Program Profile: Police Body-Worn Video (Australia)

This program involves police use of video to improve evidence gathering and police and citizen behavior. The program is rated No Effects. There were no statistically significant differences in restraining orders issued or assaults on police between body-worn video treatment days and control days (when no officers wore body-worn video). Treatment days had statistically significantly higher rates of use of force, citizen complaints against police, and criminal charges, compared with control days.

A No Effects rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s) and may result in a negative outcome(s).

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

Program Goals

The use of body-worn video cameras by police is a rapidly emerging area of interest for public policy and police practice (Clare et al. 2021a). Body-worn videos may produce cost and time efficiencies for police, influence police operational decisions, and help prevent problems between citizens and police. A goal of police body-worn video cameras is to enhance police evidence gathering and improve both police and citizen behavior.

Program Components

The Western Australia Police Force is responsible for policing Western Australia’s 2.5 million square kilometers with more than 150 police stations across eight metropolitan and seven regional districts. Over a 6-month period beginning in April 2016, the Police Force began exploring the potential utility of body-worn video cameras (Clare et al. 2019). As of 2022, it has equipped all frontline police officers with body-worn video cameras, and there have been more than 1.4 million evidence-uploads from use of the video cameras (Western Australia Police Force 2022a).

Officers use the body-worn videos under the following guidelines:

• Wear cameras overtly and warn members of the public that they are being recorded, as soon as practicable.
• Ask permission to film in private situations (such as inside homes) and abide by any request to cease filming in such situations.
• Use mobile telephones linked to body-worn videos to record evidence of incidents and interactions with witnesses or victims of crime in the field (Clare et al. 2021a, 46).

Western Australia Police Force officers are directed to record interviews associated with all domestic violence incidents, all incidents involving aggression or violence, all incidents where evidence capture is possible, and all incidents involving use of force. When interviewing victims or witnesses, officers are directed to capture an audio record of interviews using a body-worn video-linked mobile phone, rather than a traditional, signed, written interview (or statement) wherever possible.

Officers are allowed to review their own body-worn video footage, but not that of other officers, unless shared. Non-evidentiary footage is retained for 90 days and then deleted, whereas footage that an officer marks as relevant to an offense or potential offense is stored and retained for 7 years (Clare et al. 2021a; Clare et al. 2021b; Clare et al. 2019).

As of June 2022, the Western Australia Police Force began the rollout of upgraded camera technology that is capable of live-streaming video footage to command centers and other staff (Western Australia Police Force, 2022b).

Study

Clare and colleagues (2021) conducted a randomized controlled trial to examine the impact of body-worn video on evidence gathering, court outcomes, and police–public behavior during a 6-month period in two Western Australian locations: Perth (the capital) and the regional town of Bunbury. The trial ran from June 13 to Dec. 16, 2016, and involved 498 officers.

Days were randomly designated by a random number generator as either treatment days (when all participating officers starting the shift wore and used body-worn video) or control days (when no officers wore body-worn video). Before 6:00 a.m. each day, all officers, supervisors, and district office hierarchy involved in the trial received emails advising them about the treatment or control status of the day. Any matter occurring between midnight and 6:00 a.m. was included in the treatment or control status of the previous day. During the 6-month period there were 86 treatment days and 101 control days.

The CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on evidence gathering and police–public behavior outcomes. Outcome data were obtained from numerous operational datasets. The Incident Management System contained data on criminal and noncriminal incidents since 2000. Incident reports recorded individuals who had committed offenses, and police actions taken and other entities such as locations, interviews, and property. Incident Management System data also were used to measure charges laid (including assaults against police, which in Australia may involve on- or off-duty officers), sanction rates, other enforcement activities, and information related to recorded interviews. Criminal Code Infringement Notices contained all notices issued for discretionary, proactive policing action issued to individuals ages 17 and older for prescribed minor criminal offenses such as antisocial behavior or liquor infringements. The Computer-Aided Dispatch database recorded public calls for service and internally generated tasking. These data were used to record participating officers’ attendance at calls for service, and to identify opportunities to record body-worn video, for a total of incidents that could have led to officers’ generating recordings on treatment days. The use of force dataset contained officer-generated use-of-force reports in line with Operational Safety and Tactical Training Unit policy; use of force included drawing and pointing/discharging a taser or firearm, or use of baton, handcuffs, police dog/horse, other weapons, or empty-hand tactics that resulted in bodily injury. Finally, Professional Standards Complaints included anonymized data about complaints against police, excluding low-level complaints that may have been resolved at the police station level without reporting to the Professional Standards Division.

A range of parametric and nonparametric tests were conducted to explore the influence of body-worn videos on interview efficiency, sanction rates (Criminal Code Infringement Notices, criminal charges, police-issued restraining orders, and move-on notices, the last of which were formal notices requiring adults or juveniles to leave a nominated public place to prevent a likely breach of the peace or commission of other offenses), police use of force, assaults against police, and citizen complaints against police. Subgroup analysis was conducted with officers who had high engagement with the trial, compared with officers who had low engagement with the trial.

Subgroup Analysis

Clare and colleagues (2021a) examined outcome differences for officers who had either high engagement (n = 70) or low engagement (n = 70) with the use of body-worn video cameras. There were no statistically significant differences between high- and low-engagement officers on Criminal Code Infringement Notices issued on treatment days. High-engagement officers had a statistically significantly higher rate of field interviews per 1,000 Computer-Aided Dispatch jobs, criminal charges, restraining orders, and move-on notices issued on treatment days, compared with low-engagement officers on treatment days.

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

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

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 No Effects 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?