Program Profile: Police Body-Worn Cameras (Phoenix, Arizona)

This program equips police with on-officer cameras to record contacts with civilians. The program is rated Promising. Body-worn camera use resulted in statistically significant decreases in citizen complaints, and there were mixed results regarding camera use on arrest rates. There were no statistically significant differences in citizen resistance. There was a statistically significant increase in use of force, and less proactive, officer-initiated contact.

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/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, such as traffic stops and incidents associated with drugs, property crime, and violent crime. The video recordings can also be used by police to document statements, observations, behaviors, and other evidence.

Body-worn cameras are thought to provide numerous benefits. By creating a permanent digital record of encounters between police and the public, they may improve transparency and accountability, deter officer misconduct, reduce police use of force, and reduce citizen complaints about the police. They also increase the volume of information an officer collects, thereby potentially improving case outcomes. They may also influence officer proactivity and arrests, and there are different causal pathways through which body-worn cameras could plausibly increase or decrease these outcomes. The goals are to increase police effectiveness through evidence collection, increase police accountability and transparency, and reduce police use of force and citizen complaints against the police.

Program Components/Key Personnel

In 2013 the Phoenix (Ariz.) Police Department received funding to purchase, deploy, and evaluate body-worn video cameras that record the interactions between community members (including the public, suspects, and victims) 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). Compliance with the body-worn camera activation policy is assessed by the officer’s direct supervisor, who randomly selects and inspects one video for each officer assigned to wear a body-worn camera each week. The inspections lieutenant for each precinct also randomly selects and reviews at least one video captured using a body-worn camera on a monthly basis and includes the findings in the Monthly Inspections Report (Huff, Katz, and Hedberg 2020, 9).

Program Theory

The potential benefits of body-worn cameras for police officers are rooted in several theoretical approaches. Two predominant ones are 1) deterrence theory and 2) organizational justice theory. Deterrence theory posits that, as the certainty, severity, and swiftness of punishment increases, the likelihood of misbehavior decreases (Beccaria 1963; Stafford and Warr 1993). Pogarsky and Piquero expanded the scope of this theory to police misconduct, finding that “perceived sanction certainty and celerity were negatively associated with police misconduct” (2004, 381). Thus, body-worn cameras might decrease the likelihood of misconduct by raising the perceived cost (i.e., certainty of apprehension or punishment).

Wolfe and Piquero (2011) have argued that organizational justice can also influence police misconduct. The basic principle is that when organizations are perceived internally as treating employees fairly, employees are more likely to perform their duties effectively. Cohen–Charash and Spector (2001) reported that organizational justice is composed of three primary dimensions: distributive justice (the perceived fairness of outcomes), interactional justice (the perceived fairness of the interpersonal interaction between employees and authority figures within an organization), and procedural justice (the perceived fairness of the organization’s procedures). Research shows that employees are more likely to accept a negative outcome as long as the process used to determine the outcome is perceived as fair.

Taken together, these theories suggest that when police officers wear their body-worn cameras they are more likely to behave respectfully, fairly, and transparently. Citizens who are treated in this manner are more likely to reciprocate and behave in a cooperative or compliant manner (Hedberg, Katz, and Choate 2017).

Study

Hedberg, Katz, and Choate (2017) used a quasi-experimental design to assess the effectiveness of body-worn cameras on arrests, citizen complaints, and citizen resistance in two patrol districts in the Maryvale precinct of Phoenix, Ariz. The Maryvale precinct served as the study site. The precinct 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 in the precinct. Area 81 served as the comparison group, and Area 82 served as the “target group” in which officers wore body-worn cameras. 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 portion 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). Further, comparison Area 81 was more affluent (as measured by mean household income: $53,646 in the comparison area, $44,895 in the treatment area). At the time of the study, the two areas had similar levels of total crime; however, the comparison area had a slightly greater share of property crime (20.3 percent of the crime in treatment Area 82, versus 17.6 percent in comparison Area 81).

A total of 44,380 incidents (n = 22,720 in the comparison Area 81; n = 21,660 in the treatment Area 82) from April 1, 2013, through March 31, 2014, were recorded in the Phoenix Police Department’s Call-Aided Dispatch/Records Management System. Data from the cameras were also coded by incident, and dichotomous indicators were created that coded whether an officer involved in the incident used a camera (“video”), and whether the officers involved in the incident were assigned cameras (“assign”). A local average treatment effect (or “LATE,” also known as the effect of “treatment on the treated”) was employed to account for camera activation. The authors found camera activation was relatively limited, with cameras being activated in only about 32 percent of incidents; specifically, a body-worn camera was activated in about 39.0 percent of incidents involving violent offenses, 26.5 percent of incidents involving property crime offenses, and 6.5 percent of traffic offenses.

Then, for each incident, outcome data were coded, including whether an arrest was made (“arrest”), whether the officers faced resistance (“resist,” consisting of flight, passive resistance, or forceful resistance), and whether the officers received complaints based on the actions related to that incident (“complaint”). Analysis occurred at the incident level using bootstrap resampling of the data. Both linear and generalized linear (relative risk) regressions were employed to estimate the effect of body-worn camera assignment and activation on likelihood of arrest, citizen complaints, and citizen resistance in the case of arrest. No subgroup analysis was conducted.

Study

Huff, Katz, and Hedberg (2020) used a randomized controlled trial to examine the impact of body-worn camera assignment and activation on officer-initiated activity (officer-initiated contacts are proactively initiated by an officer who observed an event and chose to contact an individual, as opposed to responding to a citizen request for service), arrests, officer use of force, and citizen complaints against officers in the Phoenix (Ariz.) Police Department. Officers assigned to patrol units in six of the seven precincts in the city were included. Patrol officers assigned to the Maryvale precinct were excluded from this study because it served as the location of the 2013 body-worn camera pilot test (Study 1, described above). Of the 841 officers eligible for inclusion, 668 were approached and asked to participate in a voluntary survey about body-worn cameras. Of the 668 approached officers, 467 participated in the survey.

The body-worn cameras were deployed to officers in two phases: 1) a volunteer phase and 2) a mandated phase. In the volunteer phase, 144 officers from the pool of 467 officers who participated in the survey were randomly selected and asked to voluntarily wear a body-worn camera. Forty-seven of the randomly selected officers agreed to wear a camera (“body-worn camera volunteers”). There were 97 officers who declined to wear a camera; they were referred to as “body-worn camera resistors.” In the mandated phase, all officers who had not agreed to volunteer to wear a body-worn camera were randomized into either a treatment or a nontreatment condition. Those who were randomly selected during the mandated phase were required to wear a body-worn camera without the option to decline (n = 35 “body worn camera mandated”). The 281 officers who were not asked or assigned to wear a body-worn camera during either the volunteer or the mandated phase served as the comparison group. The final sample included incidents involving 47 body-worn camera volunteers, 94 body-worn camera resistors, 34 body-worn camera mandated officers, and 277 comparison officers. All body-worn cameras were deployed on May 24, 2017.

Computer-aided dispatch data (all Phoenix Police Department incident reports for crime and disorder events, including records for dispatched incidents and officer-initiated contacts), arrest data, use-of-force reports, complaints, and body-worn camera metadata were used in the analysis. The time period was the 18 months after body-worn cameras were deployed (May 24, 2017, through Nov. 23, 2018). All use-of-force reports were completed by the involved officers’ supervisor. Complaint data were gathered from the Phoenix Police Department’s Professional Standards Bureau and included all complaints related to an officer’s job performance, regardless of the source of the complaint (including citizen, supervisor, or the Phoenix Police Department website). Metadata were collected from the camera vendor to obtain a record of every body-worn camera activation and were used to examine whether the camera was activated in each individual police–citizen contact.

To account for differences between officers who agreed to volunteer to wear a body-worn camera and those who were mandated to wear the device, a body-worn camera volunteer variable was included in the analyses. Two separate multivariate models were used to assess the effects of body-worn cameras on the outcomes. First, the impact of body-worn cameras was assessed using an intent-to-treat approach to examine the impact of assigning the devices to officers. Then, the impact of the treatment on the treated was estimated using an instrumental variable analysis. A probit path model was used to predict each outcome using body-worn camera activation, the incident type, and the body-worn camera volunteer variables, offset by the number of responding officers. Overall, the second portion of the analysis identified the effect of body-worn cameras on incidents involving officers who were assigned to wear the device and who activated it, compared with two other groups of incidents: 1) those involving officers who were assigned to wear a body-worn camera but did not activate it, and 2) incidents in which the responding officer was not assigned to wear a camera. Subgroup analyses were conducted with the 47 body-worn camera volunteer officers.

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).

Subgroup Analysis

Huff, Katz, and Hedberg (2020) conducted subgroup analysis with the 47 officers who were body-worn camera volunteers. They found that, compared with incidents involving comparison group officers who were not assigned to wear body-worn cameras, incidents involving body-worn camera volunteers who were assigned to wear and activated the devices were statistically significantly more likely to result in officer-initiated contact. Further, incidents involving body-worn camera volunteers were statistically significantly more likely to result in an arrest. There were no statistically significant differences in the likelihood of use of force or citizen complaint for incidents involving body-worn camera volunteers.

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

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

Beccaria, Cesare. 1963. On Crimes and Punishments. Translated with an introduction by Henry Paolucci. New York, N.Y.: MacMillan.

Cohen–Charash, Yochi, and Paul E. Spector. 2001. “The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86:278–321.

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.

Huff, Jessica, Charles Max Katz, and Vincent J. Webb. 2018. “Understanding Police Officer Resistance to Body-Worn Cameras.” Policing: An International Journal 41(4):482–95.

Huff, Jessica, Charles Max Katz, Vincent J. Webb, and Eric Christopher Hedberg. 2020. “Attitudinal Changes Toward Body-Worn Cameras: Perceptions of Cameras, Organizational Justice, and Procedural Justice Among Volunteer and Mandated Officers.” Police Quarterly 23(4):547–88.

Katz, Charles Max, Mike Kurtenbach, David E. Choate, and Michael D. White. 2015. Phoenix, Arizona, Smart Policing Initiative: Evaluating the Impact of Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

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.

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

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

Pogarsky, Greg, and Alex R. Piquero. 2004. “Studying the Reach of Deterrence: Can Deterrence Theory Help Explain Police Misconduct?” Journal of Criminal Justice 32:371–86.

Stafford, Mark C., and Mark Warr. 1993. “A Reconceptualization of General and Specific Deterrence.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30:123–35.

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

Wolfe, Scott E., and Alex R. Piquero. 2011. “Organizational Justice and Police Misconduct.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 38:332–53.