Program Profile: Police Body-Worn Cameras (Birmingham South, UK)

Police body-worn cameras are used to record police encounters with citizens during officers’ shifts in Birmingham South. Officers were instructed to begin recording as soon as they left their vehicles and to conclude recording once the situation was resolved. The program is rated Promising. There was a statistically significant reduction in officers’ use of force and citizen injury, but no statistically significant reduction in officer injury.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

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

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

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

Program Goals

Police body-worn cameras are used by officers in the Birmingham South Local Policing Unit in the West Midlands Police force area in the United Kingdom. The Birmingham South serves approximately 286,000 residents from various socioeconomic levels but few ethnicities, compared with other areas of the West Midlands (Henstock 2015). The goals of the body-worn camera program are to reduce officer use of force, citizen injury, and officer injury. Body-worn cameras are also intended to improve procedural compliance from officers, evidence-gathering, and officer legitimacy and confidence during interactions with citizens.

Program Components

In Birmingham South, police officers are instructed to wear the cameras and begin recording incidents as soon as they leave their vehicles and conclude recording once the incident is resolved. During an arrest, the recording stays on until the detainee enters custody.

The body-worn cameras are equipped with a high visibility marking that indicate audio and visual recording. Once officers finish their shifts, the cameras are returned, and the footage is uploaded and deleted from the camera. The device is then recharged in an automated process. Police officers do not record the following: firearm incidents, public order and football deployments (i.e., preplanned events where standard recording methods are already employed), emergency situations where an electronic device constitutes a danger, and if there are explicit wishes from a victim not to record.

Program Theory

The use of body-worn cameras is rooted in deterrence theory and social surveillance theory. Deterrence theory posits that as the certainty of detection or apprehension for wrongdoing increases, the volume of criminal behavior should decrease. Body-worn cameras should increase people’s perceived risk of detection or apprehension for wrongdoing because their actions may be caught on camera (this applies to both suspects and police) (Paternoster 2010).

Additionally, with social surveillance theory, research suggests that people will adhere to social norms and change their conduct when they are aware that others are watching. When individuals are aware that their actions are being monitored, they become more aware of their actions, and should behave in a more socially acceptable manner and strive to avoid the negative outcomes associated with apprehension (Ariel et al. 2016).

Study

Henstock (2015) conducted a randomized controlled trial on the effects of police body-worn cameras on use-of-force incidence in the residential area of Birmingham South in the United Kingdom. The trial used the Birmingham South Local Policing Unit in the West Midlands Police force area. The Birmingham South serves approximately 286,000 residents from various socioeconomic levels but with few ethnicities relative to other areas of the West Midlands (Birmingham City Council 2015).

Officers were randomly allocated to shifts on a weekly basis, with treatment shifts using body-worn cameras and control shifts conducting business as usual. Data were collected for 6 months between June and December 2014. During the six-month study, a total of 215 shifts were allocated to the treatment group, and 215 shifts were allocated to the control group. A total of 46 officers participated in the study. Officers equipped with body-worn cameras were instructed to record all encounters with citizens during their shifts. No statistically significant baseline differences between the shifts assigned to the treatment and control conditions were detected.

The data were captured by West Midlands Police using a police software program called Discoverer 4i. This software captured relevant information that was reviewed to indicate types of force applied, any recorded injuries to the suspect or the officer, and when the arrest was made. Use of force was categorized as any of the following: the use of physical restraints, use of handcuffs, batons, tear gas, drawing a taser, using a taser, or employing police dogs. Use of handcuffs was defined as being either compliant or noncompliant. Compliant handcuffing referred to instances where citizens were handcuffed and agreed voluntarily to be transported to the police station for further questioning. Noncompliant handcuffing referred to instances where citizens were involuntarily handcuffed and taken to the police station. The CrimeSolutions review looked at the analysis that did not include compliant handcuffing in the definition of use of force. The study author also conducted analyses to determine the difference in use of force between treatment and control shifts when compliant handcuffing was included in the definition of force.

Odds ratios were used to test the differences in outcomes between the treatment and control shifts. A Fisher’s exact test was used to evaluate the statistical significance of the prevalence of citizen and officer injuries between the treatment and control shifts. The study author acknowledged that having only 46 officers participating in the study was a limitation. In addition, it was noted that with 430 shifts, certain types of police use of force were relatively rare and therefore difficult to compare across treatment and control conditions. No subgroup analysis was conducted.

Subgroup Analysis

Henstock (2015) also conducted analyses to determine the difference in officers’ use of force between treatment and control shifts when compliant handcuffing was included in the definition of force. When compliant handcuffing was included, there was no statistically significant difference in the use of force between the treatment and control shifts. 

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

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

Ariel, Barak, Alex Sutherland, Darren Henstock, Josh Young, Paul Drover, Jayne Sykes, Simon Megicks, and Ryan Henderson. 2016. “Report: Increases in Police Use of Force in the Presence of Body-Worn Cameras are Driven by Officer Discretion: A Protocol-Based Subgroup Analysis of Ten Randomized Experiments.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 12:453–63.

Paternoster, Raymond. 2010. “How Much Do We Really Know about Criminal Deterrence.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 100(3):765–24. 

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

Body-Worn Cameras’ Effects on Police Officer Behavior

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

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

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

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