Inside out? Collaborative research with a UK police force using BWV cameras Tom Ellis Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, University of Portsmouth, UK Wednesday, 1 June 2016 Calgary, Canadian Sociological Association Serving Communities Panel ApS_1 Science A-109
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 1 st 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 S andwich’ years Research on: • Youth justice • Prisons (Race and CJ) • And all of them in comparative • Probation context in Japan • Courts and sentencers • some in S. Korea and Taiwan No choice as government researcher, but appreciation of movement through CJ process and different emphases
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 o Shock of many colleagues teaching ‘other people’s stuff’ without doing research themselves o Attitude of many academics and CJ agencies/ employers’ accepted separation of ‘academic’ and ‘real life’ o Evaluation, affecting change, evidence – treated suspiciously – (commercially minded?) o 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 1 st study but…………. • Are the police my community? • Different terminology and focus to CBR • Utilization focused evaluation • Action research
Comparative aspect vital USA UK/E&W • Impact on crime and • BWV affect on police behaviour and professionalism incivilities • • Procedural justice, public Rialto: complaints and use of force • confidence/opinion Mesa: reducing civil liability, complaints & operational transparency • Evidence & Criminal justice • Both - enhancing criminal prosecution process outcomes o early guilty pleas o more successful prosecutions CANADA o better evidence o reducing paper work • Bureaucratic burden/FIDO • Public perceptions of professionalism Comparative element is central, not an add on!
‘Types of research’ so far Training: Technical: Do the cameras work? • How to train officers to use to cameras BEFORE they go out with them – ‘Choreography’ skills (recruitment?) – Best evidence We’ve tried that. – Knowledge of law The cameras broke! – 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: • Implementation: What do you measure? • • How do you roll out cameras? How do (CAN) you measure it?
• 1 st study was exploratory • One of our students was an Inspector • Suggested a student project, but way too ambitious • Applied collaborative research from the outset • 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 http://tinyurl.com/h4r6ntr
Follow up study (1.0) Larger study on mainland city, approx. 250,000 pop. Personal issue to all PATROL officers (effectively mandatory use) • AIM: • DESIGN: o identify enabling and hindering features of Utilization focused action research BWVC use affecting efficiency and effectiveness o report to operational managers • METHODS: o recommend changes o evaluate impact of changes 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 • %Camera switched on in all appropriate • Gender encounters? • Length of service • Leadership role & implementation factors • Age • Amount/quality of BWV training • Type of incident • Technology acceptance measures (& change in it) • Camera yes/no? • Quality of use of camera narrative • Quality of evidence to prosecutors • (Camera switched on?) o Use of structured approach SAI • (Disciplinary record) o Avoiding ‘investigation’ questions on the front line
Recommend
More recommend
