Program Profile: Milwaukee (Wisconsin) Police Department Body-Worn Cameras

This program equips police with on-officer cameras to record their interactions with civilians. The program is rated Ineffective. Camera use had no statistically significant effects on officers’ total number of proactive activities, specifically on the number of traffic stops or business checks, nor on arrests, citizen complaints, and use-of-force incidents. Officers with cameras conducted statistically significantly fewer subject stops, and statistically significantly more park and walks.

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Program Goals/Target Population

The Milwaukee (Wis.) Police Department has faced significant challenges with police–community relations and a lack of public trust, especially in neighborhoods with high rates of poverty and violent crime. Police–community relations were particularly strained in 2014 after a high-profile, police-involved civilian shooting (Peterson et al., 2018). In response to increased scrutiny of police and political pressure, the Milwaukee Police Department developed a body-worn camera policy and rollout plan in mid-2015, and from October 2015 to December 2016 the department equipped all patrol officers with body-worn cameras. The goal of the Milwaukee Police Department’s body-worn camera program is to build community trust in police and increase transparency and accountability by documenting interactions between police and the public.

Program Components

Across four deployment periods from October 2015 to December 2016, the department trained and equipped all 1,100 officers with small cameras that mount on officers’ heads, collars, or shoulders and record audio and video of officers’ interactions with community members (Lawrence, Peterson, and Thompson, 2018). The cameras have a brief buffering period that captures video of the 30 seconds immediately before the officer turns the camera on. No audio is captured during the buffering period.

The department’s current body-worn camera policy, as outlined in the Milwaukee Police Department Standard Operating Procedure (Milwaukee [Wis.] Police Department, 2021), requires officers to wear the cameras “at all times when on duty and performing or likely to perform enforcement duties” (Standard Operating Order 747.25). The policy provides 12 specific examples when officers must activate their cameras when they arrive at the scene or begin investigative or enforcement activities. These are 1) vehicle stops, 2) impaired-driver investigations, 3) field interviews and pedestrian stops, 4) transporting community members or prisoners, 5) searches of persons or property, 6) dispatched calls for service, 7) crime scenes, 8) crash scenes, 9) advising a subject of Miranda rights, 10) suspect/witness statements and interviews, 11) vehicle and foot pursuits, and 12) emergency responses to critical incidents. Investigative and enforcement duties can be proactively initiated by an officer or in response to a call for service. Officers may conduct different types of proactive, self-initiated activities during their shifts, including activities that are considered highly discretionary (for example, detaining a community member for questioning who appears to be acting suspiciously or who may fit the description of a wanted person) and others that are more community oriented (such as walking around neighborhoods or business developments and having friendly interactions with community members).

The department’s policy further specifies that all officers at a scene with a body-worn camera are required to activate their camera. Officers have the discretion to turn off or not activate their cameras for potentially sensitive events or circumstances, such as when interacting with or taking statements from victims of sexual assault or child victims, among others. The officers must make a verbal notation on the recording any time they plan to intentionally stop a recording before the completion of an event or incident.

Study

Lawrence and Peterson (2020) conducted a randomized controlled trial to examine the effectiveness of body-worn cameras on Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) proactive, officer-initiated community interactions between July 18, 2015, and Nov. 22, 2016. This examination sought to determine how body-worn cameras affect different types of officer-initiated community interactions, in response to general concern in the field that officers may pull back from these policing functions if forced to wear cameras. The four most common categories of proactive activities by MPD officers during this time were 1) traffic stops (when an officer pulls a vehicle over because of suspected traffic or vehicle violations), 2) business checks (when officers enter a local business to check for proper licenses/permits or to speak with the owner and staff about neighborhood concerns or activities), 3) subject stops (all officer-initiated stops of community members, such as when a person is behaving suspiciously or matches the description of a person suspected of criminal activities), and 4) park and walks (when officers walk around assigned neighborhoods to have a visible presence and to meet community members).

The MPD deployed body-worn cameras to all officers by the end of 2016. The deployment took place over four phases, the first being a pilot program. The randomized controlled trial was initiated in March 2016 during phase 2 of the deployment. Officers who received a body-worn camera as part of the pilot program, who were not patrol officers, and who were on any form of limited duty were considered ineligible for the study. Officers from District 5 and the Neighborhood Task Force (who operated outside district boundaries and received body-worn cameras during the pilot deployment) were also considered ineligible for inclusion, since their working conditions differed considerably from the other districts where cameras were not yet deployed.

A total of 666 patrol officers and sergeants from Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 remained eligible for inclusion after filtering the roster on these criteria. A stratified random sampling procedure was conducted in which the strata included the officer’s race (non-Hispanic white or nonwhite) and shift (power, late, day, or early). The sample of officers from each district was proportional to the size of that district relative to the overall department. With this, the appropriate number of officers from each district were randomly selected and then randomly assigned by strata into the treatment and control groups. The treatment group comprised 252 officers who were randomly assigned a body-worn camera. The business-as-usual control group comprised 252 officers who did not wear a camera. The study period occurred across 247 days (approximately 8 months) from March 21, 2016, to Nov. 22, 2016. An equal period of time was used for the pre-intervention period, which was July 18, 2015, to March 20, 2016. Panel data were used to measure change across time, where the data were aggregated into sixteen 31-day periods, creating eight pre- and post-intervention periods across the two experimental groups. All of the panels were 31 days long except the first and last panels, which were 30 days long.

There were no statistically significant differences between the treatment and control group officers on officer characteristics or any pre-intervention proactive activities. Officers in the treatment group were predominately male (85.7 percent) and white (62.3 percent). The remaining were 17.5 percent Black, 13.5 percent Hispanic, and 6.7 percent Asian, and they had on average 12.23 years of tenure. The control group was mostly male (89.7 percent) and white (62.3 percent). The remaining were 21.0 percent Black, 13.5 percent Hispanic, and 3.2 percent Asian and had on average 12.7 years of tenure. During the pre-intervention period, officers in the control group conducted an average of 312.4 proactive activities, including 80.8 business checks, 136.6 traffic stops, 43.4 subject stops, and 15.8 park and walks. Treatment group officers conducted an average of 308.2 total proactive activities, including 80.8 business checks, 138 traffic stops, 41 subject stops, and 13.8 park and walks.

The data came from administrative records and the MPD’s proactivity database, where officers were required to record the start and end times of all proactive activities using the dispatch system on their in-car computers. The proactivity data were at the officer/event unit of analysis to calculate the total count of proactive activities for each officer and to identify which officers were present at the event. Random-effects negative binominal panel regression analyses were used to assess the effect of body-worn cameras on the total count of proactive activities and traffic stops, business checks, subject stops, and park and walks. Difference-in-differences analyses were used to estimate the difference between the treatment officers’ pre-intervention and post-intervention outcomes, relative to the same difference for the control officers. Three models were tested for each outcome. The first was an unconditional regression that included only the variables for the difference-in-differences, to assess change in the outcomes from random assignment with no other controls. The second model built on the first by adding body-worn camera contamination levels. Contamination was considered present in an event when a control group officer was with a body-worn camera-wearing officer at the scene, and where a treatment group officer was at the scene with any officer not wearing a camera. The third model included all other covariates (race, officer tenure, and whether the officers were sergeants). No subgroup analysis was conducted.

Study

Peterson and colleagues (2018) used the same sample from the randomized controlled trial detailed in Study 1 (Lawrence and Peterson, 2020) to examine the effectiveness of Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) body-worn cameras on arrests, citizen complaints, and use-of-force incidents from the pre-intervention period (the 9 months before March 21, 2016) to the post-intervention period (the 9 months after March 21, 2016).

The methodology was the same as described in Study 1. The body-worn camera treatment group officers received their cameras around March 21, 2016, and the control group officers received their cameras around December 20, 2016, allowing for a 9-month study period. During the pre-intervention period, officers in the treatment group made an average of 13.79 arrests, had on average 0.11 citizen complaints, and averaged 0.34 use-of-force incidents, while officers in the control group made an average of 13.49 arrests, had on average 0.08 complaints, and averaged 0.40 use-of-force incidents. There were no statistically significant differences between the treatment and control group officers on officer characteristics or any pre-intervention activities.

Difference-in-differences analysis with both Poisson and logistic regression models was used to estimate the difference between treatment officers’ pre-intervention and post-intervention outcomes, relative to the same difference for the control officers. The models included a binary variable identifying whether an individual officer was in the treatment group or control group. A second binary variable was included to distinguish between the intervention and pre-intervention periods. A third binary variable represented the product of the first two. The coefficient associated with this third binary variable represented the difference-in-differences estimate of the effect of the body-worn camera treatment on the outcome. No subgroup analysis was conducted.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Lawrence, Daniel S., Bryce E. Peterson, and Paige S. Thompson. 2018. Community Views of Milwaukee’s Police Body-Worn Camera Program: Results From Three Waves of Community Surveys. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.

Milwaukee (Wis.) Police Department. 2021. Milwaukee Police Department Standard Operating Procedure. Milwaukee, Wis.: Milwaukee, Wis., Government.

Shjarback, John A., David C. Pyrooz, Scott E. Wolfe, and Scott H. Decker. 2017. “Depolicing and Crime in the Wake of Ferguson: Racialized Changes in the Quantity and Quality of Policing Among Missouri Police Departments.” Journal of Criminal Justice 50:42–52.

Wallace, Danielle, Michael D. White, Janne E. Gaub, and Natalie Todak. 2018. “Body-Worn Cameras as a Potential Source of Depolicing: Testing for Camera-Induced Passivity.” Criminology 56(3):481–509.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Body-Worn Cameras’ Effects on Police Officer Behavior

This practice involves the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement. The aim of this practice is to record interactions from an officer’s point of view to improve accountability and positively affect police officer behavior. The practice is rated Ineffective for its effects on officer use of force, officer injuries, officer-initiated calls for service, traffic stops, field interviews, and arrest incidents.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Justice Systems or Processes - Use of force
	Crime & Delinquency - Assault on officer/officer injuries/resistance
	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Justice Systems or Processes - Officer-initiated calls for service
	Crime & Delinquency - Traffic stops/traffic tickets
	Justice Systems or Processes - Field interviews/stop and frisk

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?