Program Profile: Police Body-Worn Cameras for Intimate-Partner Violence Cases (Phoenix, Ariz.)

This program equips police with on-officer cameras to record contacts with civilians during intimate-partner violence incidents. The program is rated Promising. Camera use was statistically significantly more likely to result in arrests, charges filed, cases furthered, and both guilty pleas and verdicts. There was no statistically significant difference in sentence length. However, there was a statistically significantly greater reduction in case processing time in cases not involving a camera.

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

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

Program Goals/Target Population

Body-worn cameras are small devices worn by police officers, typically on their shoulder, lapel, or chest, with a forward-facing lens that captures and records activity. Body-worn cameras create a permanent digital video and audio recording of police encounters with citizens (including suspects, victims, and witnesses) in various contexts, including intimate-partner violence incidents. The video recordings can be used by police to document statements, observations, behaviors, and other evidence. The goal is to increase police effectiveness through enhanced ability to capture evidence, build cases against individuals charged with intimate-partner violence offenses, and support prosecutors in filing charges and securing convictions.

Program Components/Key Personnel

In 2013 the Phoenix (Ariz.) Police Department received funding to purchase, deploy, and evaluate on-person video cameras that record the interactions between community members and officers. The Phoenix Police Department is a large municipal police agency with more than 3,000 authorized sworn personnel who serve a community of more than 1.5 million people.

The body-worn camera equipment is used 7 days a week, during all shifts, by all deployed officers, and allows for all officers to download data before their next shift. All officers who are issued the equipment are provided training on its use and maintenance through a coordinated effort led by the precinct commander and the manufacturer.

The Phoenix Police Department body-worn camera policy was established in 2013, and updated in 2018. According to the revised Phoenix Police Department Information Center Operations Orders (Phoenix [Ariz.] Police Department 2021), “Users must activate the Event Mode [of their body-worn camera] upon receiving a call for service and prior to engaging in any investigative or enforcement contact” (Operations Order 4.49).

Program Theory

In addition to being perceived as a police-accountability tool, body-worn cameras may also provide enhanced evidentiary value for prosecution. The successful prosecution and conviction of criminal cases often depends on the quality of evidence, and the strength of evidence is one of the most consistent predictors of conviction (Devine et al. 2001), especially in intimate-partner violence cases (Bechtel et al., 2012; Nelson 2012; Robinson and Cook 2006), which generally have low prosecution and conviction rates. The role of police in collecting evidence, therefore, is vital for the efficacious prosecution and conviction of individuals who commit intimate-partner violence offenses (Westera and Powell, in press). While officers’ written reports may be unreliable or incomplete and contribute to challenges in prosecuting cases, cameras may enhance the manner in which police collect evidence for use in criminal cases (specifically, intimate-partner violence cases) by video-recording the emotionally charged victim statement, the physical evidence surrounding the incident (e.g., damaged property and evidence of physical abuse), and witness testimony (Westera and Powell, in press).

Overall, body-worn cameras may support police effectiveness and the role of police in collecting the best evidence possible, building cases against suspects, and supporting prosecutors in their efforts to file charges and secure convictions.

Study

Morrow, Katz, and Choate (2016) used a quasi-experimental design to assess the effects of the Phoenix (Ariz.) Police Department’s body-worn cameras on arrest, prosecution, and conviction in intimate-partner violence cases. The Maryvale precinct, selected as the study site, was operationally and geographically divided into two similarly sized squad areas that provided first-response coverage to calls for service on a 24-hour basis, 7 days a week. There generally were between 100 and 110 patrol officers equally divided between these two squad areas. Area 81 served as the comparison group, and Area 82, where officers wore body-worn cameras, served as the target group. Fifty-six camera systems were purchased and deployed in Area 82 on April 15, 2013. Departmental policy involving the use of the cameras was formulated before implementation and was also an integral part of the training by the Phoenix Police Department.

The two areas were geographically similar (Area 81 was 7.4 square miles, and Area 82 was 7.9 square miles) but differed in population size (71,676 individuals in Area 81, compared with 56,630 individuals in Area 82) and percentage of population under age 18 (39.5 percent in Area 81, and 43.1 percent in Area 82). Area 82, the target area, had a larger proportion of Hispanic or Latino residents (82.5 percent, compared with 71.1 percent in Area 81, the comparison area) but fewer Black residents (3.9 percent in the target area, compared with 6.4 percent in the comparison area). Calls-for-service rates in the two areas were not statistically significantly different for violent offenses, property offenses, and overall calls for service. The two areas were also similar for intimate-partner-violence–related calls; in the comparison Area 81, the rate was 2.3 calls per 10,000 residents, compared with 1.9 calls per 10,000 residents in the target Area 82.

Three sources of data were used for the analysis: 1) domestic violence pocket card data, 2) court data, and 3) arrest reports. The domestic violence pocket cards are a specialized form of the Field Interview card, designed specifically for intimate-partner violence incidents, and all Phoenix Police Department officers are required to complete this pocket card for each incident regardless of whether an arrest is made. These data were used to track intimate-partner violence cases in the Maryvale precinct from Jan. 1, 2012, through July 31, 2014, from incident initiation through prosecutorial disposition and sentencing. There were 2,063 incidents during this period. Court processing data from Jan. 1, 2012, through Oct. 31, 2014, were collected from the City of Phoenix Prosecutor’s Office. All police contacts involving intimate-partner violence in the precinct were identified (through the domestic violence pocket cards) and were then tracked through the Prosecutor’s Office case processing system. Incidents from the police were collected through July 31, 2014, but court document searches concluded on Oct. 31, 2014, to allow 90 days for those cases to be concluded. The following were then determined for each incident: whether the incident resulted in an arrest (and would thus be forwarded to the Prosecutor’s Office), whether the case was declined, whether charges were filed, the outcome of the case (dismissal, conviction, sentencing), and the amount of time that it took to process the case from arrest to final disposition or outcome. These data were linked to the assignment of officer-worn body cameras. Analyses were case-based and conducted by comparing the case processing of three groups: 1) pretest intimate-partner violence cases (n = 878); 2) posttest comparison cases (no video file, n = 933); and 3) posttest camera cases (video file available, n = 252).

The analytic strategy relied on precamera and postcamera deployment case outcome data from the target and comparison areas. The study period covered about 30 months: 15 months precamera deployment and 15 months postcamera deployment. Intimate-partner violence case outcomes were compared across the target and comparison groups, and the analyses relied on the presence of a body-worn camera on the officer responding to an incident and its subsequent impact on processing and outcome of the case. The CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on the results comparing posttest cases with a body camera (the target area), and posttest cases without a body camera (the comparison area). No subgroup analysis was conducted.

In 2013 the Bureau of Justice Assistance awarded $500,000 to the Phoenix (Ariz.) Police Department to purchase, deploy, and evaluate on-person video cameras that record the interactions between community members (including the public, suspects, and victims) and officers (Katz et al. 2014).<br><br> Implementing a body-worn camera program can be expensive, including direct costs associated with the purchase of the cameras and the costs associated with data storage and redaction (White 2014). The cost of a body-camera program is not limited merely to buying the video hardware (Phillips 2015). Such programs also require additional personnel to perform a variety of functions, including redaction, project management, and training (Gaub et al. 2016).

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

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

Bechtel, Kristin A., Leanne Fiftal Alarid, Alexander M. Holsinger, and Kristi Holsinger. 2012. “Predictors of Domestic Violence Prosecution in a State Court.” Victims & Offenders 7(2):143–60.

Devine, Dennis J., Laura D. Clayton, Benjamin B. Dunford, Rasmy Seying, and Jennifer Pryce. 2001. “Jury Decisionmaking: Forty-Five Years of Empirical Research on Deliberating Groups.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 7(3):622–727.

Gaub, Janne E., David E. Choate, Natalie Todak, Charles Max Katz, and Michael D. White. 2016. “Officer Perceptions of Body-Worn Cameras Before and After Deployment: A Study of Three Departments.” Police Quarterly 19(3):275–302.

Katz, Charles Max, David E. Choate, Justin R. Ready, and Lidia Nuño. 2014. Evaluating the Impact of Officer-Worn Body Cameras in the Phoenix Police Department. Phoenix, Ariz.: Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety, Arizona State University.

Nelson, Eric L. 2012. “Police-Controlled Antecedents Which Significantly Elevate Prosecution and Conviction Rates in Domestic Violence Cases.” Criminology and Criminal Justice 13(5):526–51.

Phillips, Noelle. 2015. “Body Cameras for Denver Police to Cost $6.1 Million Over 5 Years.” Denver Post. 2015, July 7.

Phoenix (Ariz.) Police Department. 2021. Phoenix Police Department Information Center Operations Orders.

Robinson, Amanda L., and Dee Cook. 2006. “Understanding Victim Retraction in Cases of Domestic Violence: Specialist Courts, Government Policy, and Victim-Centred Justice.” Contemporary Justice Review 9(2):189–213.

Westera, Nina J., and Martine B. Powell. (in press). “Prosecutors’ perceptions of how to improve the quality of evidence in domestic violence cases.” Police and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy.

White, Michael D. 2014. Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras: Assessing the Evidence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.