1. 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

2. 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.

3. Findings

4. 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..

5. 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..

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

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

8. Fisher’s Test: p= *** 106% increase in use of physical restraint when no cameras present Fisher’s Test p= *** 100% increase in use of handcuffs when offender is non-compliant Fisher’s Test: p= *** 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 = (Not statistically significant)
Compliant handcuffing, although recorded as a use of force, is more an officer safety issue and masks the overall effect

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

10. 54% reduction in confrontational encounters

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

12. 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= *** 188% increase in chance of offender being injured when cameras not present

13. 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= % increase in reported injuries to officers

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

15. 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.

16. Consistent Reductions

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

18. 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…

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