Can Technology Work for Policing? Citizen Perceptions of Police-Body Worn Cameras

Introduction

Technology rapidly pervades government agencies to enhance efficiency and improve public service delivery. However, organizations face internal and external challenges with the advancement and implementation of any new technology. One of the more recent technological adoptions that has occurred in local governments includes the use of body-worn cameras (BWC) by police departments. The adoption of these cameras came as a result of consistent media portrayals of tense confrontations between police officers and citizens, which led people to question the actions taken by police officers. Several prominent events over the past few years shaped the narrative concerning police officer actions: the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014; Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Maryland in 2015; Sandra Bland in Waller County, Texas in 2015; Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte, North Carolina in 2016; and the most recent death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota in 2020—all of which resulted from police–civilian encounters.

The interactions and relationships between police officers and communities continues to become increasingly strained and fragmented. Policy makers and police departments call for the implementation of BWC for officers to create a response amicable for all parties involved. By 2017, it was estimated that nearly every large police department planned to adopt BWC technology (Maskaly et al., 2017). In addition, a high number of police agencies adopted BWC as a direct result of former President Barack Obama’s US$75 million program, which added 50,000 BWC on the streets (Hedberg et al., 2017).

Many believe that BWC can be a solution that leverages technology and the digital age to improve relationships between communities of color and the police. Furthermore, the proposed benefits of BWC include increased accountability and transparency of citizens and police officers. As Police Chief Guy Green of Bowie, Texas, stated during an introductory conference on BWC technology,

The body camera provides another layer for police giving us face-to-face video. It makes the officer accountable and the public can see it. We want to have the best relationship possible with the public and this can provide more transparency. (Hutto & Green, 2016)

Often left out of the dialogue around the pros and cons of BWC technology is the way in which citizens perceive the use of BWC in police departments. Much of the conversation around BWC implementation comes from local city council members, police chiefs, and even police officers because they have either been the primary initiators or users of the policy. While it is assumed that there is a clear citizen benefit, and often this technology adoption has come as a result of citizen outcry, there has been a lack of citizen input, involvement, and engagement in the BWC policy design and implementation process. The use of the BWC technology may have implications not only for police officers, but also the populations they serve. These potential implications make receiving input from the community even more vital.

As noted earlier, the increased use of BWC technology for police officers is a prominent technological solution pegged to alleviate police–community tensions. Exploring this issue is the primary focus of this article. Specifically, the purpose of this article is to examine citizen perceptions of the police, as a local government agency, and how BWC impact citizen appraisals of public service delivery. When looking at the current BWC literature, minimal attention qualitatively examines how BWC influences perceived outcomes from the public. In doing so, this article adds to the literature on public accountability and perceptions of street-level bureaucracy.

This article is broken down into the following sections. First, this article explores the literature on citizens’ perceptions and the link between technological advancements in government. The subsequent section delves into the literature on citizen perceptions and the BWC literature specifically, which helps to inform the research questions. Following this section is a discussion of the research setting in Washington, D.C. (i.e., Police District 5), where the semi-structured interview data and qualitative analysis is employed. Moreover, the study participants reveal that BWC provide benefits, such as, improving officer behavior, but there are limits to these benefits as citizens share that BWC will not increase trust between citizens and police officers. Finally, it concludes with tentative policy implications and proposes an agenda for future research on the implementation and use of BWC.

Citizen Perceptions and Technological Adoptions in Government

Citizen satisfaction has been increasingly used as a measure of government performance, but it is often regarded as a subjective measure of service quality (Kelly, 2005; Kelly & Swindell, 2002). Scholars found that service delivery and overall quality of service is positively correlated with citizen satisfaction (Badri et al., 2015; Brown, 2007; Thompson, 1997; Van Ryzin, 2015) and satisfaction is related to citizen trust in government (Badri et al., 2015). Various factors influence public trust and confidence including, but not limited to, information about the performance of public agencies (Porumbescu et al., 2019) and e-government (Teo et al., 2008; Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006; Welch et al., 2005). Yet, minimal research focuses on citizen perceptions of the effectiveness of technological adoptions and innovations in local government. Rather, prior research has looked at either citizen adoption and/or acceptance of e-government or the relationship between e-government and citizen trust.

In the nascent literature on citizen perspectives and technological adoptions, one of the main trends present in the research is that e-government can be used to impact public trust of government (Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006) and public confidence in performance (Morgeson et al., 2011). However, there may be tradeoffs in regard to public perceptions of interactivity (Welch & Hinnant, 2003) as well as concerns for privacy (Almagwashi et al., 2014). A more recent innovation that can be couched in the e-government literature is the integration and use of BWC in police departments. A recent publication by Bromberg et al. (2018) sought to understand citizen support of BWC technology as an accountability and transparency measure. In doing so, they found that social desirability biases impact citizen perceptions regarding BWC when conducting polls. Apart from this study, the public affairs literature has been silent, thus the next section provides a brief overview of the empirical research found on police BWC and citizen perceptions (mainly in criminology and criminal justice journals).

BWC and Citizen Perceptions

In the United States, the use of BWC by police departments has grown substantially (Culhane & Schweitzer, 2018). Seventy-five major cities in the United States have equipped their officers with BWC technology since 2012 (Moore, 2016). Most of the research conducted on BWC has examined officer-level behavioral outcomes including but not limited to, use of force, assaults on police officers, arrests, stops and frisks, citations (Ariel, 2016; Headley et al., 2017; Jennings et al., 2014; Ramirez, 2014), and officer perceptions (Goetschel & Peha, 2017; Jennings et al., 2015; Tankebe & Ariel, 2016). A smaller body of research explores citizen-related outcomes, such as willingness to report criminal incidents, citizen behavior toward police, citizen complaints, and overall citizen perceptions (Ariel 2016; Demir, 2019; Jennings et al., 2015; Maskaly et al., 2017).

The research on citizen perceptions of BWC has recently emerged, where a few trends in the limited literature document public perceptions of BWC. Citizens have been overwhelmingly supportive of the use of BWC by police officers (Crow et al., 2017; Culhane et al., 2016; Demir, 2019; Sousa et al., 2018; White et al., 2018). Support is usually derived from the fact that the community believes there are benefits associated with the use of BWC by police officer; however, there is less agreement in perceptions when looking at which benefits will be realized. For instance, Crow et al. (2017) found that residents’ perceived benefits include improved police behavior, increased legitimacy, and evidentiary value. Likewise, White et al. (2018) also found that citizens believed that the use of BWC would result in more professional behavior from officers.

In addition to reaping the aforementioned benefits, respondents in Demir’s (2019) study added that citizen behavior, citizen complaints, police corruption, and the quality of citizen treatment would also improve. Another study found that some groups of people were skeptical as to whether or not BWC use will result in community trust and improved relations between the police and communities of color, despite the anticipated benefits (Sousa et al., 2018). So far, the literature on citizen and/or community perceptions has been predominantly quantitative in nature, exploring perceptions through citizen surveys. Only one study incorporated mixed methods to understand stakeholder perceptions (see White et al., 2018). While citizen surveys are an effective avenue to gauge perceptions, there are social desirability biases that may manifest in such polls found by Bromberg et al. (2018). Thus, qualitative research methods that are able to delve deeper into the perceptions of citizens provide a fruitful area of research. Qualitative research can further interrogate how citizens view the use and implementation of BWC to fully understand its influence on an array of intended policy outcomes. Specifically, an immediately salient area to explore is how citizens perceive the impact of officers wearing BWC technology as it pertains to officer approachability, police behavior, legitimacy, and citizen trust.

One area that has received attention in the literature is the role of BWC in potentially facilitating greater officer accountability and approachability. Officer accountability occurs when there is a system of internal checks and balances for officers that are instituted at the police organization level (Walker, 2001). In addition, approachability indicates the ability for a citizen to interact with a police officer on a regular basis (Clinton & Devlin, 2011). Some studies consider the perceived benefits of BWC from the perspective of police officers and touch indirectly on officer accountability. For instance, in a survey conducted by (Gaub et al., 2016) in Mesa, California, 77% of the officers believed that BWC would help them to behave more professionally. Another survey of police officers conducted in Orlando, Florida by Jennings et al. (2014) identified that the presence of BWC would improve officer behavior and reduce the number of external complaints. In addition, Jennings et al. (2015) uncovered that officers overwhelmingly agreed that BWC would improve their recollection of events and minimize errors in their crime reports. Finally, McClure et al. (2017) posits that the relationship between BWC and procedural justice may potentially improve police accountability and lead to better interactions between police and citizens.

There has been much less research on the impact of BWC on officer approachability because only a few studies involve or engage citizens (Lawrence et al., 2018; McClure et al. 2017; White et al., 2018). Furthermore, it may be difficult and complex for BWC to produce an effect on citizens based on previous individual and community factors (White et al., 2018). Nevertheless, Lawrence et al. (2018) found that residents in Milwaukee had more favorable views of police officers and would be more willing to interact with police officers if they were equipped with BWC. Based upon these prior findings, the first question this article seeks to address is: Does the introduction of BWC influence how citizens view officers in terms of accountability and approachability?

Literature has begun to explore how officer behavior is impacted by BWC, some of which has documented less incidents of force and lower likelihood of complaints (Ariel et al., 2015). In a 12-month evaluation conducted by the Mesa Police Department (2013), the police force experienced a 40% decrease in complaints and a 75% decrease in use-of-force after BWC were implemented. Following up on this study, Ready and Young (2015) examined the behaviors of 100 line officers, who were assigned to wear BWC in the Mesa Police Department over a 10-month period. Ready and Young (2015) discovered that the officers assigned to wear BWC were less likely to perform stop-and-frisks and make arrests; however, the officers were more likely to give citations and initiate encounters with citizens. This literature suggests that officer behavior shifted and resulted in fewer complaints, which lowered the use of force and stop-and-frisk tactics reported by citizens (i.e., reducing the use of compliance protocols that that are historically known to target communities of color). However, it is often assumed that there is a link between officer behavior and citizen perceptions of police legitimacy. Thus, BWC increasing the legitimacy of officers is another theme emphasized in the literature as a key benefit. Officer legitimacy is defined as the level of public support for police behavior in a community (Tyler, 2011). Based on this literature, the second question of interest herein asks: Will citizens view the implementation and use of BWC as a way to impact police behavior and increase police officer legitimacy?

Finally, historically, the literature on citizens’ perceptions of the police differentiates how distinct racial and ethnic groups view the police in the United States. From this latter body of research, two general themes emerge: (a) Blacks have negative perceptions of the police compared with Whites and (b) there is mixed evidence as to how Hispanics view police officers (Peck, 2015). In a 2017 Pew survey, it was found that Blacks and Hispanics were less likely than Whites to view police officers warmly. Collectively, the literature indicates that race plays an important factor in how certain racial groups view police officers. Much less is known about the racial dynamics of citizen perceptions as it pertains to BWC, apart from including race as a control variable in the analysis of perceptual survey data. Thus, this study seeks to also understand if and how racial differences appear when qualitatively addressing the two research questions above.

Overall, existing literature has examined several key indicators associated with the implementation and use of BWC. While politicians and members of police organizations continue to advocate the assumption that BWC technology bonds and strengthens police–community relations, little is known if and/or how it accomplishes this goal. Furthermore, this study builds on the literature by assessing the perceived impact of the use of BWC from the perspective of the citizenry through qualitative analysis in Washington, D.C.

Research Setting

Washington, D.C. is known as the capitol of the United States. Currently, there are 681,170 people that reside in the District. Since 1990, the crime rate has fluctuated seeing large increases of crime in the 1980s and 1990s to seeing decreases in crime as recent as 2010 (Friedman et al., 2017). A number of factors have contributed to the changing crime rates in Washington, D.C. that include demographic shifts in the population (Ellen et al., 2019) and decreases in the amount of drug usage by individuals and households (Reuter et al., 1990). According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) had approximately 3,789 sworn personnel which amount to approximately 55.1 officers per 10,000 people, making Washington, D.C. the third largest police department in the country.

The police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri (and the subsequent public demonstrations that followed) propelled the MPD to launch Phase I of the BWC program in October 2014, focusing on the selection of the best camera model for the members of the MPD. Once they selected the appropriate model, Phase II of the program began. By June 29, 2015, the cameras that had been deployed in Phase I (the test cameras) were pulled back, and the Fifth and Seventh Police Districts each received 200 new cameras for officers. In March 2016, MPD started Phase III of the BWC program, where more than 1,200 BWC were deployed in a 3-month period (Yokum et al., 2017).

Currently, Police District 5 is made up of over 20 different neighborhoods. ¹ Approximately 74,308 individuals reside in the Ward, ² which is roughly 13% of the total population in Washington, D.C. Police District 5 represents an ideal case study because of the massive demographic shift that took place in the last 15 years, which mirror Washington, D.C. Moreover, other community policing initiatives have taken place since 2010 in Ward 7, which may dilute or confound how BWC are viewed, thus this analysis is focused solely on Ward 5 as a case study.

Within each Ward, resides a specific set of citizens elected as Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners (ANCs). These ANCs constitute an intricate facet of the political process in Washington, D.C. An ANC is described as

A non-partisan, neighborhood body made up of locally-elected representatives called Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners. They are a unique feature of the District’s Home Rule Charter. The Commissioners, who serve two-year terms without pay, are elected at DC Elections in November in even-numbered years. The ANCs were established to bring government closer to the people, and to bring the people closer to government. (D.C.gov)

ANCs act as the united voice in communicating to Washington, D.C. government officials and federal agencies on issues affecting their neighborhoods. In addition, each locally elected ANC member represents a specific area or population within a ward. In total, there are 40 ANCs in Washington, D.C., where five of them reside in Police District 5.

The administration of BWC technology in the nation’s capital at the MPD is an example of top-down implementation (Marume et al., 2016; Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1983), as it was designed by the mayor and senior leadership as well as voted on and approved by the Washington, D.C. City Council with minimal citizen input. Moreover, the policy design and implementation curtailed citizen input and solely focused on input from stakeholders associated with police officers in the policy formulation and delivery stage. The Police Department collaborated with a multitude of agencies, including: The Office of Police Complaints, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Office of the Attorney General, the Fraternal Order of Police—Labor Committee, the Police Executive Research Forum, the Major City Chiefs of Police Association, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Data and Method

This study conducted semi-structured interviews to gain insight on citizens’ perceptions and attitudes of BWC. There was a total of 40 interviews conducted of people who attended ANC meetings in Police District 5. ³ We ensured that saturation, loosely defined as the point by which no new information is derived as a result of additional data points, was achieved throughout our interview process (Saunders et al., 2018). Police District 5 was selected for interview purposes for two reasons as follows: it was one of two districts that received BWC technology and it closely resembled the larger demographic and economic patterns of Washington, D.C. when compared with the other Police District. The interviews occurred over a 6-month period, between November and April of 2015, and used non-probability purposive and volunteer sampling, which is selection based upon key characteristics important for the research questions, but also the judgment and convenience relative to the researcher (Saunders, 2012). The respondents were chosen if they had attended at least two ANC meetings, including the one meeting where they were asked to complete the interview beforehand and their respective residential ANC meeting. The rationale behind choosing those interviewees was because they represented citizens who were at least civically engaged and would theoretically know more information pertaining to the implementation of BWC.

Table 1 indicates that the residents chosen to participate in the interviews tended to be older and more economically stable. Moreover, the sample contained a higher percentage of unemployed individuals, yet the homeownership rates for respondents were higher compared with the total population in Police District 5.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Participant Characteristics (N = 40).

Key sociodemographic characteristics	%
Race
White	35
Black	65
Gender
Male	60
Female	40
Age, years
20–30	7.5
31–40	15
41–50	25
51–60	30
61–70	22.5
Educational attainment
High school diploma	37.5
Bachelor’s degree	35.5
Master’s degree and above	27.5
Economic demographics
Percent unemployed	16
Own a home	60

To understand how citizens view BWC implementation, qualitative data collection methods were employed. In the semi-structured interviews, all respondents verbally agreed to participate under the assumption of anonymity. For the analysis, respondents were given aliases. Each respondent was asked a series of 10 to 11 questions (see appendix for specific questions) and each interview lasted approximately 1 hr. Respondents were invited to answer all the questions, but they had the option to not respond.

The data were analyzed through content analysis. First, interviews were read repeatedly to achieve immersion and obtain a sense of the whole (Tesch, 2013). Then, the interviews were read word-by-word to derive codes and similar pattern schemes (Hsieh & Shannon 2005; Miles et al., 2014) by first highlighting the exact words from the text that appear to capture key thoughts or concepts driven by the hypotheses. Next, the interviews were thoroughly analyzed for any additional thought patterns or themes that emerged (Yin, 2006). As this process continued, labels for codes that emerged were highlighted and sorted. Those labels for additional themes were sorted into categories based on how different codes were related and linked. These emergent categories were used to organize and group codes into meaningful clusters (Attride-Stirling 2001; Patton, 2002). Given the relationships between subcategories and clusters, themes were combined into larger categories that overlap. Once all categories had been identified, a tree diagram was developed to help organize these categories into a hierarchical model (Creswell & Poth, 2016). Finally, any additional linkages that exist were reported between the categories based on upon their salience to the topic (Creswell & Poth, 2016). ⁴

Approachability of Officers

All respondents were asked: Would you be more likely to approach an officer wearing a body camera compared with one not wearing a body camera? This was asked to understand the community’s perception of approachability when comparing the officers wearing BWC and officers not wearing BWC. The interview respondents fell into two categories as follows: (a) those that would never approach an officer to begin with and (b) those that believe officers wearing BWC would be more approachable.

The first category of respondents expressed that they would never approach an officer, with or without a body-worn camera. There were 20 people who echoed this response, twelve of which were men and eight women, and all of which were African American. Common phrases were used, such as: “Approach them for what?” Mary exclaimed, “Why would I approach an officer? I am not sure I would approach a police officer.” After a long pause and a chuckle, Jude indicated, “There is a 50/50 chance that I would EVER APPROACH AN OFFICER” (said with emphasis). As noted, the responses indicate a distaste for approaching police officers. Interestingly, all respondents in this subgroup never had a negative interaction with an officer when asked about their own personal experiences.

Respondents in the second category stated that they would feel more comfortable approaching an officer wearing a BWC because of the increased transparency that accompany use of cameras. Fifteen respondents (seven of which were men and African American, three of which were African American and female, and five of which were White and male) believed that officers wearing BWC were more approachable. Rueben explained that he “would be more willing to talk to an officer that is wearing one because they would be more courteous.” Richard’s comments revealed a similar sentiment, as he said, “I guess I would. There is no he-said-she-said. If all things were equal, I would.” In Loretta’s statement, she agreed with other respondents: “I guess I would be okay approaching an officer and more okay slightly if he is wearing a body-worn camera.” From this segment of the population, respondents indicated higher levels of comfort toward officers wearing BWC. Furthermore, the fear respondents had would diminish because of officers wearing BWC is evidenced by Jackie with tears in her eyes, exclaiming “if I had to . . . I guess I would talk to the officer with the camera.”

Collectively, these interviews indicate that approaching an officer is still a polarizing subject. Furthermore, it may take more positive encounters, and increased dialogue to counter negative perceptions of the police by citizens.

Improved Police Officer Behavior and Legitimacy

Respondents were asked: Do you think there are any differences between officers wearing body cameras and officers not wearing body cameras? Respondents indicated very broadly that the cameras help improve police officer behavior. They shared that BWC monitor police officers on their jobs. Travis explained, “If the police is wearing [a body camera], they will watch their behavior more. Police not wearing body cameras are free to do what they want!” It is clear from the way in which Travis expressed his feelings that BWC serve as a means of accountability, altering the behavior of police officers. Travis was not alone when expressing how BWC change behavior. Jude noted that an officer wearing BWC may modify his behavior or language if he knows he is being recorded. Feelings of modified behavior appeared for all but three of the respondents.

Moreover, 26 respondents indicated that police officers’ interactions with community members would shift dramatically because of the BWC technology. For instance, Terry explained that any officer “going around wearing a body camera is more thoughtful (laughs) in their interactions with others.” Other respondents agreed that police officers “will be more cognizant of what they are doing or how they interact with citizens.” Some respondents believe “the theory is true that [one] will behave better [when] watched.” Furthermore, respondents described various ideals that focused on BWC improving social interactions. Aaliyah eloquently stated,

Officers wearing body cameras will be more cognizant of their behavior and interaction with the public. If you know someone is watching you, you are less likely to do things that are considered [wrong] by your department than if no one is watching!

Statements from Mary and others indicated that BWC may increase transparency.

In addition to the sentiments relayed by residents on increasing accountability, transparency, and behavior, 22 respondents stated that the use of BWC may help delegitimize the stigma associated with police officers and legitimize the police more broadly. Loretta exclaimed, “One of the good things about the cameras is that they minimize the stigma that surrounds police officers.” Moreover, respondents indicated that police officers wearing BWC indicates that the presence of police officers is needed in the community they serve. Furthermore, respondents highlighted that the use of BWC is an indicator that the police are attempting to work with the community, which helps legitimize police actions. Overall, residents expressed extremely favorable responses to BWC, as they affect police officer behavior as well as increasing legitimacy of the police force.

The course of the interviews indicated that BWC may help improve police officer behavior. Furthermore, with the growing tensions between police officers and citizens as portrayed by the media, BWC may potentially, as one respondent indicated, show the uncensored facts of the police citizen encounter.

Police–Community Relations: BWC and Trust

Numerous scholars have identified trust as one of the most essential components needed to foster positive relationships between community members and police officers (Cordner, 2014; Goldsmith, 2005; Greene, 2000; Rosenbaum & Lurigio, 1994). For decades, scholars have debated on the best “trust-building” practices. Police departments have implemented several policy tools to improve trust and thus impact police–community relations. These policies include increasing minority representation in the police organization (Hickman & Piquero, 2009; Hong, 2017; Mastrofski et al., 1996; Theobald & Haider-Markel, 2009), requiring police officers to conduct foot or bike patrols (Hawdon et al., 2003), and establishing citizen advisory boards (Hudson, 1971). Unfortunately, current findings are mixed as to whether these policies have sufficiently affected communities’ level of trust in law enforcement.

There is a growing narrative among politicians and police departments that BWC technology is the gateway to building trust between police officers and the community. On January 15, 2015, the Chief of Police, in Fresno, California (Keith Foster) stated in the Fresno Bee:

Why body cameras? It really boils down to this—trust. There has been an “erosion” of trust in law enforcement over the past few years, spurred largely by some high-profile deaths involving officers—including teenager Michael Brown, shot in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner, in New York City. While Fresno hasn’t experienced large-scale police protests, that’s not to say we can’t improve upon what we do to maintain and gain that trust, and this (body cameras) is one step towards it.

The previous statements made by public city officials, remains an idea. Hence, we actively sought to identify if BWC tenchology can improve trust between police and the community. All respondents were asked: Do BWC build trust between the community and the police? None of the respondents (regardless of race or gender) stated that BWC technology increases trust between citizens and police officers. At best, some respondents perceived BWC as a means to visually see all the facts in a case. Karen remarked, “Honestly, I don’t know if they will build trust. It may give citizens confidence on whatever happens that the factual events will come to light.” Few residents expressed a similar feeling, but at the same time, a counter narrative explained that officers may “alter the tape.” In my interview with Michael, he noted that officers can alter or edit the tape, choosing when to turn the camera on: “an officer turns on his camera 15 minutes later [after arriving at the scene], and all we see is the officer chasing someone. It is being edited.” In addition, several respondents touched on the discretionary decision officers have in activating BWC, specifically Jasmine indicated that “it is up to the officer to turn on the body camera.” Many respondents said that the power and control is still in the hands of the officer in relation to the use of the new technology.

While some respondents indicated that BWC technology can serve as evidence, all respondents agreed that the technology does not build trust. In their statements, they expressed that BWC technology may not affect police officers’ social interactions with community members. Particularly, Nicole explained that officers should be more involved in the community and proactively reach out to community members to build trust:

I don’t think body cameras build trust. If a police officer wants to take advantage of a civilian, they will do it. What does build trust is when they get to know the community and recognize that there are differences between suburban and urban communities. Each has unique problems that they are facing whether economically or socially.

Other respondents made similar comments. Takisha said, “No, [body cameras] don’t.” Jeremy indicated during the interviews that “If officers think body cameras build trust they sure are mistaken, all these things do is film us and them and the resentment is still there.” Many respondents indicated that trust is built when police officers interact with people and let them know that they serve to protect them. Finally, the statement by Imani shares similar sentiments:

I don’t think they help build trust, it’s kind of the opposite. If they are keeping an eye on you, it sort of relates to me who can be sneakier. I know for sure that the body camera won’t build trust. What does build trust though is when you see police officers in your neighborhood from a young age. The reason you see them is not because they are profiling you as a potential suspect, but you see them as an ordinary citizen living and working in the community.

The breadth of the interviews revealed a troubling narrative that in spite of politicians’ and police officers’ rhetoric that implementing BWC will build trust, none of the citizens perceive BWC as a tool to achieve this goal. Moreover, BWC are proliferating across the United States under the pretense that they will build trust. Nonetheless, these interviews draw a clear disconnect between stated goals by the agencies to increase trust and some of the perceived goals for the citizenry.

Discussion

The interviews revealed that citizens do think that BWC may improve transparency, accountability, and officer behavior; however, there were not clear results around the impact of BWC on the approachability of officers. Even more so, interview respondents held consistent views that BWC are not trust-building tools. While this study did not explicitly explore how different racial and ethnic groups view police officers, the interviews revealed a stark divide about which group feels more comfortable approaching a police officer—with Blacks indicating more negative sentiments. It may not necessarily be a surprising finding, given the current and historical climate regarding police–community relations with Black communities and other groups of color. However, the persistence of this finding in spite of new technological adoptions (i.e., BWC) designed to improve police–community relations is indeed telling. There needs to be a concerted effort by police departments to understand the limits of BWC being used to build bridges between the Black community and the police. Citizens across the country have witnessed more Black Americans killed by police, which fragments the relationship between the two parties. Having the Black community involved and more engaged in the implementation of BWC can be used as a participatory democracy tool in efforts to improve police–community relations.

Collectively, the interviews demonstrate that citizens believe BWC will improve officer behavior as well as increase legitimacy of the police force. If citizens believe officers’ behavior will positively change when officers wear BWC, then the BWC will serve as an additional accountability mechanism. Police organizations can use the sentiments relayed by residents as a starting point in engaging with the community more broadly on other policy-related ideas they may have within their department as well as discussing topics that are difficult to bring up between residents and police officers (e.g., use of force and stop and frisk tactics).

Contrarily, respondents all agreed that BWC are not the means in which the police department can build trust between them and the community, which aligns with some of the earlier findings on technological adoption and how it does not improve trust (West, 2004). When taking this finding in light of the other findings about approachability, behavior, and legitimacy, one may think that improved approachability and/or behavior and legitimacy would translate into increased trust. However, the absence of something negative (e.g., less officer misconduct) may not necessarily translate into the presence of something positive (e.g., improved community trust), rather there are positive trust-building activities that need to occur. As mentioned in the interviews, increased positive or neutral interactions and positive visibility within the community may be essential steps in building trust. Researchers and policymakers should revisit the tenets of the community policing model as well as explore alternative policing strategies to bridge the gap between communities and the police. In the current community policing literature, outcomes are focused on increasing arrests or having strict performance outcomes for police officers. Future literature should examine police officers’ relationship-building as well as increase dialogue and problem-solving with the community.

As a whole, the findings from this study have important implications for the literature on citizens’ accountability and perceptions of street-level bureaucrats. Much of the literature has posited that the delivery and quality of services impact citizen satisfaction. From these interviews, we see that citizens view the use of BWC as a means to improve police behavior and accountability. In addition, given the increased transparency that comes from having BWC, the public could have access to police actions more regularly. If implemented correctly, BWC can take a traditionally closed-off profession (policing) and show the struggles and nuances of being a police officer. For example, BWC can more accurately depict the complexities of being a police officer as well as the dangers they face on the job. Furthermore, these interviews show that increased transparency is directly related to citizens’ perceptions of legitimacy.

The literature has shown that increased accountability of the public service leads to increased citizens trust. However, we do not see the same effects in the interviews, which raises several questions related to earlier findings. Could it be that there are mediating factors hindering trust between bureaucrats and citizens, despite increased accountability? For instance, certain communities of color have had historical negative confrontations with the police. Futher, communities of color (particularly Black and Latino communities) have experienced persistent and historical racism from the policing profession. Overcoming persistent negative encounters with increased accountability may not be a way to increase trust, but it can improve legitimacy. The question becomes, what measures must public agencies take to improve trust between citizens and the bureaucrats if prior interactions are overwhelmingly negative and racist?

Aside from this finding, there are several limitations worth noting. First, the sample selection was based upon convenience sampling of respondents, who at a minimum attended at least two ANC meetings. There is no way to generalize these findings to a broader population, but using this sample represents perceptions of citizens that are engaged in civic life. Moreover, only a few of the respondents interacted with officers wearing BWC, so we can only answer questions related to perceptions. Further, the aims of this research were to understand citizen perceptions, thus no officers were interviewed to understand the officer’s perceptions of BWC.

This article sets the stage for more empirical research around the implementation and use of BWC. Current research focuses on single-case studies of police departments. Future research should look at comparative qualitative case studies across police departments as well as meta-analysis techniques developed to assess the impact of BWC technology on civilians. Furthermore, future research should examine citizens perceptions of BWC pre- and post- deployment to see if the implementation of BWC technology increases or decreases measures of accountability and trust—directly measuring these as outcomes rather than using indicators of officer performance as approximations.

Overall, this research is one of few to identify the citizens’ perception related to the use of BWC technology. Citizens’ perceptions and input are instrumental in the success of BWC technology for police officers. It is imperative that scholars and practitioners develop better strategies to study BWC implementation, use, and impact within the police department and within the community. In addition, it is important that police departments actively engage citizens in the policy-making process to avoid some of the pitfalls of top-down implementation. More research will lead to increased clarity and avoid ambiguity related to the long-term impacts of BWC. Without further research, the United States will continue to see the growing divide between citizens and the police instead of witnessing a united effort to build a stronger, more inclusive, and equitable community and nation.