Police Officer and Supervisor Perceptions of Body-Worn Cameras Pre- and Postimplementation: The Importance of Officer Buy-in

Abstract

Body-worn cameras (BWCs) are increasingly more common in their use among police officers. Research on BWCs is the focus of an increasing number of studies seeking information on stakeholder perceptions and the impact of the technology on behavior and other related outcomes. Although the emerging research is mixed, several studies find that officers have concerns about the use of BWCs and may not fully support their use. The current study utilizes survey data from two Southern police departments. Police officers and supervisors were surveyed on their perceptions of BWCs prior to the implementation of BWCs, then again after their implementation. The analysis focuses on changes in perceptions before and after BWC implementation and examines the impact of respondent rank on perceptions. Overall, perceptions became more positive toward BWCs after the implementation; however, differences emerged when considering rank. Respondents at the supervisor rank expressed significantly less concern and more support for BWCs than those at the officer level after implementation. These results are discussed in the context of the importance of officer support and buy-in for BWCs. Policy suggestions and future directions are also discussed.

Keywords

law enforcement/security police culture/accountability police processes

Police body-worn cameras (BWCs) are sweeping the country and becoming standard equipment for police officers. In 2016, 93% of 70 major city police chiefs and county sheriffs indicated that they are either using or plan to use BWCs in the near future (Lafayette Group, 2015). Additionally, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (2016) reported that between 4,000 and 6,000 police and sheriff departments across the United States either use BWCs or indicated they plan to use them. Considering this proliferation in BWC interest, a growing body of research is being devoted to examining police BWCs. Studies to date focus largely on outcomes of using BWCs, such as changes in use of force, effects on evidence collection, crime reporting, reduction in citizen complaints, and impacts on prosecution and case processing (Ariel, 2016; Ariel et al., 2017; Ariel, Farrar, & Sutherland, 2015; Bellin & Pemberton, 2018; Fan, 2016; Hedberg, Katz, & Choate, 2017; Jennings, Lynch, & Fridell, 2015; Katz, Choate, Ready, & Nuno, 2014; Morrow, Katz, & Choate, 2016; White, Gaub, & Todak, 2017). Fewer studies have examined specific community and general public perceptions of BWCs (Crow, Snyder, Crichlow, & Smykla, 2017; Culhane, Boman, & Schweitzer, 2016; Demir, 2018; Lawrence, Peterson, & Thompson, 2018; Sousa, Miethe, & Sakiyama, 2017; White, Todak, & Gaub, 2017), the challenges of implementing a BWC program (Sousa, Coldren, Rodriguez, & Braga, 2016), or detainees’ perceptions of the capacities of BWCs to deliver promised increased levels of accountability in policing (Lee, Taylor, & Willis, 2018).

One of the more frequently researched BWC topics is officers’ attitudes toward BWCs (Lum, Stoltz, Koper, & Scherer, 2019). A number of studies examine officer opinions generally (Goetschel & Peha, 2017; Gramagila & Phillips, 2017; Jennings, Fridell, & Lynch, 2014; Katz et al., 2014), while others compare officer perceptions pre- and postdeployment of cameras (Guab, Choate, Todak, Katz, & White, 2016; Pelfrey & Keener, 2018; White, Todak, & Gaub, 2018). While it is vital to understand the potential impact of BWCs on actions such as use of force and court outcomes and the concerns that officers have with BWCs (White, 2014), it is also important to gain a better understanding of the perceptions of officers across different ranks, something that heretofore has been rarely reported in the body of BWC research. Successful implementation of a BWC program is likely to be influenced by the perceptions and acceptance of both officers and supervisors, as both expectations for how BWCs will impact police work and experiences using the technology are likely to differ across rank. Most of the prior research has examined either officer perceptions (Gramagila & Phillips, 2017; Jennings et al., 2014; Lum et al., 2019) or leadership perceptions (Smykla, Crow, Crichlow, & Snyder, 2016) separately. Only one study could be located (Pelfrey & Keener, 2018) that examined both officer and supervisor perceptions within a campus police department before implementation and examined how perceptions changed postimplementation. The differences in perceptions were examined via focus groups with each officer type but did not include quantitative analysis by rank (Pelfrey & Keener, 2018).

The current study seeks to contribute to the literature on BWCs by examining both officer and supervisor perceptions of BWCs both pre- and postdeployment. Specifically, officers and supervisors in two Southern municipal police departments were surveyed on their perceptions approximately 6 months prior to full BWC deployment and again approximately 6 months after full deployment.

Literature Review

Perceptions of BWCs by Police

Previous studies on officer perceptions have found generally positive views of the potential benefits of BWCs (Lum et al., 2019). For example, an early analysis of officer perceptions by Jennings, Fridell, and Lynch (2014) reported that over half of officers surveyed in Orlando indicated support for the use of BWCs. Similar levels of support were also found among a sample of police in leadership positions across multiple agencies in one Southern state (Smykla et al., 2016). In these and other studies, officers appear to have optimistic views regarding the potential effects of BWCs on several outcomes. Examples include evidence collection, improvements in citizens’ behavior, reduction in complaints against officers, transparency of police, and case processing outcomes such as prosecution and evidentiary value (Gaub, Choate, Todak, Katz, & White, 2016; Katz et al., 2014; Mesa Police Department [MPD], 2013; White, 2014). Further, in a recent review of 21 articles related to BWCs, Maskaly, Donner, Jennings, Ariel, and Sutherland (2017) found that largely police were supportive of BWCs. Furthermore, there was evidence from current evaluations that BWCs could have positive impacts on citizen encounters with police (Maskaly, Donner, Jennings, Ariel, & Sutherland, 2017). Similarly, Crow, Snyder, Crichlow, and Smykla (2017) also reported high levels of citizen support for BWCs. Considering these results, it appears that both officers and the public believe that BWCs could have a positive impact on policing in several ways.

While results from previous studies suggest officers generally appear to see potential benefits of BWCs, other studies have found that officers are skeptical of such an effect (Pelfrey & Keener, 2016). In a study of Pittsburgh officers, less than one third (31%) of respondents agreed that BWCs should be adopted, and only 20% thought it would make their job easier (Goetschel & Peha, 2017). Other studies report similar results. When Mesa, Arizona, officers were asked about their views on adopting BWCs, only 23.5% indicated they would be in favor of their department using them (MPD, 2013).

Most existing research examines officer perceptions of BWCs prior to deployment of the technology; therefore, officer perceptions may temper or become more positive after they gain more exposure to using cameras. In other words, officers’ concerns may be driven by their lack of experience and may be alleviated after gaining first-hand experience with a BWC. Research examining this possibility is mixed. For example, among officers who had experience with BWCs in the Pittsburgh study as part of a trial started after a controversial shooting in 2012, perceptions were more positive, apart from the impact of BWCs on paperwork (Goetschel & Peha, 2017). Conversely, there is some evidence among the few studies that examine officers at multiple times, which concerns about BWCs may persist or even become more pronounced after the deployment of cameras. Katz, Choate, Ready, and Nuno (2014) reported that officers were less likely to perceive BWC benefits related to evidence and ease of prosecution of domestic violence cases after BWC deployment. Ready and Young (2015) found that officers with experience using BWCs expressed greater concerns about the use of cameras to monitor their behavior compared to those without BWC experience, thus influencing the former’s decision-making related to traffic citations to avoid scrutiny over whether or not a ticket was issued.

Gaub, Choate, Todak, Katz, and White (2016) compared officers’ perceptions of BWCs in two Arizona departments (Phoenix and Tempe) and one Washington state department (Spokane) pre- and postdeployment. They found that perceptions in some areas became more positive, but in other areas, the perceptions became more negative. Changes in perceptions also varied depending on department. For example, Phoenix officers expressed less positive views on the impact of BWCs on citizen behavior, officer behavior, and thought that officers would have fewer contacts with citizens in comparison to the other two departments. Their views overall were much more negative than the other two departments, with only 10.5% of officers believing BWCs should be expanded to other departments compared to 55% of Spokane officers and 80% of Tempe officers after BWCs were deployed. While many of the perceptions did become more positive for the Spokane and Tempe departments after deployment, the Phoenix department expressed negative perceptions that continued or even worsened (Gaub et al., 2016). The findings here suggest the importance of differences by department. In a separate study that was done earlier of Phoenix officers where perceptions were also measured pre- and postdeployment, only 32% of Phoenix officers supported the adoption of BWCs throughout the city or the expansion of BWCs to other departments. These perceptions were postdeployment, and while these figures did represent an increase from predeployment, overall, officers still expressed general dissatisfaction with BWCs (Katz et al., 2014).

Officer Buy-In and Organizational Change

One important aspect of instituting change in police organizations is officer buy-in (Rosenbaum & McCarty, 2017). In other words, it is crucial that officers accept and understand why a change is occurring.¹ This acceptance and buy-in is critical for BWCs for several reasons. First, officers (patrol mostly) are those who will have the most exposure to using this technology. The media and general public do not use BWCs, and supervisory officers do not have to use BWCs every day, so while their perceptions are important, understanding the impact on the officers who use them most frequently should be imperative to a department considering this technology. Rosenbaum and McCarty (2017) argued that the only way to have effective change that is lasting in a department is to get buy-in from the officers themselves. Part of this effort is making officers feel that they have the ability to express their concerns, have those concerns recognized and integrated into BWC deployment, and overall consideration for the impact the change may have on the officers. Collecting specific data on the concerns that officers may have about a policy change or technology (in this case, BWCs) before BWC implementation can shed light on specific issues that officers may have leading to suggestions for how departments can assuage these issues and eventually lead to an easier transition.

For example, Sousa, Coldren, Rodriguez, and Braga (2016), in their large-scale effort to implement BWCs in the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, allowed officers to volunteer, and during the first wave of recruitment, only 82 officers agreed to wear a BWC, when the target was 400 officers. When officers were asked why they did not volunteer, many expressed concerns over the use of the footage, specifically its use against them by supervisors. In order to mitigate some of these concerns, major changes had to be made to the BWC policies and recruiting tactics to increase participation. Additionally, primary responsibility for the study was shifted from the Professional Standards Division, the same unit that did internal affairs, to the Patrol Division (Sousa et al., 2016). These challenges encountered in the early stage of implementation highlight the importance of listening to officer concerns and provides an example of how concerns can influence overall participation.

Second, it is important for officers to support BWCs in order to use them for their intended purposes. If officers are resistant to BWCs, it could impact several goals of this technology and potentially even result in harm to officers. For example, Huff, Katz, and Webb (2018) found that officers who were resistant to BWCs were less likely to comply with the use of, and policies associated with, the technology. Conversely, Roy (2014) found officers who volunteered to wear BWCs reported more positive perceptions of BWCs and were more likely to activate their BWCs than those who were required to wear them. Officer buy-in and overall perceptions of BWCs could even affect the willingness to use discretion while wearing a BWC, impacting their overall safety. Ariel et al. (2016) found that BWCs had no impact of police use of force but actually increased assaults against officers wearing them. The authors theorize these results could be explained in several ways including BWCs changing the ways officers responded to situations such as using less force than is necessary because of the BWC. In a subsequent article, Ariel et al. (2018) assert that departments need to recognize this as a possible outcome of the implementation of BWCs and work with officers on how to appropriately respond to aggressive situations when using a BWC.

Another important reason to examine officers’ perceptions, along with supervisors, relates to the impact of BWC on officers. Adams and Mastracci (2019), for example, reported that BWCs were associated with both officer burnout and a perceived lack of organizational support. Furthermore, they found that perceptions of organizational support mediated the effects of BWCs on officer burnout. Thus, while previous research has indicated high levels of support for BWCs among law enforcement leadership (Smykla et al., 2016) and mixed, although mostly positive views among officers, it is important to further elucidate the impact of BWCs on both officers and supervisors. The extant research suggests that officer buy-in is a vital part of effective implementation and utilization of BWCs. We still do not have a clear picture, however, regarding how BWC implementation may change the views of those who are assigned them as well as those in supervisory positions.

Current Study

The current study contributes to the existing literature on perceptions of BWCs in several ways. Officers and supervisors from two different Southern police departments were surveyed prior to the implementation of BWCs in December 2014 and January 2015, then again in August 2015 after full implementation in each department. Officer and supervisor perceptions of BWCs pre- and postimplementations were compared. Specifically, changes in concerns or potential benefits officers expressed about BWCs prior to implementation were compared to postimplementation. Second, we examined whether perceptions differed based on the rank of the officers. We hypothesized that officers who are in supervisory ranks would have more positive perceptions of BWCs compared to those at the officer rank. Based on prior research, we also expected perceptions of BWCs to become more positive following BWC implementation. Finally, based on the fact that officers are impacted more directly by the implementation of a BWC program, we expected their perceptions to change more than the perceptions of supervisors.

Method

The survey contained 40 questions on Wave 1 and 41 questions on Wave 2. The only difference in questions between the two surveys was an added question asking officers how long they had their BWC. Responses for this question included, “I have not been issued a body-worn camera” to having a BWC, “for more than 12 months.” The survey was broken into three sections. Section 1 asked questions about the officers’ general perceptions of BWCs. Section 2 asked about departmental impacts of BWCs, and Section 3 contained demographic questions. Demographics included age, race, sex, education level, and rank.

We developed the survey items used in the current study partially from Jennings et al. (2014) and partially from focus groups with police officers and supervisors. The researchers met with groups of officers and supervisors prior to the deployment of the surveys to discuss survey questions and ask for direct input. This resulted in several questions specifically related to BWC concerns (e.g., “Body-worn cameras will enable supervisors to “fish” for evidence used to discipline officers”). Questions were asked on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Exact wording of the questions utilized in the current study can be found in Online Appendix A.

The first wave of the officer survey was administered in each department prior to the implementation of BWCs.² Wave 1 of the survey was administered on December 15–17, 2014, in bay department³ and February 4–5, 2015, in beach department by distributing paper-based surveys during each shift’s briefing. A total of 58 surveys were distributed and 38 were returned in bay department, and a total of 173 questionnaires were distributed and 173 were returned in beach department. The second wave of the survey was administered to bay department on February 15–29, 2016, approximately 1 year after the BWC program started, as an online survey distributed to all sworn personnel via e-mail.⁴ Wave 2 survey links were sent to 165 e-mail addresses, and 72 surveys were completed. In beach department, Wave 2 of the survey was administered on March 2–3, 2016, approximately 8 months after the BWC program started. The authors handed out 162 questionnaires and 161 were returned. This resulted in a total number of 211 usable surveys from Wave 1 and 233 surveys from Wave 2 for final sample of 444⁵ surveys.

The differences in response rates across the two departments likely resulted, at least in part, from the different procedures required by the departments’ administrations. In bay department, the authors attended each shift’s briefing and explained the survey and informed consent form, then distributed the survey and informed consent form in envelopes. Officers were instructed by the authors to complete the survey on their own time, then place their completed surveys and informed consent forms in the envelope, and seal and mark the envelope. A box was placed in the briefing room for the completed surveys to be placed in. The shift sergeants did not set aside time during briefing for the officers to complete the surveys, and authors were not permitted to remain in the room to collect the surveys but instead returned to the department each subsequent day for a week to collect completed surveys. These limitations were placed on the researchers by the administration based on a desire to limit disruption to shifts’ lineups. In beach department, the same process was utilized, but the officers were provided time to complete the surveys during briefing and return their completed surveys to a drop box in the lineup room while the researchers and sergeant waited outside. Sergeants were also given the opportunity to complete the survey.

Table 1 includes sample characteristics for the total sample and broken down by pre- and postimplementation. The majority of the total sample were male (86.8%), White (62.4%), and were at the officer level in rank (75.3%). All other ranks (e.g., captain, lieutenant, and sergeant) were subsequently categorized as supervisors. Almost 40% of the sample indicated they had a bachelor’s degree, and over half (53.6%) were between the ages of 30 and 44. Three quarters of the total sample were from the beach department. A few differences in sample characteristics emerged between the pre- and postsurvey. In the postsurvey, there was a larger proportion of supervisors (28.7%) compared to the presurvey (19.9%) and a smaller percentage of non-White officers (42.2% vs. 33.5%, respectively). A larger percentage of officers were from the bay department on the postsurvey (30.9%) compared to the presurvey (18.0%). Although BWCs were fully implemented in both departments, about 18% of respondents indicated that they did not have any experience with BWCs on Wave 2. Of those who did not have any experience, 81% were at the supervisor rank.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics.

Variable	Total Sample		Pre		Post
Variable	%	N	%	N	%	N
Sex
Males	86.8	361	87.5	168	86.2	193
Females	13.2	55	12.5	24	13.8	31
Rank
Officer	75.3	308	80.1	149	71.3	159
Supervisor	24.7	101	19.9	37	28.7	64
Race
White	62.4	277	57.8	122	66.5	155
Non-White	37.6	167	42.2	89	33.5	78
Education
High school	2.9	12	3.8	7	2.2	5
Some college	27.9	114	30.3	56	26.0	58
Associate’s degree	22.5	92	22.2	41	22.9	51
Bachelor’s degree	39.2	160	37.8	70	40.4	90
Master’s degree	7.4	30	5.9	11	8.5	19
Age
Under 30	18.5	74	15.4	28	21.0	46
30–44	53.6	215	62.6	114	46.1	101
45 and above	27.9	112	22.0	40	32.9	72
Department
Bay	24.8	110	18.0	38	30.9	72
Beach	75.2	334	82.0	173	69.1	161

Dependent Variables

The bivariate analyses examined responses to 7 survey questions on perceptions of BWCs (see Table 2). We analyze two dependent variables for the multivariate analyses reported below. First, an exploratory factor analysis resulted in a scale of items reflecting officer concerns. This factor contained 6 items (see Online Appendix B) and reflects major concerns officers may have about BWCs. Higher values on this scale reflected a greater level of concern. The second dependent variable was a dichotomous measure of support for BWCs. Respondents indicating they strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, “I support the use of BWCs in my department,” were compared to all other respondents (0 = neutral/disagree/strongly disagree, 1 = agree/strongly agree).

Table 2.

Perceptions of BWCs Pre- and Postdeployment on Specific Concerns for the Total Sample.

Survey Item	% Strongly Agree/Agree Predeployment	% Strongly Agree/Agree Postdeployment
Support for BWCs	29.4	54.1*
BWCs will make it harder to get citizens to talk	46.9	26.4*
BWCs will enable supervisors to fish for evidence	58.3	47.2*
Media use BWCs to persecute/embarrass officers	78.7	61.0*
BWCs are a distraction	52.9	51.5
BWCs supported by public because society does not trust officers	72.0	75.2
Maintenance/upkeep will take time from duties	45.7	48.2
Wearing a BWC will cause me stress	43.6	36.4
Clear communication to officers about reasons for implementation	45.2	64.2*

Note. BWCs = body-worn cameras.

*p < .05.

Independent Variables

Respondent rank was the primary independent variable of interest utilized in the current multivariate analyses. Rank was a dichotomous variable categorized as “officer” and “supervisors.” Demographic variables measuring age, sex, race, and education were also included as control variables. Two dichotomous variables controlling for department and BWC use were also created. Respondents in the beach department were coded as 0, while those in the bay department were coded as 1. Those indicating they had not been assigned a BWC were coded as 0, while those indicated they had been assigned a BWC were coded as 1.

Analytical Strategy

For the bivariate analysis, we performed a series of χ² significance tests to examine differences in respondent perceptions about BWCs. First, we examined overall differences in perceptions for the total sample pre- and post-BWC implementation. Next, we compared perceptions by rank. Finally, we computed a series of comparisons to examine differences within officers, within supervisors, and then officers and supervisors pre- and postimplementation of BWCs. To examine the potential impact of rank on support for BWCs and officer concerns while controlling for demographics, department, and BWC use, we analyzed two regression models discussed below. The first multivariate model, analyzing overall support for BWCs, uses logistic regression. The second multivariate model uses Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression.

Results

Table 2 provides a comparison of perceptions of BWCs prior to their implementation and then again after their implementation for the total sample. Generally speaking, respondents’ perceptions became more favorable or positive toward BWCs postimplementation. Overall support for the use of BWCs rose significantly from 29% preimplementation to over half (54%) of respondents indicating that they strongly agreed/agreed with the use of BWCs postimplementation. Respondents also became less concerned about the impact of BWCs on communicating with citizens in the second wave of the survey. Preimplementation, nearly half (46.9%) of officers indicated they strongly agreed/agreed that BWCs would make it more difficult to talk to citizens. Approximately one quarter (26%) of respondents still strongly agreed/agreed that this was the case on the postimplementation survey.

For both the items regarding BWCs being used to fish for evidence against the officer and the use of the BWC by the media to embarrass the officer, a trend toward more positive perceptions after BWC implementation was found. These changes in perceptions were statistically significant. However, a considerable number of respondents still expressed concern with both of these items on the postsurvey. Although 58.3% of respondents strongly agreed/agreed preimplementation, 47.2% of officers still indicated they strongly agreed/agreed that their supervisors would use BWCs to fish for evidence postimplementation. After implementation of BWCs, 61% of respondents still believed the media would use BWCs to embarrass them compared to 78.7% of respondents who indicated the same perception preimplementation. Although their concerns seemed to be tempered somewhat after the implementation of BWCs, a large proportion of officers continued to express concerns on these 2 items.

For the total sample, several items saw very little change in perceptions pre- and postimplementation. Slightly more than half of officers saw BWCs as distraction on the preimplementation survey (52.9%) and the postimplementation survey (51.5%). Similarly, a large proportion of officers (72.0%) indicated that public mistrust in officers was driving the push for BWCs preimplementation, and this perception even increased slightly on the postimplementation survey (75.2%). Two items related to the maintenance and stress of wearing a BWC also changed very little between the pre- and postimplementation survey. Concerns about the maintenance and upkeep of BWCs hovered around 50% for both pre- and postimplementation, with a slight increase in concern on the postsurvey. About 36% of officers strongly agreed/agreed that wearing a BWC would cause them stress postimplementation compared to 43.6% prior to BWC introduction. None of these differences in perceptions were statistically significant. Finally, a positive change in perceptions was found when officers were asked about the communication regarding the reasons for implementing BWCs. Prior to implementation, 45% indicated that the reasons for using BWCs had been clearly communicated, while this figure increased to 61% after their implementation. This change was statistically significant.

To examine potential differences in perceptions by rank, the total sample was split into officers and supervisors to examine whether there were differences in perceptions of BWCs between officers who likely used BWCs the most compared to higher rank supervisors who are not as directly impacted by BWCs (Table 3). Several significant differences emerged when comparing officers by rank. First, overall support of BWCs was significantly different between the officers and supervisors. Almost 60% of supervisors supported BWCs compared to nearly 40% of officers. This trend continued for all survey items reported except the question on distrust by society, for which significant differences in perceptions were not found. All other survey items reported in Table 3 were significantly different based on rank. The most sizable differences in perceptions of BWCs across rank involved views of whether BWCs would be used to fish for evidence, the clear communication of reasons why BWCs were being implemented, and the use of BWCs to embarrasses and persecute officers. Specifically, across both survey waves, 55.2% of officers believed that supervisors would use BWCs to fish for evidence compared to 38.6% of those in supervisory ranks. Similarly, 71.8% of officers strongly agreed/agreed that the media would use BWC footage to embarrass or persecute them compared to 59.4% of supervisors. Conversely, although a slight majority of officers (51.5%) felt that the reasons for BWC implementation were clearly communicated, more than two thirds (69.0%) of those in supervisory ranks felt the same.

Table 3.

Perceptions of BWCs by Rank/Level of Officer for Total Sample.

Survey Item	% Strongly Agree/Agree Officers	% Strongly Agree/Agree Supervisors
Support for BWCs	39.7	59.4*
BWCs will make it harder to get citizens to talk	38.6	25.7
BWCs will enable supervisors to fish for evidence	55.2	38.6*
Media use BWCs to persecute/embarrass officers	71.8	59.4*
BWCs are a distraction	55.5	40.6*
BWCs supported by public because society does not trust officers	74.7	68.0
Maintenance/upkeep will take time from duties	52.0	37.6*
Wearing a BWC will cause me stress	44.4	28.7*
Clear communication to officers about reasons for implementation	51.5	69.0*

Note. BWCs = body-worn cameras.

*p < .05.

The findings reported thus far indicate significant differences in perceptions prior to and following implementation of BWCs and differences across rank. To further explore these differences, we examined perceptions using four different comparisons (Table 4). First, we compared the perceptions of officers to supervisors prior to BWC implementation (comparing the first and second data columns in Table 4). This analysis indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in the preimplementation perceptions of officers and supervisors on any of the items.

Table 4.

Perceptions of BWCs Pre- and Postdeployment on Specific Concerns by Rank/Level of Officer.

Survey Item	% Strongly Agree/Agree Pre-BWC Implementation		% Strongly Agree/Agree Post-BWC Implementation
Survey Item	Officers	Supervisors	Officers	Supervisors
Support for BWCs	30.2^b	37.8^c	48.7^a,b	71.9^a,c
BWCs will make it harder to get citizens to talk	47.0^b	40.5^c	30.8^b	17.2^c
BWCs will enable supervisors to fish for evidence	57.0	54.1^c	53.5^a	29.7^a,c
Media use BWCs to persecute/embarrass officers	80.5^b	64.9	63.5^a,b	56.3^a
BWCs are a distraction	55.0	43.2	56.0	39.1
BWCs supported by public because society does not trust officers	72.5	67.6	76.7	68.3
Maintenance/upkeep will take time from duties	50.7	37.8	53.2^a	37.5^a
Wearing a BWC will cause me stress	49.7	32.4	39.5	26.6
Clear communication to officers about reasons for implementation	44.3^b	58.3	58.2^b	75.0

Note. χ² analysis at p < .05. BWC = body-worn camera.

^asignificant difference across rank post-BWC; ^bsignificant difference among officers pre-BWC versus post-BWC; ^csignificant difference among supervisors pre-BWC versus post-BWC.

Second, we compared the perceptions of officers to supervisors after BWC implementation (comparing the third and fourth data columns in Table 4). This analysis indicates several significant differences between the perceptions of officers and supervisors following BWC implementation. Specifically, supervisors expressed substantially more support for BWCs than officers at this stage: Slightly less than half of officers (48.7%) of officers, compared to 71.9% of supervisors, expressed overall support for BWCs. Similarly, following BWC implementation, supervisors were significantly less likely than officers to strongly agree/agree that supervisors would use BWCs to fish for evidence against officers (29.7% vs. 53.5%), media would use BWCs to persecute or embarrass officers (56.3% vs. 63.5%), and that BWC maintenance would take time away from other duties (37.5% vs. 53.2%).

Next, we compared the perceptions of officers preimplementation to the perceptions of officers postimplementation (comparing the first and third data columns in Table 4). The findings indicate that officer perceptions changed significantly after BWC implementation on several survey items. For example, a significantly higher percentage of officers supported BWCs postimplementation (48.7%) compared to preimplementation (30.2%). The implementation of BWCs also appeared to temper several of the concerns officers had about BWCs. Specifically, comparing perceptions postimplementation to preimplementation, officers were less concerned about the impact of BWCs on communicating with citizens (30.8% vs. 47.0%) and media use of BWCs to embarrass or persecute officers (63.5% vs. 80.5%). A significantly higher percentage of officers strongly agreed/agreed that there was clear communication about the reasons for BWC implementation postimplementation (58.2%) compared to preimplementation (44.3%).

Finally, we compared the perceptions of supervisors prior to BWC implementation to the perceptions of supervisors postimplementation (comparing the second and fourth data columns in Table 4). Overall support for BWCs among supervisors increased significantly postimplementation (71.9%) compared to preimplementation (37.8%). In addition, two concerns expressed preimplementation about BWCs were significantly reduced after the introduction of BWCs. The percentage of supervisors who strongly agreed/agreed that BWCs would make it harder to get citizens to communicate with officers decreased from 40.5% preimplementation to 17.2% postimplementation. Likewise, a smaller percentage of supervisors expressed concern about the use of BWCs to fish for evidence against officers postimplementation (29.7%) compared to preimplementation (54.1%).

Table 5 reports the result from a logistic regression model estimating the relationship between rank, demographic variables, and support for BWCs. At Wave 1, no variables were significant in predicting support. However, at Wave 2, three variables emerged as significant. Older officers and officers from the bay department were significantly more likely to support BWCs than officers who were younger or employed in the beach department. Older officers were 1.6 times more likely to support BWCs, while those in the bay department were over 3 times as likely to support BWCs. Rank was also significant, with supervisors being over 2.5 times more likely to support BWCs than are officers. This trend continued when officer concerns were examined.

Table 5.

Support for BWCs by Demographics for Each Wave.

Variables	Wave 1		Wave 2
	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI
Age	0.93	[0.53, 1.65]	1.60*	[1.03, 2.50]
Female	0.76	[0.28, 1.07]	1.66	[0.70, 3.94]
Non-White	1.41	[0.71, 2.77]	1.23	[0.64, 2.38]
Education	0.80	[0.39, 1.62]	0.77	[0.40, 1.47]
Bay department	1.51	[0.67, 2.41]	3.18*	[1.57, 5.46]
Supervisor	1.14	[0.49, 2.64]	2.54*	[1.17, 5.53]
BWC use	—	—	1.21	[0.39, 1.74]

Note. Wave 1: R ² = .03, Wave 2: R ² = .17. BWC = body-worn camera; CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio.

*p < .05.

Table 6 displays the results from OLS regression⁶ models examining the effect of demographic controls and rank on the officer concerns scale. Again, at Wave 1, there were no significant differences between supervisors and officers. Similar to the results regarding overall BWC support, however, younger officers had significantly more concerns at Wave 2 compared to older officers. Rank and BWC use were also significant predictors of concern about BWCs at Wave 2. Respondents at the officer level had significantly higher levels of concern than those at the supervisor level, and those who indicated they had not used BWCs had more concerns. In addition, males had significantly more concerns than females at Wave 2.

Table 6.

Concerns for BWC by Demographics for Each Wave.

Variables	Wave 1		Wave 2
Variables	B	SE	B	SE
Age	−.12	.33	−0.70*	.26
Female	−.29	.57	−1.31*	.50
Non-White	.08	.40	−0.04	.39
Education	.42	.42	0.09	.39
Bay department	.81	.49	0.42	.40
Supervisor	−.54	.49	−2.00*	.45
BWC use	—	—	−1.01*	.44

Note. Wave 1: R ² = .03, Wave 2: R ² = .16. BWC = body-worn camera; SE = standard error.

*p < .05.

Discussion

The current study sought to contribute to the growing literature on police officer perceptions of BWCs through the comparison of perceptions before and after the introduction of BWCs in two Southern police departments. In addition, we examined perceptions by rank, across and within two groups (officer and supervisor) to examine changes across time (pre- and postimplementation of BWCs) and by type of police officer. In order to control for demographics, multivariate analyses were also conducted to see whether rank impacted BWC support and officer concerns. Several significant findings emerged from these comparisons. First, in the analysis of the total sample, perceptions on several items became more positive toward BWCs postimplementation. Notably, overall support for BWCs increased significantly from 29% preimplementation to over half of respondents (54%) postimplementation. Also, there was a significant decrease in concern about BWCs hampering the ability of officers to talk to citizens (46.9% compared to 26%, respectively). Although perceptions on other items did not see large changes, there was an overall trend of more positive perceptions after the introduction of BWCs for the total sample.

Once respondents were split by rank for further analysis, several interesting differences in perceptions emerged. When officer and supervisor perceptions were compared separately, several significant differences were found, including overall support for BWCs, whether BWCs would be used to fish for evidence, whether the media would use BWC to persecute/embarrass officers, and the clear communication of reasons why BWCs were being implemented. Respondents at the officer level consistently expressed significantly more negative views and more concerns about BWCs compared to supervisors. These differences were further highlighted in additional comparisons between pre- and postimplementation within and across ranks. Specifically, when officer perceptions were compared pre- and postimplementation, significant differences in perceptions emerged. While officers tended to become more positive in their perceptions postsurvey in general, they remained skeptical on some items, especially the potential use of BWCs to fish for evidence against them. However, when supervisor perceptions were compared pre- and postimplementation, a considerably more positive trend emerged. Supervisors showed larger changes in perceptions on overall support for BWCs and far less concern on most items compared to their preimplementation perceptions.

Differences in perceptions are most apparent when officers were compared to supervisors postimplementation of BWCs. For example, postimplementation, overall support for BWCs among officers was 48.7% compared to 71.9% among supervisors. Concern about the use of BWCs to fish for evidence against officers, the use of BWCs by the media to persecute and embarrass officers, and that maintenance would take time away from other duties were also significantly different across ranks after BWCs were deployed. Supervisors became much more positive toward the use of BWCs after their implementation, while the changes in officers’ perceptions, while generally positive, were not as substantial. Multivariate results revealed that at Wave 2, supervisors were significantly more likely to support BWCs and express fewer concerns with BWCs, providing additional support for the bivariate findings. Officers who had experience with BWCs also expressed fewer concerns.

Overall, the results emphasize the importance of looking at perceptions both over time and by rank of officer. While both officers and supervisors had a general increase in positive perceptions, the significant differences found in both support for BWCs and concerns about BWCs postimplementation by rank have several implications for the implementation and use of BWCs. First, one of the assumptions about concerns officers may have about BWCs is that these concerns are driven by lack of experience and time spent with the technology. Once officers gain experience, their perceptions should be more positive, according to this argument (Goetschel & Peha, 2017). In the current study, we found some evidence for this assertion. Overall support for BWCs increased, and many of the concerns were indeed tempered after the implementation of BWCs. However, the results reported here suggest that changes in perceptions following implementation may be more nuanced. Our findings suggest that although support for BWCs increased significantly for both officers and supervisors after the technology was introduced, the magnitude of the change was much greater among supervisors. As a result, whereas overall support for BWCs did not significantly differ between officers and supervisors preimplementation, there was a substantial and significant difference postimplementation. Supervisors may be more likely to support BWCs in their department for a number of reasons. They may be getting pressure from their own supervisors or outside influences such as the media to support and promote BWCs. Supervisors may also be less likely to use BWCs on a regular basis, making them less concerned overall about their use because they are not wearing them on a day-to-day basis like officers.

However, concerns about BWCs remained, particularly among officers. Chief among these concerns is the worry among officers that BWCs would be used to fish for evidence against them. This finding is consistent with other studies, where officers consistently have expressed concern about the use of cameras to monitor or critique their behavior, even after BWCs have been implemented (see, e.g., Pelfrey & Kenner, 2016; Ready & Young, 2015). Notably, a majority of officers expressed this concern both prior to and after the introduction of the BWCs, whereas among supervisors, the percentage of respondents expressing this concerned dropped from over half to less than one third after implementation. Rank was significant in the multivariate analysis at Wave 2, with officers expressing more overall concerns about BWCs. There was also some evidence that BWC experience reduced concerns. This variable was significant at Wave 2, but no impact was found on overall support for BWCs. Therefore, police departments seeking to implement BWCs or currently using BWCs should anticipate this concern among officers and seek to mitigate it. Mitigation could be attempted though strategies that focus on increasing officer buy-in (Lumb & Breazeale, 2002; Rosenbaum & McCarthy, 2017) or through departmental polices and recruiting for BWC participation (Sousa et al., 2016). Increasing officer buy-in and support could have important ramifications for BWC participation, compliance with BWC use, officer burnout, and organizational support (Adams & Mastracci, 2019; Huff, Katz, & Webb 2018; Roy, 2014).

Although we did not find that perceptions among officers became more negative after the implementation as found in other studies (Katz et al., 2014), we also did not find large increases in overall acceptance and support among officers but did find relatively large increases among supervisors. This result suggests that departments may need to focus more effort on gaining support from those at the officer level. It is arguable that supervisors have an important job in supporting the use of BWCs, but this must also translate to the officers who will spend the most time using this technology.

Future Directions and Limitations

Like much of the prior research on BWCs, the current study is limited by location and sample size; therefore, the results may not be generalizable to other departments. Additionally, while we controlled for several factors, other variables such as rates of use of force by the department, police/community relations, and other contextual factors may influence overall perceptions. Future research should seek to identify and measure additional variables that may impact the overall perceptions of officers.

Further, due to privacy concerns by each department, we were not able to link officer surveys from Wave 1 to Wave 2. As a result, we are not able to make assumptions about individual changes in perceptions over time, just change at the overall organizational level. Additional research needs to be conducted with departments of all sizes using varied postimplementation time frames to examine whether and how perceptions differ by rank. Future studies should also seek to tie individual officer surveys over time to examine how these perceptions may change. In addition, the response rate for the bay department was low in the preimplementation survey, which may have been influenced by the lack of time set aside for officers to complete the survey. Finally, although full implementation had been achieved in each department, some respondents still reported they had not been issued a BWC. There are a number of reasons why some officers may not have been issued a BWC. Turnover, new officers not yet trained on BWCs, changes to organizational structuring, and officers not being assigned to patrol most likely account for the few officers that indicated they did not have any experience with BWCs. In future surveys, a follow-up question could be added to examine reasons why some respondents may not be issued a BWC. Despite these limitations, the current study provides important information for departments considering implementing BWCs and provides new avenues for research and contributes to the growing body of knowledge on BWCs.

Conclusions

As more and more departments implement BWCs, research on perceptions becomes increasingly important. This research is not only integral in identifying potential issues and concerns with BWC use but also potential benefits perceived among officers. Our results indicate that postimplementation of BWCs, perceptions generally become more supportive. However, differences in support for BWCs and concerns among officers still existed, and these differences became pronounced once supervisors were compared to officers. Additional research is needed to further understand how perceptions of BWCs may differ based on rank and how these perceptions may change over time and influence overall behavior in departments.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material, Appendix_A - Police Officer and Supervisor Perceptions of Body-Worn Cameras Pre- and Postimplementation: The Importance of Officer Buy-in

Supplemental Material, Appendix_A for Police Officer and Supervisor Perceptions of Body-Worn Cameras Pre- and Postimplementation: The Importance of Officer Buy-in by Matthew S. Crow, John Ortiz Smykla, Jamie A. Snyder, Matthew S. Crow and John Ortiz Smykla in Criminal Justice Review

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge and thank their colleague, Dr. Vaughn Crichlow, for his assistance in data collection. The authors are also indebted to the police officers and supervisors at both departments who shared their perceptions with them and the chiefs of police who valued agency/academic research and partnerships.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available upon request from the corresponding author.

Notes

References

Adams

Mastracci

(2019). Police body-worn cameras: Effects on officers’ burnout and perceived organizational support. Police Quarterly, 22, 5–30.

Ariel

(2016). Increasing cooperation with the police using body-worn cameras. Police Quarterly, 19, 326–362.

Ariel

Farrar

W. A.

Sutherland

(2015). The effect of police body-worn cameras on use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 509–535.

Ariel

Sutherland

Henstock

Young

Drover

Sykes

Henderson

(2016). Wearing body cameras increases assaults against officers and does not reduce police use of force: Results from a global multi-site experiment. European Journal of Criminology, 13, 744–755.

Ariel

Sutherland

Henstock

Young

Drover

Sykes

Henderson

. (2017). “Contagious accountability” a global multisite randomized controlled trial on the effect of police body-worn cameras on citizens’ complaints against the police. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44, 293–316.

Ariel

Sutherland

Henstock

Young

Drover

Sykes

Henderson

(2018). Paradoxical effects of self-awareness of being observed: Testing the effect of police body-worn cameras on assaults and aggression against officers. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14, 19–47.

Bellin

Pemberton

. (2018). Policing the admissibility of body camera evidence. Fordham Law Review, 87, 1425–1457.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. (2016). Body-worn camera toolkit. U.S. Department of Justice, Author. Retrieved from https://www.bja.gov/bwc/Topics-NationalLandscape.html

Crow

M. S.

Snyder

J. A.

Crichlow

V. J.

Smykla

J. O.

(2017). Community perceptions of police body-worn cameras: The impact of views on fairness, fear, performance, and privacy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44, 589–610.

10.

Culhane

S. E.

Boman

J. H.

Schweitzer

(2016). Public perceptions of the justification of police shootings: The role of body cameras in a pre- and post-Ferguson experiment. Police Quarterly, 19, 251–274.

11.

Demir

. (2018). Citizens’ perceptions of body-worn cameras (BWCs): Findings from a quasi-randomized controlled trial. Journal of Criminal Justice. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.09.009

12.

Fan

(2016). Justice visualized: Courts and the body camera revolution. UC Davis Law Review, 50, 897–959.

13.

Gaub

J. E.

Choate

D. E.

Todak

Katz

C. M.

White

M. D.

(2016). Officer perceptions of body-worn cameras before and after deployment: A study of three departments. Police Quarterly, 19, 275–302.

14.

Goetschel

Peha

J. M.

(2017). Police perceptions of body-worn cameras. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 698–726.

15.

Gramagila

J. A.

Phillips

S. W.

(2017). Police officers’ perceptions of body-worn cameras in Buffalo and Rochester. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 313–328.

16.

Hedberg

E. C.

Katz

C. M.

Choate

D. E.

(2017). Body-worn cameras and citizen interactions with police officers: Estimating plausible effects given varying compliance levels. Justice Quarterly, 34, 627–651.

17.

Huff

Katz

C. M.

Webb

V. J.

(2018). Understanding police officer resistance to body-worn cameras. Policing: An International Journal, 41, 482–495.

18.

Jennings

W. G.

Fridell

L. A.

Lynch

M. D.

(2014). Cops and cameras: Officer perceptions of the use of body-worn cameras in law enforcement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 549–556.

19.

Jennings

W. G.

Lynch

M. D.

Fridell

L. A.

(2015). Evaluating the impact of police officer body-worn cameras (BWCs) on response-to-resistance and serious external complaints: Evidence from the Orlando police department (OPD) experience utilizing a randomized controlled experiment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 480–486.

20.

Katz

C. M.

Choate

D. E.

Ready

J. R.

Nuňo

(2014). Evaluating the impact of officer worn body cameras in the Phoenix police department. Phoenix: Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety, Arizona State University.

21.

Lafayette Group. (2015). Major cities chiefs and major county sheriffs survey of technology needs—Body worn cameras. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved from https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rvnT.EAJQwK4/v0

22.

Lawrence

D. S.

Peterson

B. E.

Thompson

P. S.

(2018). Community views of Milwaukee’s police body-worn camera program: Results from three waves of community surveys. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

23.

Lee

Taylor

Willis

(2018). Being held to account: Detainees’ perceptions of police body-worn cameras. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 0, 1–19. doi:10.1177/0004865818781913.

24.

Lum

Stoltz

Koper

C. S.

Scherer

J. A

. (2019). Research on body-worn cameras: What we know, what we need to know. Criminology and Public Policy, 18, 93–118.

25.

Lumb

R. C.

Breazeale

(2002). Police officer attitudes and community policing implementation: Developing strategies for durable organizational change. Policing & Society, 13, 91–106.

26.

Maskaly

Donner

Jennings

W. G.

Ariel

Sutherland

(2017). The effects of body-worn cameras (BWCs) on police and citizen outcomes: A state-of-the-art review. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 40, 672–688.

27.

Mesa Police Department. (2013). On-officer body camera system: Program evaluation and recommendations. Mesa, AZ: Mesa Police Department.

28.

Morrow

W. J.

Katz

C. M.

Choate

D. E.

(2016). Assessing the impact of police body-worn cameras on arresting, prosecuting, and convicting suspects of intimate partner violence. Police quarterly, 19, 303–325.

29.

Pelfrey

W. V.

Jr. Keener

(2016). Police body worn cameras: A mixed method approach assessing perceptions of efficacy. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 39, 491–506. doi:10.1108/PIJPSM-02-2016-0019

30.

Pelfrey

W. V.

Jr. Keener

. (2018). Body-worn cameras and officer perceptions: A mixed-method pretest posttest of patrol officers and supervisors. Journal of Crime and Justice. doi:10.1080/0735648X.2018.1479287

31.

Ready

J. T.

Young

J. T.

(2015). The impact of on-officer video cameras on police–citizen contacts: Findings from a controlled experiment in Mesa, AZ. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 445–458.

32.

Rosenbaum

D. P.

McCarty

W. P.

(2017). Organizational justice and officer “buy-in” in American policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 40, 71–85.

33.

Roy

(2014). On-officer video cameras: Examining the effects of police department policy and assignment on camera use and activation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe.

34.

Smykla

J. O.

Crow

M. S.

Crichlow

V. J.

Snyder

J. A.

(2016). Police body-worn cameras: Perceptions of law enforcement leadership. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 424–443.

35.

Sousa

W. H.

Coldren

J. R.

Jr. Rodrigez

Braga

A. A.

(2016). Research on body worn cameras: Meeting the challenges of police operations, program implementation, and randomized controlled trial designs. Police Quarterly, 19, 363–384.

36.

Sousa

W. H.

Miethe

T. D.

Sakiyama

(2017). Inconsistencies in public opinion of body-worn cameras on police: Transparency, trust, and improved police–citizen relationships. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 12, 100–108.

37.

Tonry

(1993). The failure of the US Sentencing Commission’s guidelines. Crime & Delinquency, 39, 131–149.

38.

Tonry

(1996). Sentencing matters. New York, NY: Oxford.

39.

White

M. D.

(2014). Police officer body-worn cameras: Assessing the evidence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

40.

White

M. D.

Gaub

J. E.

Todak

(2017). Exploring the potential for body-worn cameras to reduce violence in police–citizen encounters. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 12, 66–76.

41.

White

M. D.

Todak

Gaub

J. E.

(2017). Assessing citizen perceptions of body-worn cameras after encounters with police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 40, 689–703.

42.

White

M. D.

Todak

Gaub

J. E.

(2018). Examining body-worn camera integration and acceptance among police officers, citizens, and external stakeholders. Criminology & Public Policy, 17, 649–677.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.25 MB