Axis

Effectiveness

Mixed Evidence

.

.

.

.

.

Mixed Evidence

¿Quieres saber más acerca de esta clasificación? Consulte nuestro manual metodológico.

Description

Body Cameras (or “body cams“) are small audiovisual recording devices attached to police uniforms to record or transmit images in real time to monitoring centers.
The use of this tool aims to improve the relationship between the police and citizens, reduce abusive uses of force, protect police officers against false reports, produce better quality criminal evidence, and improve training, since it makes it possible to monitor operational execution out in the field.

Country of application
  • United States
  • United Kingdom
Evidence

A systematic review by the Campbell Collaboration identified 30 studies (experimental and quasi-experimental) on the use of Body Cameras that measured the behavior of police officers and citizens. The results varied widely, but there are indications that Body Cameras can be effective to reduce the number of complaints against police officers, with a 16.6% reduction in complaints [1]. However, the results did not show a consistent impact on reducing the use of force, indicating a 6.8% reduction, which is of little statistical significance. Analyses suggest that restrictions on police officers’ freedom of choice to turn on the camera can reduce the use of force, but further studies are needed.
With regard to the effects on aggression against police officers, injuries caused by them, and resistance to police approaches, the same meta-analysis reported a small (15.9%) increase in aggression or resistance to those wearing cameras. However, this result was not statistically significant.
A second systematic review updated the meta-analytical dataset used in the aforementioned study, adding two Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) [2]. This new review supported the hypothesis that Body Cameras can affect both the use of force by the police and the number of complaints filed by citizens against police officers. The average effect on those two areas was -9.6% and -16.9%, respectively. However, although the estimated impact on the use of force was 40% higher than that presented in the first systematic review, the authors themselves warn that this result is not considered statistically significant either, according to the levels conventionally accepted in statistical studies.

Bibliography

[1] Lum, C., Koper, C. S., Wilson, D. B., Stoltz, M., Goodier, M., Eggins, E., Higginson, A., Mazerolle, L. (2020). Body‐worn cameras’ effects on police officers and citizen behavior: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(3), 729. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1112

[2] Williams Jr., M. C., Weil, N., Rasich, E. A., Ludwig, J., Chang, H., Egrari, S. (2021). Body-Worn Cameras in Policing: Benefits and Costs (NBER Working Paper Series núm. 28622). Cambridge, MA. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w28622

Evaluated cases

Why might the cases evaluated have different levels of effectiveness in relation to their respective type of solution?
Click here to understand why.

Some cases were not included in the evidence bank due to deficiencies detected in the methodology of their impact evaluations.
Click here to see the list

 

Image
flag

Send us your study!

Have you participated in impact evaluation studies of interventions to prevent crime, violence or disorder? Send us your study. It will be evaluated and may be included in the Evidence Bank!

Contact us