Body‐Worn Cameras and Policing: A List Experiment of Citizen Overt and True Support

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12924
• Published date: 01 November 2018
• Date: 01 November 2018

Body-Worn Cameras and Policing: A List Experiment of Citizen Overt and True Support 883

Daniel E. Bromberg

University of New Hampshire

Étienne Charbonneau

École nationale d’administration publique, Montreal

Andrew Smith

University of New Hampshire

Body-Worn Cameras and Policing: A List Experiment of

Citizen Overt and True Support

Abstract: Police body-worn cameras (BWCs) have gained popularity in recent years. However, many minimize

the complexity of this transparency initiative and elevate the potential benefits. While BWCs can promote police

accountability, they may also reduce citizen trust in police organizations. For BWCs to achieve win-win solutions,

police organizations should determine the level of citizen support for specific BWC practices. However, measuring

citizen support presents several challenges. Social desirability may impact polling results, as participants underreport

responses they perceive to be outside the norm. The authors employ a list experiment design to measure true citizen

support for BWC practices. They find statistically significant levels of social desirability for police discretion in the

activation of BWCs and for restriction of footage accessibility regarding suspects with mental illness. Decision makers

should not rely on public opinion polls as a gauge of true citizen support for BWC use.

Evidence for Practice

• Citizens remain skeptical about giving police officers discretion in turning on police body-worn cameras.

• Public polling may overestimate the level of support citizens have for police body-worn cameras.

• Police body-worn camera initiatives are more complex than frequently portrayed.

The emergence of police body-worn cameras

(BWCs) has increased rapidly over the past

five years within the United States and, to a

lesser extent, Canada. At points, this rise has occurred

in tandem with movements such as Black Lives

Matter and Campaign Zero, but BWCs have also

emerged independently as police organizations across

the United States adopt the use of the technology.

Cubitt et al. suggest that the “perceived bi-directional

benefit between policing and community is

potentially the most influencing factor in the speed

of BWC implementation” (2016, 14). Take, for

example, the tone struck by the American Civil

Liberties Union (ACLU). The organization notes on

its website,

Although we at the ACLU generally take a dim

view of the proliferation of surveillance cameras

in American life, police on-body cameras are

different because of their potential to serve as

a check against the abuse of power by police

officers ... Cameras have the potential to be

a win-win, helping protect the public against

police misconduct, and at the same time helping

protect police against false accusations of abuse.

Transparency initiatives are complex, however, and

BWCs are not as straightforward as some believe. For

BWCs to achieve this “win-win” described by the

ACLU, citizen perceptions of BWC use must align

with the actual BWC practices taken by police. The

majority of citizens may support one BWC practice

but oppose another. While police organizations

should attend to these variations in citizen support,

conversations regarding police implementation largely

tend to minimize this complexity while rolling out an

initiative.

The goal of this article is to estimate the levels of

overt and true citizen support for three contentious

issues concerning body-worn cameras: the level

of discretion that officers should have to activate

them, locations where they should be used, and

restrictions on the distribution of footage. Without

this knowledge base of citizen perceptions and the

manner in which citizens support a transparency

initiative, BWC use may further erode trust between

citizens and police officers rather than mend it.

The manner in which police utilize BWCs has the

potential to dictate the success or failure of these

initiatives.

This article tackles these problems in four parts.

First, the authors review the relevant literature on

transparency and trust as it applies to body-worn

camera practices. Second, the authors present social

Andrew Smith has been director of the

University of New Hampshire Survey Center

since 1999 and is professor of practice in

the Department of Political Science. He has

published in multiple journals, including

the American Political Science Review

and Public Opinion Quarterly, and is

coauthor with David Moore of The First

Primary: New Hampshire’s Outsize

Role in Presidential Nominations

(2015). His recent research focuses on

methodological issues in survey research.

E-mail: andrew.smith@unh.edu

Étienne Charbonneau is associate

professor of public management at the

École nationale d’administration publique,

Montreal, Canada. He is also codirector

of the CERGO research center. He holds

a PhD from the School of Public Affairs

and Administration at Rutgers University–

Newark. He is a fellow in the Center for

Organization Research and Design at

Arizona State University. His research

focuses on performance management,

citizen satisfaction, and accountability.

E-mail: etienne.charbonneau@enap.ca

Daniel E. Bromberg is associate

professor of public administration and

director of academic programs in the

Carsey School of Public Policy at the

University of New Hampshire. He is also

a fellow in the Center for Organization

Research and Design at Arizona State

University. He holds a PhD from the School

of Public Affairs and Administration at

Rutgers University–Newark. His research

interests include collaborative governance,

government contracting, e-government, and

performance management.

E-mail: daniel.bromberg@unh.edu

Research Article

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 78, Iss. 6, pp. 883–891. © 2018 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12924.