“Culture eats strategy for breakfast”: An in‐depth examination of police officer perceptions of body‐worn camera implementation and their relationship to policy, supervision, and training

• Published date: 01 August 2022
• Author: James J. Willis
• Date: 01 August 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12591

DOI: 10.1111/1745-9133 .12591

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

“Culture eats strategy for breakfast”: An

in-depth examination of police officer

perceptions of body-worn camera

implementation and their relationship to policy,

supervision, and training

James J. Willis

Criminology, Lawand Society, George

Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA

Correspondence

James J. Willis, Criminology,Law and

Society,George Mason University, Fairfax,

VA, U SA.

Email: jwillis4@gmu.edu

Abstract

Research Summary: This study uses interviews with

23 police officers from a small police department to

conduct an in-depth examination of their perceptions

of three critical but understudied areas related to

body-worn camera programs: the implementation and

policy-making process, supervision, and training. The

focus is on understanding the factors which contribute

to, or undermine, body-worn camera integration and

acceptance.

Policy Implications: Including patrol officers directly

in the implementation and policy-making processes

might help increase officer acceptance of body-worn

cameras (BWCs), and the identification of potential

implementation problems (especially around BWC

activation, civilian notification, and minor violations of

department policies). Moreover,police departments may

need to anticipate resistance from features of the tradi-

tional police culture toward certain BWC uses and con-

sider how these might be overcome. One suggestion is

to conduct regular reviews of BWC footage with officers

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits

use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or

adaptations are made.

© 2022 The Authors. Criminology & Public Policypublished by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society of Criminology.

Criminology & Public Policy. 2022;21:713–737. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp 713

714 WILLIS

as a learning tool to help guide discretion on BWC use

(especially around recording protocols), to help reframe

BWCs as an innovative technology for improving

street-level performance, and to provide routine

reminders to officers of the importance of BWC acti-

vation and civilian notification for achieving their

potential benefits.

KEYWORDS

body-worn cameras, implementation and policy, police culture,

supervision, training

In the summer of 2020, the shocking images of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin killing

George Floyd led to widespread protests and demands for sweeping change (Andrew,2020;Ram-

sey & Robinson, 2020). Inquiries on the limits to police reform have led to concerns about the

benefits of body-worn cameras (BWCs); an opinion column in response to George Floyd’s death

echoes some of this skepticism: “What’s particularly nauseating about the Floyd videos is that

the officers know they’re being watched, yet they are not deterred and don’t even seem bothered

by the cameras” (Manjoo, 2020). Others are more sanguine, and are calling for increased BWC

deployment (Jackman, 2020). These differences are reflected in the researchliterature, with some

reviews highlighting the substantial uncertainty around BWCs’ effects on police officers and cit-

izen behavior (Lum et al., 2019, 2020), while others are more optimistic (Gaub & White, 2020;

Malm, 2019; Maskaly et al., 2017;White&Malm,2020).

While BWCs may not be a “silver bullet” for all that bedevils policing (White & Malm, 2020,p.

17), the public is broadly supportive of their promise of greater police transparency and account-

ability (Culhane et al., 2016; White, Gaub, et al., 2017).The precise number of cameras is unknown,

but their rapid diffusion is undeniable. Estimates suggest that by 2016 about half of the 15,328

general law enforcement agencies in the United States had implemented BWCs(Hyland, 2018). A

more recent study concluded that about 60% of large agencies (>100 sworn) had adopted BWCs,

compared to 47% of smaller agencies (Nix et al., 2020). Given this support, it seems likely that

police departments will adopt BWCs in the foreseeable future. Consequently, both police agen-

cies and researchers will continue to gain from studies that examine the organizational and cul-

tural context of BWCadoption and use, particularly in three key and understudied areas crucial to

maximizing their potential benefits: implementation and policy-making, supervision, and train-

ing (Lum et al., 2019, p. 19; White & Malm, 2020).

Within police organizations, the traditional police culture, often described as resistant to

reform, can be a powerful factor for shaping efforts to change police practices (Lum & Koper,

2017; Mastrofski & Willis, 2010; Paoline & Terrill, 2014; Sparrow et al., 1990). This includes the

acceptance and use of new technologies (Lum et al., 2017; Manning, 2008; Sanders & Hannem,

2012). The police culture may not be as monolithic as contemporary reformers claim, and early

police ethnographers observed (Paoline, 2003), but its key dimensions continue to distinguish

policing as an organization and occupation (Herbert, 1998; Paoline & Terrill, 2014). Several of

these features are potentially relevant to BWC programs, including a preoccupation with crit-

ical incidents and the dangerousness of police work, suspiciousness toward civilians’ motives