Inside out? Collaborative research with a UK police force using BWV - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Wednesday, 1 June 2016 Calgary, Canadian Sociological Association Serving Communities Panel ApS_1 Science A-109

Tom Ellis

Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, University of Portsmouth, UK

Inside out?

Collaborative research with a UK police force using BWV cameras

My motivations

• I am very active as a comparative researcher
• Important to meet Mary!
• 4 years of communicating and exchange
• Welcome antidote to US RCTism!
• A long time since I was at a broader ‘Sociology’

conference and wanted to use the 1st day to generate a fresh perspective demanded by the panel themes

• Many of the issues raised by BWV research require broader, often

sociological, approaches, eg, DV/DA, repeat patterns, hot spots…

• Feed into a special issue of ICJR journal that I am

editing (hopefully all of us contributing!)

Credentialism

• I am de facto criminologist (30 years), but not a specialist

and don’t like discipline boundaries

• Early career was all police research with a lot of ‘ride along’

– first study was an activity analysis – what do the police do?

• Also the most swearwords in a govt. report
• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tom_Ellis3/publications?sorting=newest&page=2
• In last few years, back to police research

– SNEN – BWV for University – Activity analysis as consultant

Between the ‘Police Sandwich’ years

Research on:

• Prisons (Race and CJ)
• Probation
• Courts and sentencers

No choice as government researcher, but appreciation

• f movement through CJ

process and different emphases

• Youth justice
• And all of them in comparative

context in Japan

• some in S. Korea and Taiwan

Gatekeeping

• Policing as a ‘closed’ institution
• Skolnick et seq – YES, isolated culture, solidarity etc.
• My experience, NOT VERY if you spend time at the business end
• Esp if busy
• Police more open and visible since PACE 1984 moved many practices to the front

stage

• Which of the following can you do this with:
• Probation officers (POLIBATION OFFICERS )
• Prison Officers
• Social Workers
• Teachers
• Nurses
• Austerity has opened up so many aspects of policing to volunteers and many now

students

• I am a volunteer with police ID to do this project/access data systems

Always an applied researcher

• 10 years as Home Office researcher
• 2 years as UN researcher
• University ‘lecturer’ PT since 1996, FT 1999
• Shock of many colleagues teaching ‘other people’s

stuff’ without doing research themselves

• Attitude of many academics and CJ agencies/

employers’ accepted separation of ‘academic’ and ‘real life’

• Evaluation, affecting change, evidence – treated

suspiciously – (commercially minded?)

• Easier to convert motivated practitioner to effective

applied researchers with academic credibility……….

Community based research (CBR)?

• Resonances with Eleanor Maticka-Tyndale’s approach – and ATTITUDE!
• External developments (REF - Research Excellence Framework) over 20

years have forced UK (E&W) Universities to ‘appreciate’ applied approaches

• Must demonstrate real life impact
• Disseminate to variety of readerships
• Have CJ agency participants officially involved
• Must be international
• [Serving local community?] – there was community consultation in 1st

study but………….

• Are the police my community?
• Different terminology and focus to CBR
• Utilization focused evaluation
• Action research

Comparative aspect vital

CANADA

• Bureaucratic burden/FIDO
• Public perceptions of professionalism

USA

• BWV affect on police behaviour and

professionalism

• Rialto: complaints and use of force
• Mesa: reducing civil liability, complaints

& operational transparency

• Both - enhancing criminal prosecution

UK/E&W

• Impact on crime and

incivilities

• Procedural justice, public

confidence/opinion

• Evidence & Criminal justice

process outcomes

• early guilty pleas
• more successful prosecutions
• better evidence
• reducing paper work

Comparative element is central, not an add on!

‘Types of research’ so far

Technical: Do the cameras work?

Implementation:

• How do you roll out cameras?

We’ve tried that. The cameras broke!

Training:

• How to train officers to use to cameras

BEFORE they go out with them

– ‘Choreography’ skills (recruitment?) – Best evidence – Knowledge of law – Beat craft (incorporate not replace)

Connecting the camera to the justice process:

After docking:

• Is it obvious it is there? And to whom?
• Is it accessible to:

Investigators Prosecutors/Defence/courts/sentencers Is it used?

Evaluation:

• What do you measure?
• How do (CAN) you measure it?

http://tinyurl.com/h4r6ntr

• 1st study was exploratory
• One of our students was an Inspector
• Suggested a student project, but way too

ambitious

• Applied collaborative research from the
• utset
• Police officer is academic student but also

part of the focus of the study.

• Pet project with high involvement &

motivation.

• Energising force was money and cameras

from Home Office in place

• Several stages late and initially very

constrained external expert role envisaged

Follow up study (1.0)

Larger study on mainland city, approx. 250,000 pop.

Personal issue to all PATROL officers (effectively mandatory use)

• AIM:
• identify enabling and hindering features of

BWVC use affecting efficiency and effectiveness

• report to operational managers
• recommend changes
• evaluate impact of changes
• DESIGN:

Utilization focused action research

• METHODS:

Human factors/contextual design – Focus groups and semi-structured interviews – (secondary data analysis?) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

Whose knowledge counts and how is it translated?

• Overwhelming focus from police lead and my co-investigator’s

research speciality was human factors.

• Identify ‘good’ or ‘best’ practice – evidence within human factors
• Focus was:
• SOTON 2

– OUTLINE (to 1.15) & 1.56 – 2.20 – EVENT 3.21 – 5.15 – ROLE 5.37 – 6.27 – HANDS 8.29 - 9.15

• To me, no recognisable ‘outcome’ analysis, but the research tender

did not request it

• Impression was data managers also didn’t want a headache

BUT THINGS DIDN’T GO TO PLAN!

• New more senior officer appointed in charge
• Needs quick results
• Less focussed on cameras per se, but how technology

can/not improve CJ outcomes

• I get a more balanced project
• But need to produce some fast results
• He is offering 3 specialist staff for 2 months
• Easy renegotiation of focus and timetable at present
• Work backwards from prosecutors?
• Easier to be critical now!

THIRD STUDY: Promoting justice: Professionalising frontline

policing with an evidence-based Structured Interview Protocol

AIM: Enable front line officers to gain high quality information from witnesses, victims, and persons of

interest, in order to improve quality of evidence, resolution, prosecution, conviction etc.

DESIGN & METHODS: Based on psychological theory of strategic control of memory

reporting, and psychological developments in investigative interviewing, esp Self-Administered

Interview‘ (SAI - Gabbert, Hope et al) .

• Develop, test and train for on street 'Structured Interview Protocol' to strengthen FIRST ACCOUNT
• Randomised controlled trials (RCT) of the interview protocol in the field, with the College of Policing providing expert and a

quality assurance role.

• Double blind review of video camera footage to rate quality

Interpreting camera evidence not straightforward

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/31/us/100000004278201.app.html?nyt app=iphone&_r=3# DIDN’T ALL GO TO PLAN but we do (potentially) have data in c. 100 cases for me to

• Correlate quality with CJ outcomes
• NOW HAVE POLICE STAFF TO DO THIS – BUT PROBLEMS WITH REFERENCING OF

FOOTAGE TO BE ABLE TO LINK TO DATA SYSTEMS

CAN YOUR CJ IT SYSTEMS ROUTINELY PRODUCE THESE DATA FOR ALL CALLS AND CRIME?

WHAT WE KNOW SO FAR

COSTS

• Short terms reductions in patrol officers’ paperwork, and therefore

more time on patrol (POPULAR)

• IF your CJ process accepts video evidence to some extent INSTEAD of

paper/written electronic files

• AND CJ IT system linked to camera metrics/data
• Short term increases in investigation and processing of BWVC evidence

perhaps UNTIL training and protocols take effect (UNPOPULAR)

• Short term increases in IT and associated costs (UNPOPULAR WITH IT DEPT)
• Short term increase in court/prosecutor/court staff effort
• Long term savings in terms of unit cost of cases, but no. of cases likely to

increase

It is about hypothesis generation

• We know that just having a camera and/or

turning it on/having evidence does make a difference

• Can be good….can be bad
• We don’t know where the balance lies

CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

Factors we can & cannot (yet) include in RCTs

• Gender
• Length of service
• Age
• Type of incident
• Camera yes/no?
• (Camera switched on?)
• (Disciplinary record)
• %Camera switched on in all appropriate

encounters?

• Leadership role & implementation factors
• Amount/quality of BWV training
• Technology acceptance measures (& change in

it)

• Quality of use of camera narrative
• Quality of evidence to prosecutors
• Use of structured approach SAI
• Avoiding ‘investigation’ questions on the front line

Whether BWVCs ‘work’ now overtaken by events

• Meanwhile:
• Traffic wardens
• Prison Officers
• Youth justice supervisors
• Special forces
• Private Security Guards
• Doormen/bouncers/ wellbeing wardens
• Ambulance crews
• A&E crews
• Carers in homes for elderly/others
• Fire service
• ASDA (Walmart) Home Delivery
• AND CRUCIALLY (& COMPARATIVELY)?
• http://www.citylab.com/crime/2014/10/in-brazil-where-police-killings-are-

commonplace-cell-phone-cameras-play-a-powerful-role/381212/

Film or be filmed!

• Do you want to rely on everyone else’s

(potentially partial/edited) footage?

• Or ensure you have your own, which is

high quality through training on evidential value?

ACLU has already accepted that permanent running is not desirable, but some police departments are doing this causing heavy admin burden The EU rulings and E&W Information Commissioner regard combined ‘permanent camera running and the addition of audio’ as highly intrusive and is legislated against

CONSEQUENCES OF COPS NOT HAVING BWV CAMERAS?

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCPgfW
• 8Pq8
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nVv2R

ZB5Rk

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulHclv3

pmYo

• Streaming
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxf0hoX

EyJ4

• Right to film
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHB5h

Bt4mbc

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXGOs_

TvwUA

• Use of force
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsxkABL

LXfA

4 options

• RCT – policing as quasi experiment to prove

cameras ‘work’ (or is it to prove RCTs work?) if you have no BWV cameras already and have large numbers)

• Use of cameras alongside evaluation to develop

Management Information Systems and dashboards, upgrade IT to incorporate other developments, digital files, smartphones, etc. (if you can give every patrol officer a BWV camera)

• Just do what you have to, to comply!
• Wait and see

Just around the corner

• Streaming to preserve evidence

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31558269

• Standalone cameras = poor quality, only docking into a back
• ffice system puts them above smart phones
• Cloud storage with smart data mining
• Combined with overhead drones for public order, chases,etc.
• Investigation issues:

– Officer view vs investigator follow up – 360O cameras/infra red for investigations

http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/29/9066323/foals-mountain-gates-video-virtual-reality

– Officers viewing/cognitive interview contamination

Ethical tensions

• How are participants protected?
• I have good cultural competence within the

police

• I don’t have so much in relation to my

university’s ethics process

• Tension often causes bad methods application
• Another presentation:
• Infantilism/de=professionalisation
• Limiting legal liability ≠ protecting subjects
• Balancing TIMIDITY……………….recklessness

What! t!

AKA Any ny que uest stions? ions?