A quick vote…

1. A quick vote… • Do you think Body Worn Video is a good idea? • Do you think Body Worn Video affects Criminal Justice Outcomes for Domestic Abuse incidents? • Do you think officers would want to wear Body Worn Video?

2. The Essex Body Worn Video TrialThe impact of Body Worn Video on the criminal justice outcome of domestic abuse incidentsPresented by: Catherine Owens and Superintendent Trevor Roe15 October 2014

3. CONTEXT

4. DOMESTIC ABUSEMURDERS • Jeanette Goodwin • Christine Chambers & Shania Chambers • Maria Stubbings

5. PRESSURE • Criticised over domestic violence deaths • Receive 85-95 calls of domestic abuse a day • Very conscious we must get our response right every single time - substantial risk

6. PRESSURE cont.. • Wanted evidenced based approach • Sought innovative solution • Old technology – successful?

7. THEORY OF CHANGE • Greater support for victims & witnesses • Increase in positive disposals & early guilty pleas (quantity and quality of evidence) • Accountability and confidence - officer • Reduction in offending behaviour due to officer presence and successful outcomes

8. For Essex: Pilot BWV before implementation - will it have the desired effect? Reduced risk to force Advantages of collaboration • 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

9. 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

10. Establishing cause-and-effect… INTERVENTION OUTCOME • Chance? • Other factors? • Generalisable? • Negative outcomes? • Unintended consequences? • Comparisons between interventions… • Best value? Most effective? Most efficient?

11. What is a RCT? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/test-learn-adapt-developing-public-policy-with-randomised-controlled-trials

12. 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

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

14. 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….

15. 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)

16. Officer feedback • Quantity and Quality of evidence • Supporting Victims and Witnesses • Accountability • Confidence and Efficacy

17. Officer feedback “picture paints a thousand words and a video paints a million…but if your pictures is blurry then…”

18. 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

19. LEARNING • Reduction in complaints against police • Increase in public confidence • VFM investigating: Crimes/ASB/ Complaints • Underpins: • Victims code • Code of Ethics & • Code for Stop & Search

20. 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

21. CULTURAL CHANGE • Attitudes & behaviour • Training regime – keep it simple http://youtu.be/bm8oiYG0euU • Wider awareness – other officers / staff being filmed

22. College of Policing is supporting through advice and guidance many other forces nationally to build the evidence base Innovation fund bidders – research surgeries Sharing all the research materials (staff surveys etc.) Hands on support with the Met to explore the wider impact of BWV Next steps for the evidence base

23. 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

24. 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 treatment About 500 officers with cameras 3 teams per borough randomly assigned to the control About 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

25. Thank youEmail: catherine.owens@college.pnn.police.ukTelephone: 020 3113 7250