes.
For example, the research has consistently shown that officers are generally supportive of BWCs, and their support increases after they begin wearing the cameras (Gaub et al., 2016; Jennings et al., 2014). Research also suggests that citizen support for BWCs is high—among both the general population (Sousa et al., 2015) and citizens who interact with police and have those interactions recorded (White et al., 2016a; 2016b). Several studies have also documented the evidentary value of BWCs for criminal cases (Owens et al., 2014; Morrow et al., 2016). Much of the research has also focused on the impact of BWCs on citizen complaints against officers and the use of force. Though there are mixed findings regarding the impact of BWCs on force and complaints, the weight of the available evidence documenting positive effects is persuasive (Ariel et al., 2015; Hedberg et al., 2016; Jennings et al. 2015; Mesa Police Department, 2013). In sum, our understanding of the potential impact of BWCs has advanced considerably in a short period of time.
The second important issue raised in the recent “Evidence-Assessment” report involves the cost and complexity of implementing a BWC program, as well as the attendant wide range of factors that come into play. A BWC program has implications for nearly every unit in a police department, civilian and sworn. State law, the local political environment, the internal police culture, and the nature of the police-community relationship all affect the implementation and healthy functioning of a BWC program. As a consequence, the impact of a BWC program may vary considerably across agencies. Did the agency engage in a deliberate, collaborative planning process? Does the agency have a clear and comprehensive administrative policy? Does the agency monitor officer compliance with administrative policy? Has the city and agency leadership accounted for the ongoing costs associated with management of the BWC program? Do citizens support the deployment of BWCs in their jurisdiction? Will changes in the local political climate affect support for the BWC program? Answers to all of these questions likely affect the impact and consequences of a BWC program, and it is clear there are many important questions left to explore.
Nevertheless, our knowledge regarding BWCs has progressed at a very impressive rate. We know much more now than we did 18 months ago, when the final report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing was released. And given the considerable resources and expertise marshaled by the U.S. Department of Justice, local law enforcement agencies, and policing researchers from the U.S. and abroad, I have no doubt our understanding of BWCs and their impact will continue to grow at an exponential rate.
A recent study published by the University of Cambridge, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, RAND, and several active-duty police officers in the journal Criminal Justice and Behavior suggests that equipping frontline officers with body-worn cameras (BWCs) could lead to dramat
Concerns about racial disparity in police actions have prompted a large number of responses from governmental, advocacy, and police groups. Various reports have documented such disparities in the patterns of traffic stops, stop and frisk searches, arrests, officer-involved shootings, and deaths in custody. Efforts to understand and respond to the apparent disparities in how minority citizens are treated by the police have taken many forms. Motivated in part by the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing report, body-worn cameras (BWCs) have assumed a primary role in efforts to build bridges between the police and the community. Funding made available by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) in 2015 to 73 law enforcement agencies (with additional funds made available in 2016) to support the purchase and implementation of body-worn cameras has hastened the spread of this technology. The use of BWCs has been supported by the Bureau of Justice Assistance BWC Toolkit, developed by Dr. Charles M. Katz and Dr. Michael D. White, as well as a larger set of resources available at the BJA website. In addition, there is a weekly BWC newsletter that is part of a broader Training and Technical Assistance effort on the part of the Bureau of Justice Assistance.
An explicit focus on the growing use of BWC by law enforcement is to increase transparency and thereby enhance police accountability to the public. One salient aspect of such an approach is the desire to reduce disparities in the treatment of citizens by the police. Implicit in this approach is the idea that most police–citizen encounters do not reflect bias.