By Police1 Staff
Winning over your community when adopting a body camera program is only half the battle; a major factor every department needs to consider is how the new program is going to affect its officers. There aren’t many professions in which a person is constantly recorded, much less when they’re involved in stressful and sometimes life-threatening situations.
So it should be no surprise that not all officers are completely on board with body cameras. They should have hesitations and questions. But more importantly, the higher brass should have open ears and answers.
PERF and the Department of Justice’s Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services (COPS) conducted a study in which officers of varying ranks discussed their body camera programs and some of the issues that arose. Here are six common concerns officers have, and potential solutions.
1. Trust (or Lack Thereof)
One of the primary concerns for police executives is the fear that body-worn cameras will erode the trust between officers and the chief and command staff. Some officers may view the cameras as an indication that their supervisors don’t trust them, and might use the cameras to track and scrutinize their every move.
Most agencies permit supervisors to review videos so they can investigate a specific incident or complaint, identify videos for training purposes, ensure the system is working, and monitor overall compliance with the body-worn camera program.
But does that mean supervisors should periodically or randomly review videos to monitor officer performance? Some agencies allow periodic monitoring to proactively identify problems and hold officers accountable for their performance.
Other agencies permit periodic monitoring only in certain circumstances, such as when an officer is still in a probationary period or after an officer has received a certain number of complaints.
“Per our policy, we do not randomly review videos to monitor officer performance,” said Chief Chitwood of Daytona Beach (Fla.). “Instead, our review is incident-based, so if there is an issue, we will review the footage. In those cases, we can also review prior videos to see if there is a pattern of behavior.”
Some agencies prohibit random monitoring altogether because they believe doing so is unnecessary if supervisors conduct reviews when an incident occurs.
Chief Terry Gainer, U.S. Senate sergeant at arms, believes that framing body-worn cameras as a check on officer behavior is the wrong approach.
“It’s going to be hard to encourage our officers to be the self-actualized professionals that we want them to be if we say, ‘Wear this because we’re afraid you’re bad, and cameras will help you prove that you’re good,’” said Gainer. “Body cameras should be seen as a tool for creating evidence that will help ensure public safety.”
Solutions
One solution that some police officials suggested was to have an agency’s internal audit unit periodically view body camera footage, rather than direct supervisors. They said this approach allows agencies to monitor compliance with the program and assess officer performance without undermining the trust between an officer and his or her supervisor.
Lt. John Carli of Vacaville, (Calif.) suggests that agencies present the cameras as a teaching tool, rather than a disciplinary measure, by encouraging supervisors to review footage with officers and provide constructive feedback.
Regardless of which route you take, clearly define how the footage will be used and communicate it to your officers. The more they understand the process, the more likely they are to trust it.
2. Failing to Understand/ Adapt to the Technology
Another worry many officers have when they’re first presented with body cameras is the difficulty of operating the cameras and learning a new technology.
“Officers can feel inundated with technology,” said Chief of Police Roberto Villaseñor of Tucson (Ariz.). “In the past few years, our department has introduced a new records management system and a new digital radio system. So some officers see body-worn cameras as another new piece of technology that they will have to learn.”
Some officers also said that cameras can be cumbersome and challenging to operate, and agencies often have to test several different camera models and camera placement on the body to determine what works best.
Solutions
Increment cameras across your department in waves. Taking an incremental approach to implementation can help make deployment run more smoothly. This can include testing cameras during a trial period, rolling out cameras slowly, or initially assigning cameras to tech-savvy officers.
Many agencies have found that officers embrace body-worn cameras when they see evidence of the cameras’ benefits.
“Our officers have been fairly enthusiastic about body-worn cameras because they have seen examples of how the cameras have cleared fellow officers of complaints,” said Lieutenant Dan Mark of Aurora, (Colo.).
The key to implementing a body camera program, much like any other new program or technology, is communication and transparency. Agency leaders should engage in ongoing communication with officers about the program’s goals, the benefits and challenges of using cameras, and the agency’s expectations of the officers.
Leaders should be engaging in open communication with officers about what body-worn cameras will mean for them. A survey of officers conducted by the Vacaville (Calif.) Police Department found that including officers in the implementation process—and allowing them to provide meaningful input—generated support for the cameras.