Birmingham South RCT 46 officers across two units 430 officer shifts over 6 months 592 arrest records 99% compliance with random allocation Part of multisite RCT with intention to do 24 tests in West Yorkshire, Peterborough, PSNI, Wolverhampton, Sacramento, etc. STRESS – importance of the compliance and why it happened. However operational officers and so some slippage inevitable and even allowable

Deployment Protocol Trial looked at personal issue (BS) and pool issue (WV) to response teams Compulsory to wear Officer discretion to record incident High visibility only, no covert use Only standard response deployment, no Public Order/ Football/ Firearms etc. Pre-record shut off for trial Pre-record shut off to assist with the implementation and officer confidence.

Findings

Prosecutions Overall charges: 12% Increase DV incident charges –13% increase Public Order offence charges – 22% increase Racially-motivated incidents charges –12% increase Early Guilty Pleas: 9% Increase Overall increase in charges and EGP’s leads to 13% reduction in NGP’s - over 2000 less cases/annum. Figures are treatment against control over the 6 month period of the trial. More cases though sent through the CJ system Leads to some staff increases Not Guilty though show greater reduction as you logically follow the process through. Reduced lengths of time at Court Less officer appearances Difficult to track as this data isn’t routinely recorded and CJ and Courts records not accurate. Something to look to in future..

Complaints Birmingham South: 100% reduction in complaints registered against officers in participating units. Wolverhampton: 46% reduction in complaints across all response officers £267,000 in staff and officer savings for investigation of complaints against response officers (31% of complaints relate to response officers) This figure began much higher, but we needed to concentrate it on response officers. Reality in WMP is that most complaints relate to investigation and therefore not response officers… that is not to say though that public perception and confidence is not increased..

Use of Force The devil is in the details… The complexities exceed the bottom line story

Fisher’s Test: p= 0.476 - Not statistically significant 20% reduction in recorded use of force….. NOT statistically significant though.. Fisher’s Test: p= 0.476 - Not statistically significant

Fisher’s Test: p= 0.0002*** 106% increase in use of physical restraint when no cameras present Fisher’s Test p= 0.0011*** 100% increase in use of handcuffs when offender is non-compliant Fisher’s Test: p= 0.0008*** 89% increase in chances of force being used if cameras are not present, when complaint handcuffs category is removed Masks the effect When compliant handcuffing is included in total use of force – Fishers Test = 0.476 (Not statistically significant) Compliant handcuffing, although recorded as a use of force, is more an officer safety issue and masks the overall effect

Fisher’s Test: p= 0.0008 – Very statistically significant 47% reduction in use of force overall Fisher’s Test: p= 0.0008 – Very statistically significant

54% reduction in confrontational encounters

Unconsidered consequences: effect of force on suspect & Injury to officers

65% reduction Is this that officers do actually use less force when cameras are on, or does it change offender behaviour resulting in lowering the use of force. Academically interesting but as a cop does it matter … no …. Either way what is clear is that it ‘cools’ this interaction between officers and offenders. Fisher’s Test: p= 0.0011*** 188% increase in chance of offender being injured when cameras not present

Reporting issue or officers taking a step backwards, not wishing to make first move and being assaulted. Although numbers very small it would appear from the results officers are more confident in reporting with supporting evidence. Fisher’s Test: p= 0.0873 250% increase in reported injuries to officers

Reflection from the wider RCT Dr Barak Ariel’s multi site analysis across 11 departments

Compliance with Protocols C – Control Importance of compliance Use of Force goes up when we cannot be sure if officers are using devices Importance of officers understanding the technology, effective training and direct support/encouragement needed to embed technology. Dr Ariel would suggest this is prevented by no discretion recording but this is unfeasible for most forces.

Consistent Reductions

Enhances Transparency and Accountability Be prepared for the unexpected consequences ... This is likely different for different jurisdictions depending on particular characteristics.

There is no turning back… There is no turning back… Asking whether or not we should procure BWCs is last year’s question….. What we can offer insight on: Use of Force Complaints Effect on CJS outcomes Activation policies Non-response policing environments What is not considered yet: How BWV effects legitimacy/public support The technological coupling of BWV evidence and other criminal case elements Unintended consequences. Cynthia Lum & Chris Koper … George Mason University have conducted review off all current, completed and proposed BWV trials…

WMP Body Worn Video Trial West Midlands Police Body Worn Video Trial WMP Body Worn Video Trial Inspector Darren Henstock