The price tag of police body-worn cameras: officers’ and citizens’ perceptions about costs

ABSTRACT

Research shows that both police officers and the public consistently express support for body-worn cameras (BWCs). The cost of increasing police transparency and accountability, however, is often overlooked. As many agencies have been deterred by their high price, BWCs may not always be cost-effective. Citizens have also rarely been surveyed on BWCs’ financial implications, suggesting their support may have been miscalculated. Considering the calls for reducing police budgets, it seems important to question whether BWCs are an appropriate use of public money. This article investigates how financial implications influence support for BWCs. It first explores how officers perceive the financial implications of using BWCs through interviews and focus groups. Then, it examines public support for BWCs, as revealed in experimental phone surveys. Results indicate that officers are generally sceptical about the public value of BWCs. While citizens showed a high endorsement for BWCs, their support dropped when reminded it could lead to cutbacks in social programmes.

KEYWORDS:

• Police body-worn cameras
• cost
• public opinion
• willingness to pay

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. This research was approved by the research ethic committee of Université de Montréal.

2. Each quote is designated with an I (for interview) or F (for focus group). Additionally, participants are identified based on their use of BWCs (where affirmative, moment of interview and department are indicated) and years of police experience.

3. Surveys were administered in settings where ethnic diversity is minimal and would not have been captured with our sample size.

4. Unlike Busemeyer and Garritzmann (2017), the public service we investigated is mostly paid by municipal entities but administered by a provincial agency. Municipalities are not allowed to run a deficit in the province of Quebec. Hence, treatment 1 refers to increased municipal property taxes, and treatment 3 refers to higher provincial debt.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Institut Québécois de Réforme du Droit et de la Justice (IQRDJ).

Notes on contributors

Brigitte Poirier

Brigitte Poirier is a postdoctoral researcher at the Canada Research Chair in Comparative Public Management at École nationale d’administration publique in Montréal. She holds a Ph.D. in criminology from Université de Montréal. She has been involved in various research projects studying the influence of police intervention videos on public opinion, the implications of visual technologies for policing and courts, the deterrence of traffic offences among young drivers, and the prevention of armed violence.

Étienne Charbonneau

Étienne Charbonneau is Canada Research Chair in Comparative Public Management and professor at École nationale d’administration publique in Montréal. He is also a Senior Fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. His recent research delves on accountability and electronic surveillance.

Rémi Boivin

Rémi Boivin is professor at the School of Criminology of Université de Montréal. His research interests include crime analysis, discretionary powers, and police use of force.