a quick reflection… 1.do you think body worn video is a good idea? 2.do you think body worn video...

A quick reflection…

1.Do you think Body Worn Video is a good idea?

2.Do you think Body Worn Video affects Criminal Justice Outcomes for Domestic Abuse incidents?

3.Do you think officers would want to wear Body Worn Video?

Police, Camera, Evidence

The impact of Body Worn Video on the criminal justice outcome of domestic abuse incidents and next steps

Presented by: Catherine Owens

15 April 2015

CONTEXT

PRESSURE

• Criticised over domestic violence deaths

• Receive 85-95 calls of domestic abuse a day

• Very conscious Essex must get our

response right every single time - substantial risk

PRESSURE cont..

•Wanted evidenced based approach

•Sought innovative solution

•Old technology – successful?

oGreater support for victims & witnesses

oIncrease in positive disposals & early guilty pleas (quantity and quality of evidence)

oAccountability and confidence - officer

oReduction in offending behaviour due to officer presence and successful outcomes

THEORY OF CHANGE

Advantages of collaboration

For Essex:• Pilot BWV before

implementation - will it have the desired effect?

• Reduced risk to force

For the College:• Low-cost, naturally occurring opportunity for groundbreaking research• Build and test evidence on BWV, DA, and CJ outcomes

For the service as a whole…

Demonstrates the value of evidence-based policing

Do BWV cameras reduce attrition for domestic abuse incidents

through the CJ process?

• Launched trial - January 2014

• 308 response officers in Essex attended 7,609 domestic abuse incidents during the 4 month trial

INTERVENTION OUTCOME

• Chance?• Other factors? • Generalisable? • Negative outcomes?• Unintended consequences? • Comparisons between interventions…

– Best value? Most effective? Most efficient?

Establishing cause-and-effect…

What is a RCT?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/test-learn-adapt-developing-public-policy-with-randomised-controlled-trials

Essex collaboration – BWV cameras

• 308 eligible response officers

− 80 randomly assigned to the treatment (cameras)− 238 randomly assigned to the control (no cameras)

Only 70 officers ended up wearing the cameras

• Minimising potential for contamination

− Sample stratified by location − Deployment to incidents is ‘blinded’− Single crewing policy− An analytical focus on the incident and the officer

• Outcomes

− The proportion of attended incidents resulting in arrest, charge & criminal conviction

− Also monitoring early guilty pleas & sentencing

Results – proportion of charges

• A significantly higher proportion of treatment group incidents resulted in one or more criminal charges than another Sanction Detection outcomes

Proportion of Detected Cases with Charges

Treatment Control

81% 72%

Results – proportion of charges

• Other explanatory factors were considered, and the camera effect was not associated with any particular geographic areas, demographics of officer, or risk factors

• This result was confirmed at the officer level, and at all levels of risk of incident….

Results – proportion of charges

• The results from this predictive model show the likely effect the camera would have in different cases (based on Essex data)

Risk Assessment

Proportion of Detected Cases Charged

Treatment Control Difference

Standard 57% 45% 12%

Medium 80% 72% 9%

High 99% 98% 1%

Officer feedback

• Quantity and Quality of evidence• Supporting Victims and Witnesses• Accountability• Confidence and Efficacy

Officer feedback

“picture paints a thousand words and a video paints a million…but if your pictures is blurry

then…”

Conclusions• BWV could be effective at increasing the

proportion of detections that were criminal charges

• Lots of implementation feedback• Evidence capture• Officer behaviour change• Practical limitations and low usage

• No effect for other CJ stages before detection but…– More likely to change with greater uptake?– Subject to other influences?

• Promising results for later CJ stages• Essex can have confidence in their approach• Opportunities – reflective practice

NEXT STEPS

• Innovation bid• Essex 400 cameras – Five policing

areas• Kent 1300 cameras• Operational go-live October 2014 –

Kent/Essex• Personal issue is the way forward• Clear guidance and policy

CULTURAL CHANGE

• Attitudes & behaviour

• Wider awareness – other officers / staff being filmed

Do BWV cameras improve police/public contact & increase the proportion of incidents that result in a CJ outcome?

• Very limited evaluation evidence on ‘what works’ to reduce complaints & improve use of S&S

• Quality of contact is an important issue – legitimacy & public cooperation

• BWV is a potential game-changer…

− Officer visibility to supervisors− After-the-event accountability− Reviewability of decisions

• The Rialto experiment

− A significant reduction in police use of force− A likely reduction in complaints

MPS collaboration – BWV cameras

• 10 boroughs selected from across the MPS

− Selection criteria: complaint rate (primary) and S&S rate

• Cluster randomised design

− 2 teams per borough randomly assigned to the treatmentAbout 500 officers with cameras

− 3 teams per borough randomly assigned to the controlAbout 750 officers without cameras

• Outcomes

− CJ outcomes – arrests, sanction detections, charges…− Complaints – number− S&S – number, hit rate, grounds & disproportionality− Officer attitudes & self-reported behaviour− Public attitudes & experience of contact?− Force assessment of cost-savings

MPS collaboration – BWV cameras

Thank you

Email: catherine.owens@college.pnn.police.ukTelephone: 020 3113 7250