Inview Training

In View From the Field – Camden County, New Jersey, Police Department

The Camden County, New Jersey, Police Department began its body-worn camera (BWC) program in 2015 with a pilot program. Camden County received its first Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) BWC Policy and Implementation (PIP) grant in 2016 and a second BWC grant in 2017. The agency employs around 650 employees, including 450 sworn officers, and is responsible for providing preventive and reactive policing services for the residents of Camden City, which covers 8.9 square miles and serves a population of 78,000.

Optimizing the use and benefits of BWCs with refresher training

A study by the Arizona State University (ASU) Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety published in March 2020 reported that only 34 percent of law enforcement agencies receiving funding through the Bureau of Justice Assistance Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation program provide refresher training for their personnel on the use of BWCs.[1] However, a 2015 survey of agencies that had implemented BWCs demonstrated that officers desire and are in need of r

Audits and Compliance Reviews Can Strengthen Body-Worn Camera Programs

The rapid rollout of body-worn cameras (BWCs) by agencies across the country has been unlike the adoption of any other technology in the history of law enforcement. Societal demand for increased accountability and transparency drove the rollout. Many departments are now hitting full stride with their BWC programs and some are experiencing challenges.

In View: How to Manage the Implementation of your Body-Worn Camera (BWC) Deployment and Improve Outcomes

 

You have written your policy, you have selected your camera vendor, and you have trained your officers and deployed your cameras. Now what? Will your agency’s deployment be successful? Do you know if it was worth all the time, effort, and resources? Are you able to point out successes to your community and local officials? Are you able to identify challenges and develop solutions? Can you assess implementation progress and improve outcomes to make the deployment more valuable to your agency, your officers, and your community?

In View Commentary: Establishing Officer BWC Buy-In

As the implementation of body-worn cameras (BWCs) continues in police agencies across the country, there appears to be an increase in acceptance of—and, in many cases, demand for—the technology by officers. Police recognize that BWC technology is here to stay and a majority of communities expect their police departments to adopt them. Still, officers and agencies do not uniformly embrace BWCs. Some officers do not readily “buy-in” to the need for and benefits of BWCs. This In View provides the perspectives of two BWC subject experts who come from different backgrounds—one a former police supervisor and one a current police sergeant.

Our Perspectives 

Many police officers feel that the recent climate and attitudes towards the police have changed because of highly publicized, controversial use of force incidents around the country. Police officers currently carry (and must be proficient with), far more equipment than they did just 20 years ago. BWCs represent another tool that a growing number of officers are now required to carry—one that some officers prefer not to have. Some officers feel that the current push for BWCs stems not necessarily from a goal of helping them to do their jobs better but a means to surveil how they do their jobs. It is important to understand how some officers may view BWCs only as a mechanism for supervisors (and others) to scrutinize their actions and look for bad behavior or policy violations (that would go undetected when not wearing a BWC). While these concerns are real, BWCs provide many benefits. BWCs are quite possibly one of the most beneficial tools that officers can have. Departments should recognize that while officers typically view a new piece of equipment (such as an electronic stun device) as helping them with their tactics and safety, some officers could have a different perspective when required to wear a BWC. One can argue that if BWCs had been introduced to policing at a time when societal support and understanding were more positive, all officers would have more readily embraced them. 

Whether you are a chief, a supervisor, or an officer, if you examine all the potential benefits associated with BWCs, it becomes difficult to understand why officers would not want to wear them. Some benefits include the following:

  • Officer safety
    • The presence and recognition of a BWC can influence and moderate civilian and suspect behavior.
  • Improvements and enhancements to training and teaching (internally and externally)
    • Use of force – Provides an additional opportunity to examine how force was used and if it was effective. BWCs also provide the ability to examine and discuss if other options may have been applicable.
    • Tactics – Ability to review and promote best practices with tactics for specific situations.
    • Communication – Ability to utilize footage to demonstrate effective communication approaches. Also, promotes how officer communication can de-escalate situations and provides a perspective on the officer’s demeanor and verbal skills.
  • Evidentiary value and benefits
    • Mechanism to support officer’s probable cause, and enhance prosecution charging decisions and the ability to show juries what occurred.
  • Transparency – The opportunity to proactively demonstrate good police work that media may not recognize.
    • Footage can show the vast complexities of the job and illustrate the nuances of everyday decision-making.
    • Footage can show how officers use discretion under varying, often complex, scenarios.
    • Multiple BWCs at a scene can show footage from different angles to demonstrate alternative viewpoints.
  • Positive impact on complaints
    •  There are many examples in which citizens made complaints against officers and the BWC footage supported the officers’ actions. Typically, the complaint ends immediately without a prolonged, stressful internal investigation.
  • Accountability
    • BWCs provide a mechanism to not only promote good police work but to identify those who need retraining or who should be disciplined (or fired).
    • Random audits can improve police-community relationships by demonstrating the willingness to hold officers accountable.

It is unfair to paint all police with the same brush when a very small percentage of officers engage in inappropriate conduct. However, this is the world police officers live in, and we hope that officers will accept BWCs as a mechanism for demonstrating the good work that they do every day. We believe that BWC implementation will bring with it strong emotional reactions from officers. BWCs are a means to demonstrate the vast decision-making responsibilities and discretion that officers exercise and provide the ability to challenge potential misconceptions relating to abuse of power allegations.

A supervisor’s role is to help officers succeed and improve. Chiefs, command staff, and supervisors should not just communicate and engage with their officers on why the department is choosing to establish a BWC program; they should provide officers and their unions the opportunity to contribute to the implementation and policy development. Departments and officers can collaborate on issues such as officer privacy concerns and supervisor review of footage, following the example of the Greensboro, North Carolina, Police Department and many other departments. When possible, supervisors should explain research on BWCs to officers so they understand the empirical outcomes of implementing a BWC program. Supervisors should communicate all the potential benefits and limitations of BWCs to the officers, and work to empower them to own and support the program. The development of this shared responsibility should be an ongoing process. Supervisors need supervision as well, and BWC policy needs to be clear on when and how supervisors will review the footage. Arbitrary retroactive review of BWC cannot be allowed once BWC footage has been reviewed through the proper channels.  For example, organizations should think about “double jeopardy” policies for BWC footage: once one member of the chain of command reviews BWC footage and deems it an appropriate use of force or appropriate use of courtesy, another member of the chain of command cannot review the footage and come to a different disciplinary outcome. These types of missteps in policy application reduce officer buy-in and weaken trust. Officers should be confident that once their BWC footage has been reviewed by their chain of command and internal affairs, a change in rank structure six months later will not reverse the previous decision. Leaders must apply fairness, common sense, and reasonableness when using BWC footage to train or discipline officers.

Finally, agencies should be cautious about devoting too much attention to officer “buy-in.” We have all heard the colloquialism that officers only hate two things, “change and the way things are.” It is human nature to resist change. Being forced to acquire a new skill is difficult. Buying in may come hard for some and it may not occur until the technology benefits the individual in a tangible way, such as having a complaint dismissed or the video being pivotal evidence in a court case. Until then, supervisors should ensure compliance with BWC policy through regular oversight, informally at first but more formally if noncompliance persists. An authoritarian approach will not help with buy-in, but following up on calls, checking to ensure officers turned on BWCs when they were required to, or complimenting officers on a job well done will go a long way to reinforce the use of BWCs during their daily routines. This is the key point—once a technology has been adopted into an officer’s daily routine, buy-in becomes a moot point; officers no longer think about the technology’s effect on their job, because it is just a part of their daily routine. Change is difficult and individual buy-in assists with organizational change. Officers in Chicago, Illinois protested new uniforms, equating them to milk delivery uniforms. Now officers take pride in their uniforms, wearing full regalia to promotional ceremonies. However, line officer buy-in is not always the only answer: good supervision and leadership go a long way, too.

 

In View from the Field: Regional Justice Information Service (REJIS)

The Regional Justice Information Service (REJIS) received a FY 2017 Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Body-Worn Camera (BWC) Policy and Implementation Program (PIP) grant on behalf of eight law enforcement agencies in the St. Louis metropolitan area. REJIS is an Information Technology (IT) firm that serves government agencies, with a heavy focus on police departments. REJIS primarily serves police departments, courts, and jails in the St. Louis area; it also works with agencies spanning Missouri and Illinois. The eight agencies involved in the PIP grant were all prior REJIS customers in the St. Louis area; the departments range in size from 16 to 49 officers. The group includes municipal police departments and one university police department: Bellefontaine Neighbors Police Department, Brentwood Police Department, Bridgeton Police Department, Clayton Police Department, Moline Acres Police Department, Richmond Heights Police Department, Town and County Police Department, and the University of Missouri-St. Louis (UMSL) Police Department. Bellefontaine Neighbors Police Department, led by Chief Ihler, is partnering with REJIS to take a lead role in this effort.

Planning

To build the regional group, REJIS surveyed law enforcement agencies that were already a part of the REJIS network about their interest in participating in a regional BWC program. REJIS representatives also spoke with city administration officials, chief executives, participating agency chiefs, and county prosecutors to ensure they had a firm understanding of the timeline and the expectations of BWC group participants. REJIS created a memorandum of understanding with prosecutors to facilitate a smooth working relationship. REJIS analyst Joseph Durso and Bellefonte Neighbors Police Department Chief Jeremy Ihler both stress the importance of ensuring stakeholders clearly understand BWC expectations and how the program works.

After identifying participating agencies, REJIS focused on identifying champions in each department and maintaining communication. Representatives host monthly in-person meetings with all of the participating police departments. These meetings help keep information fresh and people engaged. REJIS scheduled its monthly meetings to coincide with the existing St. Louis Area Police Chiefs Association (SLAPCA) meetings, resulting in nearly perfect attendance. In addition to communicating with each other, participating agencies needed to engage with their community members. REJIS analyst Joe Durso noted that it is difficult to ensure that participating departments are communicating sufficiently with the community and that it was important for REJIS to encourage communication strategies and offer support and guidance. One effective strategy was taking advantage of existing communication pathways. For example, student government groups already exist at UMSL; University Police representatives went to those groups to present on BWCs and request community (student) input. They also encouraged the student government group to disseminate information about the department’s BWC implementation throughout campus. Other agencies took the same approach with existing public relations committees and law enforcement technology committees. REJIS also partnered with the St. Louis Dispatch newspaper. A reporter wrote an article covering the BWC procurement and deployment process and plans to write additional articles about the effort as REJIS progresses.

Policy Development

Bellefontaine Neighbors Police Department Chief Ihler developed a template policy using a variety of sources, including the BWC Training and Technical Assistance (TTA) Scorecard guidelines, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) model policy, and other Missouri law enforcement BWC policies. Chief Ihler noted that the BWC PIP Scorecard process is similar to an accreditation process and suggested that agencies have an accreditation or certification manager involved in policy development. Once the template policy was developed, other participating agencies had the option of using and modifying the policy or developing their own. To ensure coordination and consistency, REJIS staff participated in all policy review phone calls with each agency’s BWC TTA team. This policy development process allows for flexibility between agencies with differing needs while also encouraging consistency, which mitigates liability concerns.

Procurement and Storage

REJIS was less flexible when it came to storage and purchasing. REJIS opted for one vendor, shared onsite storage for all agencies at a centralized data center, and used an existing network to connect each department. Participating in the regional BWC implementation process meant maintaining consistent back-end support. REJIS wanted all agencies to share the same software to avoid redundant or unforeseen technical support costs down the road. Additionally, a shared RFP puts the group in a good negotiating position and allows for economies of scale with purchase. While there are financial benefits to choosing one vendor and storage solution, it requires all participating agencies to agree on one vendor. To relieve tensions around the choice of any particular vendor, REJIS focused on garnering buy-in and being very transparent about the process from the start. REJIS involved the departments in the vendor selection process from the beginning and sought input at every turn. This collaboration was more work at the outset but it guaranteed all agencies would accept the eventual shared vendor choice. REJIS was also clear and upfront about what it could not guarantee. For example, many participating agencies wanted BWCs that would fully integrate with in-car cameras, but there is no single solution that can integrate with all of the agencies’ in-car cameras. REJIS was very clear that the chosen vendor might integrate with an agency’s in-car cameras, but that there are no guarantees.

For the procurement process, REJIS used a modified version of the TTA Request for Proposal (RFP) template provided by the BWC TTA website. REJIS solicited feedback on the RFP from all participating agencies before releasing it. The regional group is currently reviewing proposals and deciding on potential vendors for a field test. Once agencies start testing devices, they will make sure all officers are trained on how to use them. This requirement applies to the officers wearing cameras as well as management staff.

Conclusion

A regional approach to BWC procurement and implementation can mean more work in the early stages of implementation, but it also provides a host of benefits. In terms of procurement, a group of agencies is in a better position to negotiate with vendors than a single agency. Working as a group also helps facilitate regional consistency, a definite plus for prosecutors. Inconsistencies in how agencies use BWCs and release of BWC footage can create problems for prosecution and public perception. In the court system, these discrepancies can be used to argue that BWC use in one agency is inequitable in comparison to another, hence evidence of systemic inequality. The same concept applies to the media and public perception. Regional consistency can safeguard against these liabilities. One of the biggest benefits of a regional approach to BWC procurement and implementation is information sharing. The REJIS group included some agencies that were already looking into BWCs. Agencies that were new to the process benefited from their peers’ experiences. All of the agencies benefit from peer learning and the subject expertise within each agency. For any questions or to be put in contact with REJIS, please reach out to BWCTTA@cna.org.

In View Commentary: The Importance of Developing Your Own BWC Training

Police officers tend to have a love/hate relationship with training. Announce that there will be an Active Shooter Scenario-Based Tactical Training, and some will be giddy while others will dread it. The same goes for pursuit training, firearms training, emergency vehicle operations, investigations, and other training opportunities. One consistent response that I have seen in my policing career is that officers will demonstrate universal contempt for anything related to “policy updates” or “new technology” trainings. Many agencies who have been involved with the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s (BJA’s) Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program (BWC PIP) will routinely note that when they began their process, they did not completely appreciate or understand the complexities and dynamics of BWCs or the need to establish a customized training approach. BWCs are far more than just a new piece of equipment, and the steps of BWC implementation (including the initial decision to explore BWCs, policy development, community outreach, procurement, and implementation) can prove quite challenging to your agency.

BWCs receive a great deal of attention and expectation within our current national climate. New radios or other police equipment typically have impacts on internal factors such as officer safety, improved tactics, and information sharing; however, BWCs have much broader implications related to:

  • Officer Safety
  • Evidence
  • Public Trust and Expectations
  • Department Transparency
  • Officer and Public Accountability
  • Information Technology
  • Public Education
  • Internal Education
  • Complaints and Discipline
  • Use of Force
  • Lawsuits
  • Public Relations

Introducing a BWC program to your organization and community is complex, which is why it is important to establish comprehensive, effective, and customized training for your agency, your officers, your criminal justice partners, the media, and the public. Every police agency has challenges and limited resources that are unique to their communities and organizations. Police departments design and develop customized trainings and procedures for their officers covering a wide range of topics, including violent crime strategies, community policing, evidence collection, use of force decision-making, investigations, etc. It is equally important for agencies to design and develop their own BWC curricula based on their needs and capacities.

There are more than 50 BWC vendors, and many provide agencies with training upon the purchase of their BWC product. Vendor training is a good starting point, but it is only a start. Training by vendors is usually limited to operation of the equipment including review of technical capacities, how to turn device on and off, and how to dock and upload data. Vendors generally provide one size-fits-all training specific to their product, they do not individualize training to address agency BWC policy or compliance processes. Vendors also will not address how an agency’s BWC policy and practice will affect most of the factors mentioned in the bullet points above (e.g., use of force or public trust).  


For these reasons, agencies should supplement the vendor training with their own BWC training. Some agencies elect to do online training, others choose incorporate on-site training, and some do both. Medium and large agencies often have the luxury to assign their training team to develop and conduct BWC training. Smaller agencies may not have the capacity to do this and often simply rely on the training provided by vendors. While recognizing the value of vendor training, this article highlights the benefits of police departments supplementing it with a customized BWC training built around their individual policies, needs, and capacities. 


The benefits of scenario-based training are widely recognized in policing. Classroom training is important, but actual hands-on situational training resonates with officers, especially for situations in which they must multitask under stress. Some agencies have customized their trainings to incorporate BWC activation and notification into other scenario-based trainings, such as tactics and professional communications. Some agencies have built BWCs into all of their Fire Arms Training Simulator (FATS) trainings. Officers know that repetition builds muscle memory and consistency. Captain Craig Burgess, from the BWC PIP site in Aiken, South Carolina, notes that their officers are trained and directed to activate their BWC upon receiving the call for service, which has become routine for them. This approach gives the officers one less thing to do when rolling up on a scene.


Training should also emphasize key elements of the agency’s BWC policy. When should officers activate the BWC? Under what conditions are they permitted to deactivate? How should an officer handle citizen requests for deactivation? Are officers required to notify the citizen of the recording? Scenario-based training can be an effective method for conveying key aspects of BWC policy and having officers develop habit under realistic training scenarios.


The BWC PIP program has enabled many agencies to network with and learn best practices from multiple departments. Below are some takeaways on the benefits of having your own BWC training approach for your agency.

Potential Benefits in Establishing Your Own BWC Training

  • Ability to identify and design the training objectives that are specific to your agency
    • Explain the department’s goals for the BWC program
    • Tailor training from pre-service to in-service
    • Increase policy adherence and accountability
    • Incorporate unique considerations for specialized units (SWAT, school officers, etc.)
    • Integrate prosecutors into the training
    • Promote awareness among your officers of your community’s expectations and concerns regarding BWCs
  • Create training feedback loops
    • Obtain direct, candid, and on-going feedback from your officers and prosecutors
      • Adjust the training when needed
      • Utilize your own footage for future training examples
  • Establish department “subject experts” to conduct the BWC trainings
    • Create an embedded resource for the department
    • Participate in “Train the Trainer” opportunities, especially for Regional Approaches with BWCs
    • Develop a mechanism for remedial training if needed
    • Assign the training experts to be “BWC Public Information Officers” for external inquires or education and for courtroom testimony
  • Increase awareness of your department’s technical capabilities and limitations
  • Integrate BWC training with other trainings, such as scenario-based tactical trainings
    • Reinforce BWC activation through muscle memory under stressful conditions
    • Train officers to use BWCs as a tool to tell the story on calls when appropriate
  • Plan for adaptability and sustainability
    • Update your training when BWC technology changes
    • Utilize your established training curriculum for new officers or lateral hires transitioning

In View: Body-Worn Camera Compliance

When police officers hear or read the word, “compliance” as it relates to policy, what often comes to mind is, “what do I have to do to avoid getting into trouble?” For various reasons, compliance appears to be somewhat more challenging for police agencies when it comes to their body-worn camera (BWC) programs. We are all learning that introducing BWCs entails much more than just providing officers a new technology. Numerous challenges and dynamics present themselves when agencies implement their BWCs, including costs, storage, community expectations, officer concerns, coordinating with prosecutors, and ensuring organizational compliance to policy, to name a few.

The policing profession receives a great deal of public scrutiny and input from various sources regarding expectations for behavior and conduct. Despite some public and media narratives, in my experience, police officers overwhelmingly want to “get it right” when it comes to appropriate conduct. The reality is that there are few, if any, other professions that provide such detailed, prescribed, and mandated rules and regulations (policy) for how their employees must behave while also outlining the consequences for failing to behave appropriately. Despite some perceptions, the law enforcement profession has a tremendous amount of checks and balances in place for accountability. More and more agencies recognize that BWCs provide a platform for demonstrating this responsibility. We are finding that while officers were once skeptical or resistant to wearing BWCs, those same officers now insist on having them as part of their everyday toolkit. An FY 2015 Bureau of Justice Assistance  BWC Policy and Implementation Project (PIP) site notes that it has seen significant changes, with officers embracing—and now even demanding—BWCs, leading to improvements with organizational compliance. The site even goes as far as having its dispatchers verbally remind the officers to activate their BWCs when they arrive on scene to a call to help ensure higher rates of compliance.

 Compliance with policy is needed for several reasons, including the following:

  1. Provide a clear understanding of the organization’s expectations for the officers behavior
  2. Demonstrate to the community that police are accountable, and have specific rules and guidelines that they must follow in order not to abuse the powers that they possess
  3. Help officers navigate all the tasks, responsibilities, and complexities they face with the support of their department

Throughout the first three years of the BWC PIP grant program, agencies continued to identify the topic of compliance as complex and challenging for their BWC programs. 

SOUND AND PROMISING PRACTICES

As with most policy adherence challenges, BWC compliance can be broken down into several identifiable and influencing factors, including, but not limited to:

  1. Identifying the Issue
  2. Policy 
  3. Training 
  4. Supervision 
  5. Auditing 

Identifying the Issue – As simple as it sounds, it is imperative to determine why officers and staff are not complying with BWC policy before action can be taken to address the issue. Identifying the root causes of and contributors to noncompliance may take some effort and strategy. For example, what are the specific reasons that officers have difficulty complying with (or are unwilling to comply with) such BWC policy components as activation, notification, equipment familiarity, categorization, or storage? The issue may have to do with training, with the way the policy is written, or with equipment problems; it may be self-evident or it may take some digging and outreach to officers.

Policy  – Feedback from numerous sites indicates that the clarity of an agency’s policy may be the most significant contributor to noncompliance. Do not underestimate the importance of establishing a comprehensive policy that is clear, concise, detailed, and very specific to your agency’s capacities. Obtain input and feedback from the ranks on their ability to comprehend and capability to follow the policy requirements. Understand and embrace that a sound policy is fluid and should be receptive to revisions and updates. Also consider that a policy which allows for a great deal of officer discretion will likely result in variations in officer compliance. Finally, consider that BWC policy should be periodically reviewed and updated as necessary, as the technology, related state regulations, and case law are subject to change.

Training  – Inadequate training has been identified as a significant contributor for some agencies who experience BWC compliance issues. Good training practices start off by demonstrating, emphasizing, and reinforcing the importance of BWC policy adherence for both the organization and the individual officer directly from the highest levels of the organization.  Educating your organization that BWCs are more than just “another technology” can be challenging, but we have seen numerous recent national examples where officers and departments were scrutinized, criticized, and disciplined for compliance failure issues related to BWC activation. Training on BWC policy requirements should begin with organizational implementation, include pre-service training, and be reinforced by in-service trainings with periodic and consistent updates. Recognize the value of scenario-based training with BWC activation and build it into pre-service and in-service tactical trainings. This will reinforce muscle memory and BWC activation while under stress. Agencies should also consider the effect of actual BWC video footage as a training aid. Observing colleagues exhibiting positive behavior can have a significant effect on less-experienced officers who may lack confidence but are unwilling to ask for help. 

Supervision  – Chiefs and supervisors should determine whether the officers understand the benefits of having BWCs, decide if noncompliance is related to fear and mistrust of them, and address that mistrust directly by communicating with the officers. Supervisors should also consider the fact that officers may lack confidence to record their actions; this may be connected to a lack of job knowledge. 

In View: BWC Community Education and Creating Reasonable Expectations

As more and more police agencies across the country implement body-worn camera (BWC) programs, many feel that it is just a matter of time before this relatively new technology becomes an expected norm for the police. BWC programs have already demonstrated that implementation and outcome expectations are far more complicated and challenging than initially expected. It is difficult to identify another technology or tool that police have adopted which comes with such heightened public expectations and scrutiny. For example, compared to a department’s introduction of an electronic control device, a new caliber of firearm, or an improved records management system, the public clearly has more significant interest in and expectations of BWCs. However, most of the public and media likely lack a comprehensive understanding and appreciation about the limitations of BWCs. Some in the public who express distrust of the police may hope that BWCs will, “hold the police accountable like never before,” while at the same time there are many police officers who are eager to implement BWCs in hopes that they make clear the daily challenges, responsibilities, and decisions that officers face. Both perspectives are fair and may prove to be correct, and the police are in an excellent position to educate their communities about the complexities and realities of BWCs.

Lessons learned from the Bureau of Justice Assistance BWC Policy and Implementation Program show that some police leaders, in hindsight, wish they had been more assertive in educating their communities and local media about the limitations of BWC footage, as well as the effects on their agencies’ resources from requests for footage. Some departments found that they could have easily curtailed an initial onslaught of media requests for all footage by describing their states’ Freedom of Information Act laws, their departments’ BWC procedures and policies, as well as their agency’s capacities and limitations in responding to requests. Departments around the country have created community and media forums to provide education on use of force, reasonable suspicion, probable cause, traffic stops, and other issues to provide a better understanding of officers’ actions, responsibilities, and decision making. BWCs should be no different. The challenge of police outreach is determining the best means to reach the target audience. Often, police forums and meetings have the same people in the audience over and over again. Police should identify mechanisms and strategies that can effectively reach communities and neighborhoods with people who do not typically attend or respond to police outreach. The following are some suggestions for how to conduct public outreach and education about BWCs.

Police agencies must be prepared to discuss the complexities of their BWC program, even prior to implementation.

“The challenge is that most aren’t adequately informed or prepared to discuss the complexities of a BWC program when they haven’t yet moved in to the technology.” Captain Dan Zehnder, Las Vegas Police, BWC subject matter expert

Considerations for Educating the Community and Media on BWCs

  • Establish a proactive approach to provide your community and media detailed information and expectations about your BWC program.
  • Determine the best approach to reach your intended audiences, including the following examples
    • Social media
    • Police newsletters
    • Press conferences and news releases
    • Radio spots
    • Community forums
    • Directed officer outreach
    • Command staff and officers attend community meetings
  • Develop a specific plan to demonstrate the BWC program’s capabilities and limitations. Some examples include the following:
    • Educate the public that BWC footage will not tell the entire story of every police call.
    • Point out that a citizen viewer of BWC footage may misunderstand the threat or risk of physical harm, and that human nature often results in unfair second guessing and questioning.
    • Point out officers’ training, experience, and knowledge are critical factors in how they approach their calls and that BWC footage does not provide this comprehensive background.
    • Provide examples where BWCs fail due to environmental factors.
      • The camera may not capture an incident due to reasonable situational factors such as limited lighting, becoming dislodged during a confrontation, or mechanical failure. Such a situational failure should not be equated with officer deception or misconduct.
      • Reasonable circumstances, such as an immediate emergency, can contribute to the officer being unable to activate the camera.
    • Clearly describe your policy and procedure for BWC footage requests.
      • Note that privacy considerations should be factored into all releases.
    • Educate the community on your resources and capacity limitations in responding to requests.
      • Mention storage limitations, redaction needs, and personnel limitations.
  • Recognize that watching any officer’s use of force is most likely going to prompt an emotional reaction by viewers—this does not mean the force was unreasonable. It is important to identify and highlight this reality when educating others on viewing footage.
  • Assign an agency go-to BWC subject matter expert (SME). Police have experts in tactics, evidence, investigations, and training; establishing an internal BWC expert can prove equally beneficial.
    • The SME should be available to respond to questions on videos that are released to the public.
  • Identify key stakeholders, such as prosecutors and community leaders, and enlist their support and assistance with community outreach and BWC messaging.
  • Conduct proactive outreach.
    • Develop talking points and answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs). Then incorporate that material into regular civic, community, and neighborhood watch meetings. Target the meetings that generally have large turnouts. By developing the material ahead of time, multiple commanders can handle the same topic with a consistent message at different meetings. 
    • Hold a Facebook town hall meeting so people can learn remotely.
    • The chief or sheriff should make direct outreach with any media in the jurisdiction. This sets a tone of openness and inclusiveness that will eventually make it into the news coverage of BWCs, and this openness will earn good will, which is invaluable during a crisis. The chief or sheriff must be prepared to answer all questions in a productive way and set a collaborative tone.
      • Establish social media forums where citizens can participate in question-and-answer sessions on BWCs.

Police communications expert and former public information officer Laura McElroy recommends identifying and targeting outreach to your most challenging audiences: “Either invite your loudest critics to the department for a discussion or go to them and meet on their turf. This is an important step for showing critics that the agency values their input and wants to work out solutions as a team.”

  • Push out BWC footage that you want the public to see, including the following situations:
    • Officer engagement with community
    • Officer decision-making
    • Officer demonstrating use of force de-escalation
    • Officer solving a crime or arresting dangerous suspects

  • Recognize that BWC outreach needs to be a continuous, ongoing effort.

Conclusion

There are many benefits to being proactive in educating the community and the media about reasonable expectations of BWCs. One of the biggest potential benefits may come when an agency has a significant incident, such as an officer-involved shooting, and its earlier outreach has helped to establish reasonable expectations. This communication can avoid a great deal of confusion, criticism, and stress for both the organization and the community. This article focused on community and media education, but these suggestions also apply to outreach to local government officials.

Resources

Video – Body Worn Cameras Explained

Video – University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee Police

Video - Cleveland Police Seek Public Opinion on Body Worn Cameras

Video - Body Camera Video Shows Sacramento PD De-Escalate Man with Mental Illness

 

In View: Key Trends in Body-Worn Camera Policies

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.
 
 Activation
(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.
 
Deactivation
(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. 
 
Citizen notification
(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.  
 
 
Subscribe to Inview Training