Deploying Body-Worn Cameras in a Jail Setting: Impacts and Lessons Learned
Michael D. White Ph.D., Bryce E. Peterson, Ph.D., Daniel S. Lawrence Ph.D., Brittany C. Cunningham Ph.D., and James R. Coldren, Ph.D.
One of the primary goals of prison and jail administrators is to maintain safe and secure institutions for both staff and incarcerated residents. One promising approach for enhancing institutional safety and mitigating uses of force in correctional settings is body-worn cameras (BWCs).
The interest in BWCs among correctional agencies has been spurred by research on cameras in policing. Studies have found BWCs consistently reduce complaints against police officers (White et al. 2023) and may also lead to reductions in use of force, (Ariel et al., 2015; Jennings et al, 2015; White & Malm, 2020) and injuries to both community members (Henstock, 2015) and officers (Stolzenberg et al., 2019). Thus, the potential for correctional BWCs to generate these outcomes is of paramount interest for jail and prison administrators.
Unfortunately, no studies to date have examined the efficacy of BWCs in prisons or jails. This gap is concerning given the increasing spread of BWCs in corrections, the cost (financial and otherwise) of the technology, and the fundamental differences between policing and corrections which challenge the notion that evidence of effective practice in one setting will translate seamlessly to the other. In order to help fill this gap, we partnered with the Loudoun County (VA) Adult Detention Center (LCADC) to conduct a year-long randomized controlled trial (RCT) testing the impact of BWCs on jail deputy perceptions (Peterson et al., 2023), response-to-resistance (RTR) (Lawrence et al., 2023a), and resident injuries (Lawrence et al., 2023b). We also compared footage of RTR incidents from BWCs and stationary cameras to assess the differential value of each, and we conducted a cost effectiveness analysis of the BWC program (Cunningham et al., 2023).
The LCADC
The LCADC houses maximum-, medium-, and minimum-security level residents and includes work release, workforce, drug treatment, and mental health programs. Most LCADC residents are pre-trial detainees, with approximately 20% serving sentences for misdemeanor or felony convictions. During the evaluation period, the facility had an average daily population of 222 residents of which most were male (81%) and white (51%; 24% were Black, 21% were Hispanic). During this time, more than 80% of residents had a length of stay under two weeks, while only 4% of residents had a length of stay over six months.
The LCADC is staffed by 124 individuals, including 102 front-line deputies and 22 supervisors, the majority of whom are white and male. Staff supervise eight housing units that have one to four housing pods (20 pods in the entire facility), in addition to four general units that include the medical unit, hallways, intake unit, and transportation between the facility and outside locations (e.g., county courthouse; see Table 1).
The LCADC BWC Study
The study team worked with LCADC leadership to deploy BWCs among deputies in a RCT from November 2, 2020, to October 31, 2021. Before the start of each month, the study team randomly assigned the 12 units (8 housing units and 4 general units) so that deputies in 6 units would be assigned a BWC during both the day and night shifts for the entire month (i.e., unit-months with BWCs), and the other 6 units would not have BWCs assigned to them (i.e, unit-months without BWCs). The 12 units were re-randomized each month. At the conclusion of the 1-year RCT, there were a total of 72 BWC unit-months and 72 non-BWC unit-months (see Figure 1). The LCADC was highly successful in implementing this research design. Just 3% of unit-days were assigned incorrectly (i.e., BWCs were erroneously assigned or not assigned in 131 unit-days of the 4,368 of the study, 12 units × 364 days).
The evaluation compares outcomes in the BWC and non-BWC unit-months. We collected a wide range of data for analysis.
Deputy Perceptions:
We surveyed LCADC deputies on 3 occasions: (1) pre-implementation (September 2020); (2) mid-implementation (June 2021), and (3) post-implementation (November 2021). The survey captured perceptions of BWCs in terms of: individual and general views regarding BWCs; familiarity, ease of use, and comfort; impact on resident-deputy interactions; concerns; and overall thoughts. Responses rates were quite high in the three survey waves (94%, 68%, 70%). We compared perceptions among the deputies over time.
RTR and Resident Injuries:
LCADC shared administrative data on RTR events during the study period which included the location of the RTR, the shift, the level of resident resistance (Level 1—Passive, Level 2—Active, Level 3—Aggressive), resident injury, and the type of force used (12 method types were collapsed into 3 categories—physical, restraint, and weapons). A total of 97 RTR incidents occurred during the study period, and 18 resulted in a resident injury.
In October 2020, the LCADC transitioned from documenting use of force by deputies to responses to resistance by residents. As a result, the number of events increased from roughly 3.2 uses of force per month to 8.6 RTRs per month. This change prevented us from examining RTRs before the study period. We used regression models with statistical controls to compare BWC and non-BWC unit-months of the prevalence of RTRs, deputy control methods, resident resistance level, and resident injury. We also employed logistic regression to identify predictors of injury.
Camera Footage Review:
We randomly selected 13 RTR events and reviewed video footage from all BWCs and stationary cameras that captured the events. In total, our team reviewed footage from 46 BWCs and 48 stationary cameras. We compare video quality, position and viewshed, audio, and investigative time/costs across the camera types.
Cost Effectiveness:
We paired the results of the RTR and resident injury analyses with information on the costs of the BWC program to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis. Cost-effectiveness analysis allows researchers to relate the cost of a program to its key outcomes, but is distinct from a full cost-benefit analysis in that it does not identify and attach monetary values to those outcomes (Cellini & Kee, 2015). To calculate the cost of LCADC’s BWC program, the study team gathered three primary types of data over the one-year study period: (1) equipment and startup costs; (2) initial training costs; and (3) personnel costs associated with RTR investigations.
This study found limitations with each and that the two camera types complemented one another to overcome those limitations.
Results Deputy Perceptions:
LCADC deputies held neutral or slightly negative perceptions about most aspects of BWCs, including whether BWCs could improve efficiency and accuracy, and have a civilizing effect on officers and incarcerated residents. These perceptions remained largely consistent across the study period. LCADC deputies believed BWCs would negatively impact resident-deputy relationships, and those perceptions became stronger over time. Table 2 details the mean differences for select survey findings. For more detail on the results, see Peterson et al. (2023).
Responses To Resistance:
Our analyses documented a statistically significant difference in RTRs comparing BWC and non-BWC unit-months. RTR events were approximately 40% lower in unit-months with BWCs (p < .05; see Table 3). Within the predicted margins, there were an average of 0.55 RTRs in unit-months when BWCs were present, compared to 0.92 in unit-months when BWCs were not present. Our analyses suggest BWCs prevented 27 RTRs over the course of the 1-year study period.
BWCs were also associated with a significant decline in the use of physical controls by deputies (average of 0.49 events in unit-months with BWCs compared to 0.78 in non-BWC unit-months) and active resistance by residents (average of 0.34 events in BWC unit-months compared to 0.71 in non-BWC unit-months). Passive resistance by residents and restraint controls by deputies were lower in BWC unit-months, but the declines were not statistically significant. Both weapon force and aggressive resistance by residents were rare and did not differ between BWC and non-BWC conditions (see Lawrence et al. [2023a] for more detail).
Resident Injuries:
Our analyses indicate a 58% reduction in injuries in unit-months where deputies were assigned BWCs (IRR = 0.42, p < .05). This corresponded to an average estimated count of 0.07 resident injuries in unit-months with BWCs, compared to 0.17 injuries in unit-months without BWCs. Our analyses suggest BWCs prevented 8 resident injuries over the 1-year study period.
We also sought to identify factors that influenced the likelihood of injury during an RTR. We ran logistic regression models with 13 different variables including situational characteristics (e.g., day or night shift, unit security level), resident behaviors (e.g., resistance level), and deputy behaviors (e.g., control methods used). The presence of BWCs was the only factor to significantly reduce the likelihood of injuries (OR(SE)=0.12(0.11), p< .05; see Lawrence et al. [2023b] for more detail).
Camera Footage Review:
Both BWCs and stationary cameras played a crucial role in providing insights into RTRs, despite limitations associated with each camera type. Importantly, we found the two camera types complemented one another to help overcome the limitations of each. For instance, while stationary cameras lacked audio capabilities, BWCs captured audio which provided a much more complete record of the incident. BWCs provided first-hand views of RTR events from the deputies involved. When these views were obstructed, a stationary camera often captured views of the whole scene. By leveraging the strengths of both stationary cameras and BWCs, agencies can obtain a more comprehensive and complete body of evidence than if they solely rely on either type of camera (see Cunningham et al., [2023] for a more detail).
Cost Effectiveness:
Tables 4A-C provide a breakdown of the costs associated with the program, including equipment and start-up ($106,155), training ($17,149), and personnel costs associated with RTRs when BWCs were present ($68,565.57) or not present ($33,222.70).
Taken together, the costs of LCADC’s BWC program over the course of the one-year RCT were estimated at $158,647 ($106,155 for equipment and start-up costs + $17,148.72 for training + $35,342.87 in increased personnel time investigating RTRs). The increase in investigative time occurred despite the significant reduction in RTRs. BWCs provide additional evidence in RTRs that must be reviewed.
We were not able to quantify the “social” and medical cost savings associated with a reduction in injuries and RTRs, or monetize the improvement in evidence collection, transparency, and accountability associated with BWCs (see Cellini & Kee, 2015). Instead, our cost-effectiveness ratio, combined with the estimate of RTRs (n=27) and injuries (n=8) prevented by the BWC program, indicates that each $5,875.80 spent on the program resulted in one prevented RTR, while each $19,830.82 resulted in one prevented injury.
Limitations
This study had a few notable limitations. We tested BWCs in a single, relatively small jail in Virginia. Thus, the findings cannot be generalized to other jail jurisdictions. Further, the study’s
sample size (12 housing units × 12 months = 144 observations) was small and produced low base rates of RTR incidents (n=97) and resident injuries (n=18). Our protocol of re-randomizing units each month, though necessary, also limited the statistical techniques we could use in our impact analyses. Similarly, because of the changes in LCADC policy to measure RTRs in lieu of use of force incidents, we could not analyze pre-study data on our key outcomes. Last, the study took place during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The extent to which the pandemic, and the LCADC’s organizational response to it, affected our study and the results is not clear.
Conclusion
This study represents the first known RCT of BWCs in a correctional jail setting. In partnership with the National Sheriffs Association and the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office, we (a) successfully executed the RCT with high fidelity, and (b) collected and analyzed numerous critical outcomes related to the implementation and impact of the LCADC’s BWC program.
BWCs were associated with statistically significant reductions in RTRs and resident injuries. Findings from deputy surveys do raise questions about the potential impact of BWCs on deputy-resident relations. Correctional BWCs come with notable costs, though many of the savings generated by cameras are difficult to quantify, and might be somewhat offset by reductions in incidents and injuries.
The study also addresses one of the primary points of contention about implementing BWCs in correctional environments: that they are redundant to the existing network of stationary cameras. This study found limitations with each and that the two camera types complemented one another to overcome those limitations.
In sum, BWCs hold potential for improving the safety and security of jails and other correctional facilities, and they have evidentiary value. Additional research is needed to further explore the benefits, challenges, and consequences of deploying BWCs in jail settings.
Michael D. White, Ph.D. is a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. For more information, he can be contacted at mdwhite1@asu.edu.
Bryce E. Peterson is a senior research scientist at the Center for Naval Analyses. For more information, he can be contacted at petersonb@cna.org.
Daniel S. Lawrence, Ph.D. is a senior research scientist at the Center for Naval Analyses. For more information, he can be contacted at lawrenced@cna.org.
Brittany C. Cunningham, Ph.D. is the Assistant Director of the Center for Naval Analyses. For more information, she can be contacted at cunninghamb@cna.org.
James R. Coldren, Ph.D. is the Managing Director of the Center for Naval Analyses. For more information, he can be contacted at coldrej@cna.org.
Cellini, S. R., & Kee, J. E. (2015). Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis. In K. E Newcomer, H. P. Hatry, & J. S. Wholey (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation, Wiley. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119171386.ch24 Cunningham, B. C., Peterson, B. E., Lawrence, D. S., White, M. D., Coldren, J. R. Jr., Lafferty, J., & Richardson, K. (2023). Comparing the uses and benefits of stationary cameras versus body-worn cameras in a local jail setting. Arlington, VA: CNA Corporation.
Henstock, D. (2015). Testing the effects of body-worn video on police use of force during an arrest: A randomized controlled trial. Unpublished master’s thesis. Wolfson College, Cambridge: UK.
Jennings, W. G., Lynch, M. D., & Fridell, L. A. (2015). Evaluating the impact of police officer body-worn cameras (BWCs) on response-to-resistance and serious external complaints: Evidence from the Orlando police department (OPD) experience utilizing a randomized controlled experiment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(6), 480-486.
Lawrence, D. S., Peterson, B. E., White, M. D., Cunningham, B. C., Coldren, J. (2023a). Effects of correctional body-worn cameras on responses to resistance: A randomized controlled trial. Under review.
Lawrence, D. S., Peterson, B. E., White, M. D., Cunningham, B. C., Coldren, J. (2023b). Can body-worn cameras reduce injuries during response-to-resistance events in a jail setting? Results from a randomized controlled trial. Under review.
Peterson, B. E., White, M. D., Cunningham, B. C., Lawrence, D. S, Lafferty, J., & Coldren J. R. (2023). Body-worn cameras in a correctional setting: Assessing jail deputy attitudes before, during, and after implementation. Justice Evaluation Journal, in press.
Stolzenberg, L., D’Alessio, S. J., & Flexon, J. L. (2019). Eyes on the street: Police use of body-worn cameras in Miami-Dade County. Davie, FL: Weston Publishing, LLC.
White, M. D., Gaub, J. E., Malm, A., Padilla, K. (2023). Impacts of BWCs on citizen complaints: Directory of outcomes. Body-Worn Camera Training and Technical Assistance Program. https://bwctta.com/impact-bwcs-citizen-complaints-directory-outcomes
White, M. D. & Malm, A. (2020). Cops, cameras, and crisis: The potential and the perils of police body-worn cameras. New York: New York University Press.