Body-worn cameras (BWC) have become ubiquitous in law enforcement but are nascent in correctional settings. There is little research on the attitudes of the corrections personnel expected to wear these devices, even though their buy-in is critical for successful implementation. We address this gap by examining the perceptions of deputies from the Loudoun County, Virginia Adult Detention Center (LCADC) who participated in a 12-month BWC pilot program. We survey LCADC deputies at three periods (pre-, mid-, and post-implementation) and analyze mean changes in their perceptions of BWCs and staff-resident relationships. We find that LCADC deputies were neutral or did not agree that BWCs would improve efficiency and accuracy, have a civilizing effect on incarcerated residents, or lead to work-related disruptions. These attitudes remain largely consistent across the three survey periods. We also find that deputies had more negative perceptions of their relationships with residents at both the mid- and post-implementation periods, compared to the pre-implementation period. The results suggest that, when developing a BWC program, corrections officials should involve front-line personnel early in the planning process. Officials should also ensure policies are tailored to the unique needs of their correctional agency, rather than merely adapting policies created for law enforcement.
Body-Worn Cameras in a Correctional Setting: Assessing Jail Deputy Attitudes Before, During, and After Implementation
Body-worn cameras (BWC) have become ubiquitous in law enforcement but are nascent in correctional settings. There is little research on the attitudes of the corrections personnel expected to wear these devices, even though their buy-in is critical for successful implementation. We address this gap by examining the perceptions of deputies from the Loudoun County, Virginia Adult Detention Center (LCADC) who participated in a 12-month BWC pilot program. We survey LCADC deputies at three periods (pre-, mid-, and post-implementation) and analyze mean changes in their perceptions of BWCs and staff-resident relationships. We find that LCADC deputies were neutral or did not agree that BWCs would improve efficiency and accuracy, have a civilizing effect on incarcerated residents, or lead to work-related disruptions. These attitudes remain largely consistent across the three survey periods. We also find that deputies had more negative perceptions of their relationships with residents at both the mid- and post-implementation periods, compared to the pre-implementation period. The results suggest that, when developing a BWC program, corrections officials should involve front-line personnel early in the planning process. Officials should also ensure policies are tailored to the unique needs of their correctional agency, rather than merely adapting policies created for law enforcement.
Keywords: Body-worn cameras; jail; corrections; deputy attitudes; survey
Over the last decade, police in the United States have come under significant public scrutiny because of controversial uses of force, especially against unarmed Black men. In 2014–2015, the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, and Walter Scott, among others, led to public outrage, riots in some cities, and widespread calls for police reform (President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 2015). In response to this scrutiny, thousands of law enforcement agencies began adopting body-worn cameras (BWCs) as a tool to hold their officers accountable and enhance community trust (White & Malm, 2020). By 2016, for example, nearly half of U.S. law enforcement agencies had deployed cameras, including 80% of large agencies (i.e., over 500 sworn; Hyland, 2018).
Despite the rapid diffusion of BWCs in law enforcement agencies across the country, George Floyd’s death in 2020 has reignited public outrage and the demand for police reform. This reached a tipping point in 2020 as demonstrated by the “defund the police” movement (Ferguson, 2020) and numerous legislative efforts targeting law enforcement at the local (Hamedy & Gauk-Roger, 2020), state (Kelly, 2020), and federal levels (Cochrane & Broadwater, 2020).
The initial uptake of BWC programs in police departments was supported by early research suggesting that cameras reduce police use of force and citizen complaints (Ariel et al., 2015; Hedberg et al., 2017). This evidence base has gotten more mixed over time (Lum et al., 2019), but the demand for the technology remains strong, particularly in light of the ongoing and highly publicized incidents of police killings and uses of force. For example, by April 2021, seven states had passed laws mandating the use of BWCs by all law enforcement officers (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2022), and in May 2022, President Biden ordered their use by federal law enforcement agencies (White House, 2022). Interest in BWCs has also spread to other areas in criminal justice – most notably, corrections (Welsh-Huggins, 2021). In March 2021, a California judge ordered the use of BWCs in five state prisons, concluding that “…body cameras are likely to improve investigations of misconduct by staff and to reduce the incidence of violations of disabled inmates’ rights (Winton, 2021: 1).” State correctional agencies in Florida, Georgia, New York, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin have begun piloting BWCs in prisons, or have plans in place to do so (Welsh-Huggins, 2021).
The adoption of BWCs by both state prisons and local county jails represents an important development for the technology. Interactions between correctional officers (COs) (sometimes referred to as deputies in jail settings) and incarcerated individuals are very different than interactions between the police and community members given how frequently they occur among the same individuals, the custodial nature of those interactions, and the presence of fixed surveillance cameras throughout facilities (Allard et al., 2008; Lawrence et al., 2022). Unfortunately, there is virtually no research on BWCs in correctional settings in the U.S., and given the aforementioned differences, it is unknown whether the evidence base on BWCs in a policing context extends to corrections. The increasing adoption of BWCs in corrections, and the associated costs (financial and otherwise), underscore the critical need for research on the topic. CO perceptions are an especially important area of inquiry because prior police research has shown how negative attitudes can serve as a barrier to acceptance and use of BWCs (Bartholomew et al., 2021; White & Malm, 2020).
The current study begins to fill this research gap through an examination of attitudes toward BWCs among sheriff’s deputies assigned to the Loudoun County, Virginia Adult Detention Center. We administered three waves of a deputy survey over the course of 14 months (one pre-BWC deployment and two post-BWC deployment) to capture deputy perceptions across a range of key issues, including ease of use, perceived impact on their job, advantages, disadvantages, and impact on deputy and resident behavior. Overall, we seek to: (1) examine baseline and overall attitudes about BWCs among correctional deputies; (2) examine change in attitudes about BWCs among correctional deputies over time; (3) and compare correctional deputies’ attitudes to the larger body of evidence on police officer attitudes regarding BWCs.
BWCs are now a prominent feature of policing in the U.S. and abroad. Though initial pilot programs and interest in BWCs among police departments dates back nearly two decades (Miller et al., 2014; Peterson & Lawrence, 2019; White, 2014), diffusion of cameras increased dramatically in the U.S. after a series of high-profile police killings of citizens in 2014-15. This rapid diffusion was driven by several factors. First, there was (and continues to be) strong support for the technology among citizens (Sousa, et al., 2018; White et al., 2017), police leadership organizations (International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2019), civil rights groups (Stanley, 2015), and police officers themselves (Gaub et al., 2020). Second, the federal government has provided significant funding support for agencies choosing to deploy BWCs. By fall 2022, the U.S. DOJ had awarded nearly $100 million in grants to approximately 700 law enforcement agencies, resulting in the deployment of more than 100,000 BWCs to communities across the country (“BWC Policy”, n.d.).
Third, findings from early research studies suggested cameras could produce notable reductions in police use of force and complaints against police (Ariel et al., 2015; Jennings et al., 2014; Katz et al., 2015). Those reductions, particularly in complaints, have been substantial and long-term in some departments (Braga et al., 2018; Jennings et al., 2014; Peterson & Lawrence, 2021; Sutherland et al., 2017). Though research findings have become more mixed over time regarding these outcomes, the weight of the evidence is persuasive. Lum et al. (2020) identified 22 studies focusing on complaints, 15 of which were in favor of BWCs reducing complaints (with an overall -16.6% reduction in the Mean percent change). Beyond these important outcomes, there is a growing evidence base suggesting the technology has evidentiary value for both the police and downstream criminal justice actors (Huff et al., 2021; Todak et al., 2022), and can enhance procedural justice (McCluskey et al., 2019) and police legitimacy (Demir et al., 2020).
Researchers have devoted significant attention to examining police officer perceptions of BWCs. By mid-2020, Gaub et al. (2020) noted that 37 studies examine officer attitudes before (n=9) and after BWC deployment (n=11), or both (n=15). Those studies employ a range of methods including interviews (n=8), focus groups (n=4), and surveys (n=32; online/in-person), and they examine a diversity of topics, from general perceptions to attitudes about impact on officer and civilian behavior. There have also been at least 15 additional studies published since Gaub et al.’s (2020) review.
Most studies have shown that police officers generally have positive attitudes about BWCs, especially after they begin wearing the devices. Gaub et al. (2020) reported that 15 of the 28 studies (54%) that captured a general attitude measure post-BWC deployment reported positive perceptions. For example, Hickman (2017) found that approximately 80% of New York City officers agreed that cameras should be adopted for all frontline officers. White et al. (2018) reported that, pre-deployment, 72.9% of Tempe (AZ) officers agreed or strongly agreed the advantages of BWCs outweigh the disadvantages. This increased to 96% agreement post-deployment. Willis (2022) also reported high levels of support among officers in a small eastern agency and noted that support could have been higher had patrol officers been included in the planning and implementation process. A few studies have demonstrated less overall support for BWCs. For example, Gaub et al. (2016) found only 16.4% of Phoenix police officers believed the advantages of BWCs outweighed the disadvantages, while Goetschel & Peha (2017) found that only 31% of Pittsburgh officers supported deploying BWCs citywide.
Research also shows officer perceptions vary based on the outcome of interest. Officers report highly positive attitudes about the evidentiary value of BWCs (84% of the studies in Gaub et al.’s [2020] review). Pelfrey and Keener (2018) reported that officers and administrators agreed that BWCs improve the quality of evidence they can collect (mean of 3.28 of a four-point scale). In Clare et al.’s (2019) study of police in western Australia, 80% agreed that BWCs improve their ability to gather evidence. Officers are equally positive about the potential for BWCs to protect them from false complaints. Grossmith et al. (2015) found that London officers who wore BWCs felt significantly more protected against complaints than control officers did (see also, Tankebe & Ariel, 2016). Studies have found that officer perceptions of BWCs are related to other factors, such as police cultural attitudes (Kim et al., 2021), perceptions of race and racial tension (Powell-Williams et al., 2021), officer assignment (Wooditch et al., 2020), and whether officers were mandated to wear BWCs (or wore them voluntarily; Huff et al., 2020).
Officers are much more skeptical about the impact of BWCs on civilian behavior. Gaub et al. (2016) found that only 23% of Phoenix officers, 43% of Tempe officers, and 28% of Spokane officers agreed that BWCs reduce citizen aggression. Kyle and White (2017) found that officers disagreed that BWCs would increase citizen compliance with their directives. Officers have also expressed concerns about the impact of BWCs on their discretion (e.g., making them more legalistic; Koen et al., 2018) and use of force (Gramagila & Phillips, 2018; Lawshe et al., 2019). Alternatively, most studies (62%) indicate officers have positive attitudes about the impact of BWCs on police-community relations (Gaub et al., 2020). For example, Braga et al. (2017) found that most Las Vegas officers agreed BWCs would improve the relationship between the police and the community. In sum, police officers’ attitudes about BWCs are generally positive, but there is variation by agency and the focus of specific outcomes.
The adoption of BWCs in correctional settings is well underway.1 Welsh-Huggins (2021) reported camera deployment in several states including New York (approximately 2,500 BWCs in operation across eight prisons), Wisconsin (200 BWCs deployed to correctional officers in all six maximum-security prisons and another 100 in one juvenile facility), and Florida (select staff in all 35 prisons across the state), with planning underway in Georgia and Virginia. Bogel-Burroughs (2022) described the initiation of a statewide BWC program in Ohio prisons, including 5,100 BWCs across 28 prisons at a cost of $6.9 million in the first year and $3.3 million each year after. Moreover, a handful of correctional agencies have received federal funding for BWCs through the U.S. Department of Justice BWC Policy and Implementation Program, including the Washington, DC Department of Corrections, Middlesex (NJ) Department of Corrections, and state correctional agencies in Alabama, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio (“BWC Policy”, n.d.).
Though an increasing number of local and state correctional agencies have begun deploying BWCs, there is virtually no research on perceptions of the technology among correctional staff. The only studies published to date examine attitudes among correctional officers in New Zealand and Australia. Beales and Marsh (2016) examined attitudes regarding officer safety in Rimutaka Prison and Auckland Prison after a six-month pilot deployment of BWCs. The authors concluded “The trial was considered a success and feedback from custodial officers using the equipment, and prisoners exposed to it, indicated there was an increase in actual and perceived personal safety (Beales & Marsh, 2016: 41).”2
Sydes et al. (2022) examined officer perceptions of safety following a statewide deployment of BWCs in prisons in Queensland, Australia. Results from surveys (n=548) and interviews (n=34) produced mixed results, as 55% of respondents indicated that BWCs did not improve their physical safety and 87% expressed skepticism that BWCs would reduce aggressive behavior among incarcerated individuals. The authors did note, “Although many officers did not feel that their physical safety had improved, most believed that the introduction of BWCs improved their professional safety by reducing the threat of false allegations or complaints by prisoners (Sydes et al., 2022: 333).” In a related paper, Dodd et al. (2020) examined Queensland CO attitudes more broadly, and they reported widespread support for BWCs, particularly as a tool for increasing accountability among incarcerated individuals and officers. Respondents did express several concerns, including rules governing their own access to footage, increased job stress because of enhanced monitoring of their performance, and the impact of BWCs on the rapport between the incarcerated population and staff.
There is an extensive body of research highlighting the potential benefits of BWCs in policing, from reductions in complaints against officers to enhanced transparency, evidentiary value, and police legitimacy (White & Malm, 2020). Nearly 50 studies of police officer perceptions of BWCs demonstrate support for the technology generally, especially post-deployment, though officer attitudes vary across outcomes. As BWCs spread to corrections, there is little research to guide decision-making in this setting. In plain terms, it is unknown whether the evidence base on BWCs in policing extends to corrections. The attitudes of those expected to wear the devices is an important area of study, as prior research suggests that correctional officers’ perceptions of their work environment and of policy changes instituted by administration can shape their buy-in and support for reform (Lerman & Harney, 2019; Santorso, 2021). The current study begins to address this research gap.
The Loudoun County, Virginia Adult Detention Center (LCADC) served as the study site for the current study. As described in greater detail in the following section, we worked with LCADC officials to pilot a BWC program between November 2020 and October 2021. This provided us with a unique opportunity to learn about the implementation of such a program in real time, as well as to assess deputy perceptions of BWCs before, during, and after the pilot.
Further, though this study cannot be generalized to jails across the county, the LCADC is typical of many such local corrections facilities. Operated by the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office, the LCADC provides jail services to Loudoun County, Virginia, which is the third most populous county in the state. According to administrative data provided by the LCADC, the facility had an average daily population of 210 residents, nearly 90% of which were male, over the study period (i.e., November 2020 to October 2021). During this time, more than 80% of residents had a length of stay under two weeks, while only 4% of residents had a length of stay over six months. Most LCADC residents are pre-trial detainees, while approximately 20% are serving sentences for misdemeanor or felony convictions. The facility houses maximum-, medium-, and minimum-security level residents and includes work release, workforce, drug treatment, and mental health programs.
The LCADC BWC pilot program, and consequently our surveys of deputy perspectives, occurred during the early stages of the global COVID-19 pandemic. This had implications for the current study. Loudoun County implemented several policies to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in the LCADC and minimize in-person contact between staff and residents. These efforts included an increase in bond releases and electronic monitoring in lieu of jail detention, as well as an increase in early releases for residents serving sentences (Cline, 2020). As noted in the previous paragraph, LCADC’s average daily population was around 210 residents over the study period. While this number was consistent across the full study period (i.e., weekly averages between 194 and 238 residents), this represents a sharp decline from the pre-pandemic population levels, which were around 330 residents (Cline, 2020). Of note, the percentage of residents awaiting serving sentences, compared to those awaiting trial, also remained consistent at about 20% during the study period.
Despite these challenges, it is important to underscore that the entire study occurred over the pandemic, and there were thus no significant changes in policy, practice, or population levels during implementation of the BWC program. Furthermore, because of the universal, far-reaching impacts the COVID-19 pandemic, jails across the country were experiencing similar challenges over the same period.
The present study reports findings from a three-wave survey of LCADC deputies. These data come from a larger project funded by the National Institute of Justice to examine the degree to which BWCs could improve important measures of safety and security in the LCADC. Specifically, we worked with LCADC officials to implement a 12-month pilot of BWCs between November 2020 and October 2021 and conducted a clustered randomized experiment on use-of-force incidents and jail resident injuries (Citation removed for blind review). As part of this project, we surveyed LCADC deputies at three distinct periods over the course of 14 months: (1) pre-implementation, which occurred approximately 2 months before the pilot of the BWC program in September 2020; (2) mid-implementation, which occurred a little over halfway through the pilot in June 2021, (3) and post-implementation 1 month after the pilot concluded in November 2021.
To facilitate cluster randomization in our study, we assigned each housing unit in the facility to either an experimental group or control group on a monthly basis. Thus, at the time of the mid-implementation survey, most LCAD deputies would have had been equipped with BWCs for some portion of the study period. At the completion of the pilot program, LCADC officials provided BWCs to deputies in all units, meaning all deputies had been equipped with the devices at the time of our post-implementation survey. Therefore, deputy experiences with BWCs were largely consistent across all survey periods.
The survey instrument included 24 questions on the pre-implementation survey designed to measure perceptions of BWCs across a variety of domains: (1) individual and general views; (2) familiarity, ease of use, and comfort; (3) use of BWCs; (4) resident-deputy interactions; (5) civilian reactions; (6) concerns; and (7) overall thoughts and conclusions. We added questions to the mid- and post-implementation surveys regarding rate of BWC activation, training feedback, and BWC use advantages and disadvantages. The questions included in the current study’s survey instrument were adapted to a jail setting from the instruments used in prior studies of police officer perceptions of BWCs (i.e., Gaub et al., 2016; White et al., 2017). Survey questions were measured on a five-point Likert-type scale through which deputies were asked to indicate whether they strongly disagreed, disagreed, neither agreed nor disagreed, agreed, or strongly agreed with each statement. Because the BWC pilot program and the deputy surveys occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, we administered these surveys online using Checkbox software.
We administered the survey to all LCADC deputies (including 102 front-line deputies and 22 supervisors) at all three periods, for a pool of approximately 124 eligible survey participants at each wave. Participation was voluntary, and the surveys took approximately 10 minutes to complete. We gave respondents approximately two weeks to complete each survey, during which time we provided regular reminders to improve response rates. Although there was some item-level variation in responses rates, there were 117 deputies overall who participated in the pre-implementation survey (94% response rate), 84 who participated in the mid-implementation survey (68% response rate), and 87 who participated in the post-implementation survey (70% response rate).3
It is important to note that surveys were anonymous and did not include questions about deputy demographics or other individual information (e.g., rank, tenure, etc.) that would allow us to link responses across waves. This decision was based on three factors. First, the primary motivation for the surveys was to measure deputies’ perceptions of BWCs over time and to inform changes to the LCADC’s BWC policies and practices. LCADC leadership was not concerned about how specific deputy characteristics were associated with these perceptions. Second, based on prior experiences collecting data from LCADC deputies, command staff believed the inclusion of such questions would lead to substantially lower response rates. Finally, because the majority of LCADC deputies were white males, there was little variation on some of the key demographic variables that we would have liked to measure. Given this, the sentiments measured in each wave only represent the deputies who responded to that survey, and our results should be interpreted as changes across the average survey respondent from each wave, rather than changes within the same deputies over time.
We examined four primary composite outcomes for this study, which include perceptions of: (1) whether BWCs improve efficiency and accuracy (8 items, α = 0.89), (2) the civilizing effect of BWCs on incarcerated residents (3 items, α = 0.94), (3) the work-related disruptions of BWCs (5 items, α = 0.69), and (4) overall relationships between deputies and incarcerated residents (5 items, α = 0.81). Each of the four outcomes are the average responses to between 3 and 8 individual items as listed in Table 1. We created these composite outcomes using a combination of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the questions included in the deputy survey. Although there are potentially areas of conceptual overlap between the items included in some of the composite outcomes, confirmatory factor analyses and Cronbach’s alpha support our creation of these four outcomes.
Of note, each item utilized the five-point Likert-type scale responses described above, ranging from “strongly disagree” (coded as 1) to “strongly agree” (coded as 5). In other words, higher responses indicate stronger agreement with the statement about BWCs. The primary outcomes were divided by the number of items in the scale so that each outcome, and each individual item, have the same range of values (1 to 5) and are comparable to one another.
[Insert Table 1 about here]
Because our data include three separate surveys of deputies before, during, and after implementation of the BWC pilot, we employed multiple t-tests to assess mean changes in the four primary outcomes of interest. As noted above, we were not able to link deputy responses across survey waves. Thus, even though the samples are dependent (i.e., mostly comprised of the same deputies across waves), we used an independent samples t-test approach for our analyses. While this was a necessary byproduct of our approach to data collection, the loss of statistical power from using an independent samples t-test is a limitation of our analytic strategy.
Using these t-tests, we compare mean changes in three ways: (1) pre-implementation to mid-implementation; (2) mid-implementation to post-implementation; and (3) pre-implementation to post-implementation. This provides us with a more comprehensive view of the degree to which the LCADC deputy perceptions changed over the course of the BWC pilot program. In addition to analyzing changes to the four primary composite outcomes described above, we also examined changes in the individual items that comprise those measures.
Table 2 presents the results from the t-test analyses of changes in deputy perceptions regarding the degree to which BWCs can improve the efficiency and accuracy of their day-to-day duties. Based on the five-point Likert-type scale we used, deputies’ perceptions of BWCs on the “efficiency and accuracy” outcome remained neutral (i.e., a mean of approximately 3) across all three periods. Within items, there was some variation, with deputies more likely on average to agree across the three periods that BWCs will lead to more accurate accounts (means between 3.34 and 3.55) and improve the quality of evidence (means between 3.64 and 3.85). For all other items, the perceptions of BWCs remained neutral or negative (i.e., means of ~3 or below). There was a slight decrease in the average agreement among deputies that BWCs would result in less time spent filling out paperwork between the pre-implementation period (mean=2.30) and mid-implementation period (2.08), but this difference only approached statistical significance (t = 1.65, p = .10).
[Insert Table 2 about here]
Deputies’ perceptions regarding the civilizing effect of BWCs on incarcerated residents are largely similar to their perceptions of the potential for BWCs to improve efficiency and accuracy. As depicted in Table 3, deputies had generally neutral or negative perceptions of BWCs making incarcerated residents more cooperative, more respectful, or less aggressive (means below 3). These findings remained consistent across all three periods, though there was a marginally significant decrease in agreement that BWCs would make residents less aggressive between the pre-implementation and mid-implementation periods (t = 1.91, p < .10), followed by a proportional increase from the mid-implementation to the post-implementation periods (t = -1.84, p < .10).
[Insert Table 3 about here]
Table 4 presents the results of the t-test analyses examining deputy perceptions of the effect of BWCs on work disruptions across the pre-, mid-, and post-implementation periods. Because the means across the composite measure of work disruptions and most individual items were below 3, results indicate that the average deputy disagreed or was neutral about whether BWCs create disruptions to their work. In other words, deputies overall did not agree that BWCS would make them less likely to give warnings or have fewer contacts with incarcerated residents, have less discretion, or make them more reluctant to use force. While these findings do not suggest a strong endorsement of BWCs from deputies, they are generally more positive than the findings from the previous analyses in which deputies did not agree that the devices would improve efficiency and accuracy or result in a resident civilizing effect.
Though deputy perceptions did not significantly change over time on the composite measure of work disruptions (with mean values ranging from 2.70 to 2.85), there were notable differences in some of the individual items across the three periods. Deputies had levels of higher agreement that BWCs would make them less likely to give warnings to incarcerated residents in the mid-implementation period (mean = 2.64) than the pre-implementation period (mean = 2.16; t = -3.85, p < .001). However, by the post-implementation period, deputies’ agreement significantly declined (mean = 2.29; t = 2.68, p < .001), such that there are no significant differences in deputy perceptions overall between the pre- and post-implementation periods (t = -1.13, p = .258). We offer some additional thoughts about this finding in our discussion below.
[Insert Table 4 about here]
We present the t-test results examining differences in deputy perceptions of resident-deputy relationships across the three study periods in Table 5. Unlike the other questions analyzed in this study, these questions are not specific to BWCs but rather about the deputies’ overall perceptions of relationships, attitudes, and behaviors within the LCADC (for reference, see the specific wording of these questions in Table 1 above). As demonstrated in Table 5, deputies’ overall perceptions of the resident-deputy relationships were positive across most measures and periods (i.e., means above 3 or 4). Deputies had the highest level of agreement on average that they often give residents warnings and act professionally.
However, across the composite outcome and nearly all individual items, we found significant decreases in deputies’ perceptions of the resident-deputy relationships from the pre-implementation period and both subsequent periods. In other words, compared to the pre-implementation survey, deputies were significantly less likely at mid-implementation and post-implementation to agree that residents are generally cooperative and rarely aggressive, or that deputies often give warnings or act professionally (there were no significant differences in deputies’ perceptions about whether residents were respectful). It is also important to note that the decreases from pre- to post-implementation were not as sharp as the differences between pre-and mid-implementation. This suggests a possible reversal of trends over time, though none of the increases from the mid- to post-implementation periods were significant. While these measures were not specific to how BWCs may have affected resident-deputy relationships, it is noteworthy that these changes occurred over the course of LCADC’s BWC pilot. We explore this further in the discussion next.
[Insert Table 5 about here]
As BWCs continue to proliferate in policing and spread to other actors in the justice system, it is critical for researchers to explore the nuanced uses and effects of the devices in these distinct settings. Prison and jail administrators are rapidly adopting BWCs to improve transparency, accountability, safety, and security (Bogel-Burroughs, 2022; Welsh-Huggins, 2021). In addition to examining the impacts of these devices on important correctional outcomes, it is important for researchers to assess the attitudes toward BWCs from end-users, such as COs and deputies. Having buy-in from end-users is essential for the long-term success of any BWC program, as they are responsible for activating the cameras, tagging videos, uploading footage, and complying with other aspects of the BWC policy. Moreover, negative attitudes from front-line staff towards such reforms can impact their implementation (Lerman & Harney, 2019; Santorso, 2021).
To address this knowledge gap, the current study offers one of the first empirical examinations into end-users’ perceptions of BWCs from a U.S. corrections facility. Overall, we found that LCADC deputies held neutral or slightly negative perceptions about whether BWCs could improve efficiency and accuracy, have a civilizing effect on incarcerated residents, or disrupt work-related activities. Moreover, these perceptions remained largely consistent across the pre-, mid-, and post-implementation periods. These results stand in contrast to some of the findings from similar studies on police officer attitudes towards BWCs. For example, in their review of 28 studies, Gaub and colleagues (2020) found that 15 studies reported positive police officer perceptions of BWCs, 6 reported neutral or mixed perceptions, and only 7 reported negative perceptions (see also Hickman, 2017; White et al., 2018).
Although our lack of demographic and other deputy-level information makes it difficult for us to determine what factors may influence individuals’ acceptance of or resistance to BWCs, we can draw on previous research to speculate about possible factors. For example, Huff and colleagues (2018) found that educational attainment was inversely related to BWC resistance among Phoenix police officers. In other words, officers with a four-year degree were more likely than those without a degree to have volunteered to wear a BWC and to agree that BWCs can improve citizen behaviors. While we do not have information on LCADC deputies’ levels of educational attainment, this would be an avenue for future research.
Another study in Phoenix found that officers equipped with BWCs, including volunteers and officers mandated to wear the device, held more negative opinions of BWCs over time than those who never received a BWC. Specifically, these officers reported lower levels of agreement that BWCs would help them have a more accurate account of an event, obtain high-quality evidence, or assist in the prosecution of a case (Huff et al., 2020). While the current study did not find a similar decline in perceptions of BWCs over time, it is important to note that BWCs had been provided to patrol deputies within the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office for several years before they were introduced to jail deputies in the LCADC. It is therefore possible that the relatively subdued perceptions of BWCs are, at least in part, a result of their historical use within the department.
While overall perceptions of BWCs may differ between police officers and the LCADC deputies in the current study, some of our other findings reinforce those in extant literature. Across the items included in our composite measure of efficiency and accuracy, deputies reported the highest levels of agreement with questions regarding whether BWCs would lead to more accurate accounts and improve the quality of evidence (means of 3.55 and 3.64, respectively, on the five-point scale). Prior policing research has similarly shown that officers believe BWCs can protect them from false complaints and improve the quality of evidence (Clare et al., 2019; Grossmith et al., 2015; Gaub et al., 2020; Pelfrey & Keener, 2018; Tankebe & Ariel, 2016). Lawrence et al. (2022) found that the installation of additional CCTV cameras to reduce facility blind spots in a prison unit significantly increased the proportion of guilty dispositions stemming from investigations of resident infractions, and such findings could be extended to the potential utility of BWCs in providing direct, firsthand evidence for investigations of infractions, uses of force, and responses to resistance.
In support of this notion, Morrow et al. (2016) examined the effectiveness of BWCs in cases of intimate partner violence and found that the presence of BWCs was associated with a higher likelihood of arrest, filing charges, cases progression, guilty pleas, and guilty verdicts at trial. COs in Australia also reported believing that BWCs would reduce false allegations made against them (Sydes et al., 2022). Additional research is warranted to assess the influence of BWCs on evidence collection and investigative practices specifically in correctional settings. By examining the effects of BWCs on evidence gathering and investigative procedures, future studies can contribute to the development of evidence-based practices and policies within correctional contexts.
We also found that LCADC deputies disagreed on average that BWCs would make incarcerated residents more cooperative, more respectful, or less aggressive (means of approximately 3 or below). This is consistent with prior research on both police officers and COs. For instance, only one-quarter of police officers surveyed in Phoenix and Spokane, and just over 40% of those surveyed in Tempe, agreed that BWCs would reduce aggression in community members (Gaub et al., 2016; see also Kyle & White, 2017). Likewise, in Sydes and colleagues’ (2022) survey of COs in Australia, 87% of respondents did not believe BWCs would reduce aggressive behaviors among incarcerated residents.
Across our analyses, we found limited support for BWCs among LCADC deputies and few changes in these attitudes across the three periods. One noteworthy exception regarded deputy perceptions of the relationship between BWCs and the provision of warnings. Our findings suggest that, prior to receiving BWCs, deputies generally did not agree BWCs would prevent them from giving residents warnings in lieu of taking other actions (e.g., formal disciplinary responses). After wearing the devices for a few months, deputies became more concerned about this potential disruption to their duties. However, by the conclusion of the 12-month pilot program, deputies’ perceptions returned to pre-implementation levels.
We offer several possible explanations for these findings. First, most prior research on police officer perceptions found that they believe BWCs have a negative impact on their ability to exercise discretion (Gaub et al., 2020). For example, many officers feel as though they need to follow the letter of the law when wearing a BWC (Koen et al., 2018). Wooditch et al. (2020) also found that officers in one Los Angeles Police Department’s division were significantly more likely to agree that BWCs can limit discretion when provided with cameras, compared to their attitudes pre-deployment (88.68% versus 83.02%). Therefore, it is possible that the increase in LCADC deputies’ concerns about BWCs observed at the mid-implementation period stems from a similar concern among police officers about the impact of BWCs on discretion.
Second, it is important to note that BWCs were developed specifically for policing, with a history dating back to 1997 and widespread adoption occurring several years ago (Peterson & Lawrence, 2019). This has resulted in relatively well-established policies, protocols, and technical support to guide the use of BWCs in police departments (e.g., BWC TTA, n.d.). Conversely, BWCs are nascent in correctional environments, and officials are still learning how best to deploy and use these devices.
In Loudoun County, the Sherriff’s Office only has one policy governing the use of BWCs. This was originally created for their patrol deputies in 2016 and was simply applied to deputies in the LCADC for the BWC pilot program. The policy, which was not revised during the study period, included language like “law enforcement”, “arrests”, and “public-police contacts” throughout. It also included a section on how deputies should use BWCs in spaces where people have an expectation of privacy, such as residences, without clarifying how deputies should consider jail settings (Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office General Order Section: 411.17). Rather than developing or revising their policy, the department emphasized how deputies should use BWCs in jail as part of their training. Deputies were instructed on how to use the BWCs and when they were supposed to activate the devices (for example, deputies were required to activate their cameras during any contact with residents that had the potential to result in a use of force, such as a cell search, pat down, and many other interactions).
It is thus possible that the changes in LCADC deputy attitudes from the pre- to mid-implementation periods were the result of initial growing pains with the technology and internal policies guiding its use. Yet over the full pilot, deputies became more comfortable with the BWCs and with integrating them into their everyday duties, which resulted in a return to pre-implementation perceptions by the time of the post-implementation survey (see Peterson & Lawrence’s [2021] discussion of the “program maturity hypothesis”).
Although there were few changes in LCADC deputy attitudes over time on the questions pertaining specifically to BWCs, we did observe several significant changes in their perceptions of overall resident-deputy relationships over the course of the BWC pilot program. Across our composite outcome measure and most individual items, deputies had more negative perceptions of their interactions and relationships with residents at both the mid- and post-implementation periods. These findings seem to run counter to police BWC research, most of which indicates that officers have positive attitudes about the impact of BWCs on police community relations (Braga et al., 2015; Gaub et al., 2016; Gaub et al., 2020; Smykla et al., 2016).
This could again be explained by the differences between policing and correctional contexts. Even after the widespread protests in 2020 following the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and others, nearly 70% of Americans trusted local police and law enforcement to promote justice and equal treatment for all people (Ipsos, 2021). Moreover, the majority of police-community member interactions are positive (or at least innocuous) in nature, such as officers responding to a call for service, providing roadside assistance, etc. A Gallup poll conducted during the nationwide protests of 2020 found that 75% of Americans who interacted with the police had an overall positive experience, while nearly 90% noted that they were treated fairly and with respect (Lloyd, 2020). While there are no equivalent polls representative of people incarcerated in prisons and jails, it is unlikely these individuals hold similarly positive attitudes towards the COs in charge of them (Dirkzwager & Kruttschnitt, 2012). Thus, while police officers can use BWCs to help highlight their positive interactions with community members, COs/deputies may not have the same opportunities with the populations they serve.
The decline in perceptions of resident-deputy relationships could also be attributed to the barriers BWCs introduce when deputies are looking to build rapport and trust with residents. We spoke with several LCADC deputies about their experiences using the BWCs and some noted that BWCs did affect their ability to establish trust and build relationships with residents. Likewise, Sydes et al. (2022) found that COs in Australia expressed concerns that BWCs would negatively affect staff rapport with their incarcerated population. These formal and informal relationships can help deputies allocate resources in the facility or identify and address concerns around safety and security. However, residents may be less likely to meet with and speak candidly to deputies when they are being recorded by a BWC. Normal surveillance cameras, which are already ubiquitous in prisons and jails (Allard et al., 2008; Lawrence et al., 2022), do not typically record sound. Thus, the use of BWCs in a correctional environment introduces new challenges for the development of resident-deputy relationships.
Finally, it possible that the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the perceived decline in resident-deputy relationships. The full BWC pilot program and study took place during the COVID-19 pandemic (November 2020 to October 2021). Over this period, the LCADC, like other correctional agencies across the country, implemented several COVID-19 mitigation measures that reduced contact between staff and residents. These included social distancing measures, preventing large gatherings in enclosed areas, and the use of masks and gloves by staff and residents. It is likely that these policies and the consequences of the pandemic created barriers for staff looking to form or bolster relationships with incarcerated residents. As a result, staff may have been less likely to agree that residents were cooperative and rarely aggressive, or that deputies often give warnings or act professionally, over time. Moreover, the LCADC eliminated in-person visits and only provided video visitation to residents during the pandemic (Cline, 2020). This may have further strained residents’ perceptions of the LCADC staff and administration over the study period.
The current study adds to the emerging conversation and literature around BWCs in correctional environments by providing insight into the perceptions of the devices from frontline end-users. However, there were a few limitations to this study. The study was set in a single, mid-sized jail in Virginia and relied on a relatively small sample of deputies (i.e., between 84 and 114 in each wave). As such, the study has limited generalizability to other jurisdictions.
Another limitation was our inability to collect information on respondent demographics or other characteristics in the survey. Consequently, we were not able to examine how perceptions of BWCs were linked to important individual indicators, such as race, sex, age, departmental tenure, etc. The lack of identifying information also made it impossible to link survey responses across waves. We were thus not able to measure perception changes (or a lack thereof) within deputies across the pre-, mid-, and post-implementation periods; rather we were only able to determine the degree to which any changes occurred between the average respondent of each survey wave. Relatedly, the lack of demographic information may it impossible for us to determine if there were significant differences between the deputies who participated in the survey and those that did not, particularly in the second and third waves where responses rates were lower. Differences between responders and non-responders could have biased our findings.
Despite the limitations of the current study, its findings yield several implications for policy and practice. First, we found generally low or neutral opinions of BWCs from LCADC deputies, which changed relatively little even after the one-year pilot. This lack of support can be detrimental to the sustained success of any BWC program. To address this, correctional agencies interested in deploying BWCs should involve deputies early in the planning process to build buy-in and to ensure policies are adequately tailored to the needs of their agency. Prior research supports this approach. In Gaub et al.’s (2016) study of three police departments, Tempe officers demonstrated consistently more positive perceptions of BWCs than the officers in Phoenix and Spokane. The authors attributed these findings to the Tempe’s extensive planning and implementation prior to BWC rollout, which involved line officers and a variety of other stakeholders (Gaub et al., 2016). Willis (2022) also suggested that support for BWCs would have been higher among patrol officers in his study had they been included in the planning and implementation process.
A related implication is that correctional agencies should look to existing resources and best practices when developing their BWC policies and implementing their programs. Such resources include the BWC implementation guide from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (Miller et al., 2014), the International Association of Chiefs of Police (2019) BWC policy considerations, the National Body-Worn Camera Toolkit and its Law Enforcement Implementation Checklist (Bureau of Justice Assistance, n.d.), and the recently released Guide to Body-Worn Cameras: Best Practices for Procurement, Deployment (Corrections 1, 2023). Although some of these resources primarily target law enforcement agencies, prison and jail officials can adapt best practices and recommendations around implementation to fit the needs of their agencies. Following such guidelines can lead to high levels of integration and acceptance of BWCs among line staff and other key internal and external stakeholders (White et al., 2018).
In addition to these implications for policy and practice, the current study presents a clear need for additional research. Given the limited generalizability of our study, future research should replicate and extend our examination into CO/deputy attitudes towards BWCs. This should include studies of other jails and prisons, including facilities of varying sizes, demographics, and geographic contexts. Prior research on police officer perceptions shows varying levels of support for BWCs across agencies of various size and composition and outcome measures (Gaub et al., 2020). It is similarly likely that there will be substantial variation across correctional agencies.
In addition, researchers should explore the extent to which important demographic and professional characteristics affect or mitigate individuals’ perceptions of BWCs. For example, it is possible that younger or less tenured deputies are more positive about BWCs, which could help agencies better allocate resources for training and education when planning for and implementing a BWC program. Future studies should also examine measures of BWC program implementation, especially activation rates, as negative attitudes (such as those documented in this study) may short-circuit proper use of the cameras. Finally, future research should explore the impact of BWCs on critical correctional outcomes, such as uses of force, complaints or allegations, officer and resident injuries, and infractions. Given the mixed findings in the policing literature on the effects of BWCs, and the unique contexts of prisons and jails, it is essential that we better understand the impacts of these devices on correctional safety and security.
Allard, T. J., Wortley, R. L., & Stewart, A. L. (2008). The effect of CCTV on prisoner misbehavior. The Prison Journal, 88(3), 404–422.
Ariel, B., Farrar, W. A., & Sutherland, A. (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(3), 509-535.
Bartholomew, B., Bennett, R. R., Baxter, S. K., & Champagne, H. (2021). Officer receptivity to body-worn cameras. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 15(3), 1744-1757.
Beales, N. & Marsh, L. (2016). On body cameras in prison. Practice: The New Zealand Corrections Journal, (4)1, 39-41.
Bogel-Burroughs, N. (2022, January 14). In a first, Ohio moves to put body cameras on guards in every prison. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/14/us/ohio-priso-body-cams.html
Braga, A., Coldren Jr, J. R., Sousa, W., Rodriguez, D., & Alper, O. (2017). The benefits of body-worn cameras: New findings from a randomized controlled trial at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police. Arlington, VA: CNA.
Braga, A. A., Sousa, W. H., Coldren Jr, J. R., & Rodriguez, D. (2018). The effects of body-worn cameras on police activity and police-citizen encounters: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 108(3), 511-538.
Bureau of Justice Assistance. (n.d.). National Body-Worn Camera Toolkit. https://bja.ojp.gov/program/bwc
BWC Policy and Implementation Program Sites. (n.d). Body-worn camera training and technical assistance. https://bwctta.com/bwc-policy-and-implementation-program-sites
BWC TTA. (n.d.). Body-worn camera policy review process. https://bwctta.com/resources/body-worn-camera-policy-review-process
Clare, J., Henstock, D., McComb, C., Newland, R., Barnes, G. C., Lee, M., & Taylor, E. (2019). Police, public, and arrestee perceptions of body-worn video: A single jurisdictional multiple-perspective analysis. Criminal Justice Review, 44(3), 304-321.
Cline, N. (2020, April 17). Number of inmates at Loudoun's detention centers dropping amid COVID-19 pandemic. Loudoun Times-Mirror. https://www.loudountimes.com/news/number-of-inmates-at-loudouns-detention-centers-dropping-amid-covid-19-pandemic/article_b20087e2-80c6-11ea-bfb2-efca6b52dca2.html
Cochrane, E., & Broadwater, L. (2020, June 17). Here are the differences between the senate and house bills to overhaul policing. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/17/us/politics/police-reform-bill.html
Corrections 1 (2023). Guide to body-worn cameras: Best practices for procurement, deployment. https://www.corrections1.com/correction1s-2023-guide-body-worn-cameras/
Demir, M., Braga, A. A., & Apel, R. (2020). Effects of police body‐worn cameras on citizen compliance and cooperation: Findings from a quasi‐randomized controlled trial. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(3), 855-882.
Dirkzwager, A. J., & Kruttschnitt, C. (2012). Prisoners’ perceptions of correctional officers’ behavior in English and Dutch prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(5), 404-412.
Dodd, S., Antrobus, E., & Sydes, M. (2020). Cameras in corrections: Exploring the views of correctional officers on the introduction of body-worn cameras in prisons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(9), 1190-1208.
Ferguson, A. (2020, June 14). ‘Defund the police’ does not mean defund the police. Unless it does.” The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/what-does-defund-police-really-mean/612904/
Gaub, J. E., Choate, D. E., Todak, N., 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(3), 275-302.
Gaub, J. E., Huff, J., White, M. D., & Malm, A. 2020). Officer perceptions of body-worn cameras: directory of outcomes. BWCTTA. https://bwctta.com/officer-perceptions-body-worn-cameras-directory-outcomes
Goetschel, M., & Peha, J. M. (2017). Police perceptions of body-worn cameras. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(4), 698-726.
Gramagila, J. A., & Phillips, S. W. (2018). Police officers’ perceptions of body-worn cameras in Buffalo and Rochester. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(2), 313-328.
Grossmith, L., Owens, C., Finn, W., Mann, D., Davies, T., & Baika, L. (2015). Police, camera, evidence: London’s cluster randomised controlled trial of body worn video. London: College of Policing.
Hamedy, S., & Gauk-Roger, T. (2020, June 30). Los Angeles City Council moves forward with plan to replace police officers with community-based responders for nonviolent calls. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/us/los-angeles-city-council-approves-measure-nonviolent-response/index.html
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(4), 627-651.
Hickman, K. C. (2017). From behind the lens: police officer perceptions as body-worn cameras are introduced into the New York City Police Department. [Doctoral dissertation, St. John Fisher College]. Fisher Digital Publications.
Huff, J., Katz, C. M., & Webb, V. J. (2018). Understanding police officer resistance to body-worn cameras. Policing: An International Journal, 41(4), 482-495.
Huff, J., Katz, C. M., Webb, V. J., & Hedberg, E. C. (2020). Attitudinal changes toward body-worn cameras: perceptions of cameras, organizational justice, and procedural justice among volunteer and mandated officers. Police Quarterly, 23(4), 547–588.
Huff, J., White, M. D., & Padilla, K. E. (2021). The influence of defendant race/ethnicity and police body-worn cameras on traffic case processing. Race and Justice, https://doi.org/10.1177/21533687211004696
Hyland, S. (2018). Body-worn cameras in law enforcement agencies, 2016. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2019). Body-Worn Cameras. Alexandria, VA: Law Enforcement Policy Center, International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Ipsos. (2021). Americans’ trust in law enforcement, desire to protect law and order on the rise. Ipsos. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-03/usat-ipsos_racial_injustice_topline_030421.pdf
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(6), 549-556.
Katz, C. M., Kurtenbach, M., Choate, D. E., & White, M. D. (2015). Phoenix, Arizona, smart policing initiative: evaluating the impact of police officer body-worn cameras. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Kelly, C. (2020, June 19). Colorado governor signs bill mandating police body cameras and banning chokeholds. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/19/politics/colorado-polis-police-body-cameras-banning-chokeholds/index.html
Kim, D. Y., Phillips, S. W., & Gramaglia, J. A. (2021). The relationship between general policing attitudes and how officers perceive the potential advantages of body cameras. Journal of Crime and Justice, 44(3), 275-296.
Koen, M. C., Willis, J. J., & Mastrofski, S. D. (2018). The effects of body-worn cameras on police organisation and practice: A theory-based analysis. Policing and Society, 29(8), 968-984.
Kyle, M. J., & White, D. R. (2017). The impact of law enforcement officer perceptions of organizational justice on their attitudes regarding body-worn cameras. Journal of Crime and Justice, 40(1), 68-83.
Lawrence, D. S., Peterson, B. E., Robin, L., & Shukla, R. (2022). The impact of correctional CCTV cameras on infractions and investigations: A synthetic control approach to evaluating surveillance system upgrades in a Minnesota prison. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 33(8), 843–869.
Lawshe, N. L., Burruss, G. W., Giblin, M. J., & Schafer, J. A. (2019). Behind the lens: Police attitudes toward body-worn cameras and organizational justice. Journal of Crime and Justice, 42(1), 78-97.
Lerman, A. E., & Harney, J. (2019). Feedback effects and the criminal justice bureaucracy: Officer attitudes and the future of correctional reform. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 685(1), 227-249.
Lloyd, C. (2020, July 30). For black Americans, 41% of police encounters not positive. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/316247/black-americans-police-encounters-not-positive.aspx?utm_source=gcbv&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GCBV-Law-Enforcement-Series_Invite_Sep_09112020&utm_content=read-cta-1&elqTrackId=030c72c05cbe435ba3bb6a9efe91e731&elq=171cfd86d9c64fb4b752c5ada051a30a&elqaid=4867&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=1038
Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office General Order Section: 411.17. https://public.powerdms.com/LOUDOUNVA/tree/documents/115824
Lum, C., Stoltz, M., Koper, C. S., & Scherer, J. A. (2019). Research on body‐worn cameras: What we know, what we need to know. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(1), 93-118.
Lum, C., Koper, C. S., Wilson, D. B., Stoltz, M., Goodier, M., Eggins, E., Higginson, A., & Mazerolle, L. (2020). Body-worn cameras' effects on police officers and citizen behavior: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(3).
McCluskey, J. D., Uchida, C. D., Solomon, S. E., Wooditch, A., Connor, C., & Revier, L. (2019). Assessing the effects of body‐worn cameras on procedural justice in the Los Angeles Police Department. Criminology, 57(2), 208-236.
Miller, L., Toliver, J., & Police Executive Research Forum. (2014). Implementing a body-worn camera program: Recommendations and lessons learned. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
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(3), 303-325.
National Conference of State Legislatures (2022). Body-worn camera law database. NCSL. https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/body-worn-cameras-interactive-graphic.aspx
Pelfrey Jr, W. V., & Keener, S. (2016). Police body worn cameras: A mixed method approach assessing perceptions of efficacy. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 39(3), 491-506.
Peterson, B. E., & Lawrence, D. S. (2019). Body cameras and policing. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Retrieved from https://oxfordre.com/criminology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-524.
Peterson, B. E., & Lawrence, D. S. (2021). Do the effects of police body-worn cameras on use of force and complaints change over time? Results from a panel analysis in the Milwaukee police department. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48(6), 734-754.
Powell-Williams, M., Powell-Williams, T., & Hunt, H. D. (2021). Effects of officer perception of race and racial tensions on support for body-worn-cameras. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 19(1), 1-24.
President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. (2015). Final report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
Santorso, S. (2021). Rehabilitation and dynamic security in the Italian prison: Challenges in transforming prison officers’ roles. The British Journal of Criminology, 61(6), 1557-1574.
Smith, T.L. (2013). The technological advantage: Using shoulder mounted cameras within a detention facility. National Institute of Corrections. https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/document/2870-sacdc-body-cameras-article_275cd995.pdf
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(3), 424-443.
Sousa, W. H., Miethe, T. D., & Sakiyama, M. (2018). 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(1), 100-108.
Stanley, J. (2015). Police body-mounted cameras: With right policies in place, a win for all. American Civil Liberties Union.
Sutherland, A., Ariel, B., Farrar, W., & De Anda, R. (2017). Post-experimental follow-ups—Fade-out versus persistence effects: The Rialto police body-worn camera experiment four years on. Journal of Criminal Justice, 53, 110-116.
Sydes, M., Dodd, S., & Antrobus, E. (2022). Body cameras behind bars: Exploring correctional officers’ feelings of safety with body-worn cameras. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 22(2), 323-342.
Tankebe, J., & Ariel, B. (2016). Cynicism towards change: The case of body-worn cameras among police officers. Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Research Paper, (16-42). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2850743
Todak, N., Gaub, J. E., & White, M. D. (2022). Testing the Evidentiary Value of Police Body-Worn Cameras in Misdemeanor Court. Crime & Delinquency. https://doi.org/10.1177/001112872211201
Welsh-Huggins, A. (2021, October 29). Prison systems adding body-worn cameras to security plans. Courthouse News Service. https://www.courthousenews.com/prison-systems-adding-body-worn-cameras-to-security-plans/
White House (2022). Fact sheet: President Biden to sign historic executive order to advance effective, accountable policing and strengthen public safety. White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/05/25/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-sign-historic-executive-order-to-advance-effective-accountable-policing-and-strengthen-public-safety/
White, M. D. (2014). Police officer body-worn cameras: Assessing the evidence. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice.
White, M. D., Todak, N., & Gaub, J. E. (2017). Assessing citizen perceptions of body-worn cameras after encounters with police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 40(4), 689-703.
White, M. D., Todak, N., & Gaub, J. E. (2018). Examining body‐worn camera integration and acceptance among police officers, citizens, and external stakeholders. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(3), 649-677.
White, M. D. & Malm, A. (2020). Cops, cameras, and crisis: The potential and the perils of police body-worn cameras. New York: New York University Press.
Willis, J. J. (2022). “Culture eats strategy for breakfast”: An in‐depth examination of police officer perceptions of body‐worn camera implementation and their relationship to policy, supervision, and training. Criminology & Public Policy, 21(3), 713-737.
Winton, R. (2021, March 12). Federal judge orders body cams in five state prisons citing abuse of disabled inmates. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-03-12/cameras-in-five-prisons-including-lancaster-after-abuse-of-disabled-inmates-judge-rules
Wooditch, A., Uchida, C. D., Solomon, S. E., Revier, L., Connor, C., Shutinya, M., McCluskey, J., & Swatt, M. L. (2020). Perceptions of body-worn cameras: Findings from a panel survey of two LAPD divisions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(1), 436–453.
Table 1. Primary Outcome Variables and Survey Items | |
---|---|
Efficiency and accuracy (Cronbach's alpha=0.89) | |
When deputies wear BWCs, they will spend less time filling out forms and other types of paperwork. | |
When deputies wear BWCs, they will have a more accurate account of what has transpired. | |
When deputies wear BWCs, it will improve the quality of evidence deputies can submit. | |
When deputies wear BWCs, it will make their job easier. | |
When wearing a BWCs, a deputy will act more professionally. | |
Deputies will benefit more from BWCs than inmates will. | |
BWCs will improve the overall job performance of a deputy. | |
BWCs will increase deputy safety. | |
Resident civilizing effect (Cronbach's alpha=0.94) | |
When deputies wear BWCs, inmates will be more cooperative once they become aware that a deputy is wearing a BWC. | |
When deputies wear BWCs, inmates will be more respectful once they become aware that a deputy is wearing a BWC. | |
When deputies wear BWCs, inmates will become less aggressive when they are aware that a deputy is wearing a BWC. | |
Work disruptions (Cronbach's alpha=0.69) | |
When wearing a BWC, a deputy is less likely to give warnings to inmates. | |
When wearing a BWC, a deputy will have fewer contacts with inmates. | |
When wearing a BWC, a deputy will feel like they have less discretion. | |
When wearing a BWC, a deputy will be more cautious in making decisions. | |
When wearing a BWC, a deputy will be more reluctant to use force. | |
Staff-resident relationships (Cronbach's alpha=0.81) | |
Inmates are generally cooperative in their encounters with deputies. | |
Inmates are respectful in their encounters with deputies. | |
Inmates are rarely aggressive in their encounters with deputies. | |
During encounters with inmates, deputies often give warnings to inmates before other serious action is needed. | |
Deputies typically act professionally in their contacts with inmates. |
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and T-test Results: Efficiency and Accuracy | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Means | Mean Differences and T-Tests | ||||||||||||
Pre | Mid | Post | Pre-Mid | Mid-Post | Pre-Post | ||||||||
x̄ | x̄ | x̄ | Δ | t | p | Δ | t | p | Δ | t | p | ||
Efficiency and Accuracy | 2.99 | 2.95 | 3.00 | -0.04 | -0.38 | 0.705 | 0.05 | 0.39 | 0.695 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.969 | |
Spend less time on paperwork | 2.30 | 2.08 | 2.16 | -0.22 | -1.65 | 0.100† | 0.08 | 0.56 | 0.578 | -0.14 | -1.14 | 0.258 | |
More accurate account | 3.55 | 3.52 | 3.34 | -0.02 | -0.15 | 0.882 | -0.18 | -0.98 | 0.330 | -0.20 | -1.42 | 0.158 | |
Improve quality of evidence | 3.64 | 3.85 | 3.73 | 0.21 | 1.51 | 0.133 | -0.11 | -0.73 | 0.469 | 0.09 | 0.70 | 0.487 | |
Make the job easier | 2.61 | 2.61 | 2.80 | 0.00 | -0.03 | 0.974 | 0.20 | 1.19 | 0.234 | 0.19 | 1.29 | 0.199 | |
Act more professionally | 3.16 | 3.00 | 3.01 | -0.16 | -1.08 | 0.282 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.941 | -0.15 | -0.97 | 0.333 | |
Deputies will benefit more | 3.03 | 3.12 | 3.16 | 0.09 | 0.61 | 0.543 | 0.04 | 0.28 | 0.778 | 0.14 | 0.89 | 0.375 | |
Improve job performance | 2.82 | 2.68 | 2.90 | -0.14 | -0.89 | 0.375 | 0.22 | 1.36 | 0.177 | 0.08 | 0.52 | 0.604 | |
Increase deputy safety | 2.82 | 2.73 | 2.91 | -0.09 | -0.54 | 0.592 | 0.18 | 1.05 | 0.296 | 0.09 | 0.55 | 0.583 | |
Δ = Mean difference † <.10 |
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and T-test Results: Resident Civilizing Effect | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Means | Mean Differences and T-Tests | ||||||||||||
Pre | Mid | Post | Pre-Mid | Mid-Post | Pre-Post | ||||||||
x̄ | x̄ | x̄ | Δ | t | p | Δ | t | p | Δ | t | p | ||
Resident Civilizing Effect | 2.61 | 2.38 | 2.61 | -0.23 | -1.61 | 0.107 | 0.23 | 1.50 | 0.135 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.998 | |
Inmates are more cooperative | 2.72 | 2.51 | 2.71 | -0.21 | -1.35 | 0.180 | 0.20 | 1.16 | 0.248 | -0.02 | -0.10 | 0.921 | |
Inmates are more respectful | 2.57 | 2.36 | 2.56 | -0.21 | -1.44 | 0.152 | 0.21 | 1.33 | 0.184 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.967 | |
Inmates are less aggressive | 2.56 | 2.29 | 2.56 | -0.27 | -1.91 | 0.058† | 0.28 | 1.84 | 0.068† | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.955 | |
Δ = Mean difference † <.10 |
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics and T-test Results: Work Disruptions | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Means | Mean Differences and T-Tests | ||||||||||||
Pre | Mid | Post | Pre-Mid | Mid-Post | Pre-Post | ||||||||
x̄ | x̄ | x̄ | Δ | t | p | Δ | t | p | Δ | t | p | ||
Work disruptions | 2.77 | 2.85 | 2.70 | 0.08 | 0.81 | 0.421 | -0.15 | -1.45 | 0.148 | -0.07 | -0.69 | 0.491 | |
Less likely to give warnings | 2.16 | 2.64 | 2.29 | 0.49 | 3.85 | 0.000*** | -0.35 | -2.68 | 0.000*** | 0.13 | 1.13 | 0.258 | |
Have fewer contacts | 2.51 | 2.61 | 2.34 | 0.09 | 0.68 | 0.499 | -0.27 | -1.84 | 0.067† | -0.17 | -1.32 | 0.188 | |
Have less discretion | 2.96 | 3.00 | 2.91 | 0.04 | 0.27 | 0.786 | -0.10 | -0.57 | 0.568 | -0.05 | -0.31 | 0.754 | |
More cautious in decisions | 3.28 | 3.14 | 3.15 | -0.13 | -0.89 | 0.373 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.968 | -0.13 | -0.84 | 0.402 | |
More reluctant to use force | 2.96 | 2.88 | 2.92 | -0.08 | -0.53 | 0.599 | 0.04 | 0.24 | 0.809 | -0.04 | -0.26 | 0.797 | |
Δ = Mean difference † <.10, *** <.001 |
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics and T-test Results: Staff-Resident Relationships | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Means | Mean Differences and T-Tests | ||||||||||||
Pre | Mid | Post | Pre-Mid | Mid-Post | Pre-Post | ||||||||
x̄ | x̄ | x̄ | Δ | t | p | Δ | t | p | Δ | T | p | ||
Resident-deputy relationships | 3.69 | 3.31 | 3.44 | -0.37 | -3.88 | 0.001** | 0.12 | 1.14 | 0.256 | -0.25 | -2.73 | 0.007** | |
Residents are cooperative | 3.53 | 3.08 | 3.31 | -0.45 | -3.53 | 0.001** | 0.23 | 1.61 | 0.109 | -0.22 | -1.80 | 0.073† | |
Residents are respectful | 3.10 | 2.98 | 3.11 | -0.13 | -0.98 | 0.330 | 0.14 | 1.03 | 0.302 | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.925 | |
Residents rarely aggressive | 3.32 | 2.90 | 3.05 | -0.42 | -3.05 | 0.003** | 0.14 | 1.04 | 0.300 | -0.28 | -2.14 | 0.034* | |
Deputies often give warnings | 4.26 | 3.80 | 3.92 | -0.46 | -3.35 | 0.001** | 0.12 | 0.84 | 0.404 | -0.34 | -2.54 | 0.012* | |
Deputies act professionally | 4.16 | 3.81 | 3.77 | -0.35 | -2.89 | 0.004** | -0.04 | -0.31 | 0.756 | -0.40 | -3.41 | 0.001** | |
Δ = Mean difference † <.10, *** <.001 |