INTRADEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCEclkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-1738-S1_misc_06-09-2016.pdf · 6/9/2016 · INTRADEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE June 8, 2016 1.17 TO: The Honorable

INTRADEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

June 8, 20161.17

The Honorable Board of Police CommissionersTO:

FROM: Chief of Police

SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO REQUEST FROM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE RE BODY WORN VIDEO (COUNCIL FILE NO. 14-1738-SI)

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

1. That the Board of Police Commissioners (Board) RECEIVE and FILE the attached report to Public Safety Committee regarding body worn cameras.

2. That the Board TRANSMIT the report to the City Clerk for scheduling with the Public Safety Committee.

DISCUSSION

On April 20, 2016, a motion was made by the Public Safety Committee directing the Los Angeles Police Department to conduct additional research regarding body worn cameras and to report back with the findings. The research has been completed and the report is attached for consideration.

If you have any questions, please contact Chief Information Officer Maggie Goodrich, Information Technology Bureau, at (213) 486-0370.

Respectfully,

CHARLIE BECK Chief of Police

Attachment

S

INTRADEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

June 8, 20161.17

TO: Chief of Police

FROM: Commanding Officer, Information Technology Bureau

SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO REQUEST FROM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE RE BODY WORN VIDEO (COUNCIL FILE NO. 14-1738-SI)

The Information Technology Bureau requests that the Chief of Police review, approve, and transmit to the Board of Police Commissioners the attached report to the Public Safety Committee regarding body worn cameras.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Chief Information Officer Maggie Goodrich, Commanding Officer, Information Technology Bureau, at (213) 486-0370.

MAGGIE M. GOODRICH, Chief Information Officer Commanding Officer Information Technology Bureau

Attachments

i

i

LAPD Response to Motion Re Body Worn VideoJune 6, 2016Council File Number 14-1738-SI

Background

This report is submitted in response to a Motion made by Councilmember Mitchell Englander on April 20, 2016. The Motion requested that the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD):

Report back with an updated body worn camera market analysis, to include any advances in body camera technology since the LAPD last conducted its market analysis in October 2015;

1.

Conduct a review of Request for Proposals awarded in the last 12 months, wherein a deployment of a minimum of 1,000 total cameras are to be implemented, and report back on whether the Kern County bid is the best procurement vehicle for use by the LAPD;

2.

Conduct a cost benefit analysis to determine the potential savings the City might realize as a result of the body camera implementation, including, but not be limited to, the potential impact on complaint investigations, use of force, and police litigation;

3.

Ensure that any proposed contractual agreement for body cameras include a clause that allows the City to terminate the agreement for any reason ("termination for convenience” clause); and

4.

Require that any proposed contractual agreement for body cameras include a "most favored customer clause" that would guarantee that the City of Los Angeles be given the best price given to any other buyer for the term of the contract.

5.

1

LAPD Response to Motion Re Body Worn VideoJune 6,2016Council File Number 14-1738-SI

Discussion

1. Market Analysis Update

A. Vendor Questionnaire Results

On May 9, 2016, the LAPD posted a vendor questionnaire on the City of Los Angeles Business Assistance Virtual Network, requesting body camera vendors provide updated information on any improvements made to their body camera offering between October 1, 2015 and May 1, 2016. (See Exhibit A attached hereto.] Eighteen firms responded to the posting. The following is a summary of the responses from those vendors.

Body Cams by Retired Cops: Not specifically addressed

Brimtek: No improvements since 10/01/2015

Coban Technologies, Inc.: Not specifically addressed

Digital Ally: Not specifically addressed

Federal Signal: No improvements since 10/01/2015

HackettSecurity: New model not commercially available until 06/15/2016

HauteSpot Networks Corporations: Not Commercially Available as of 06/01/2016

IndigoVision: No improvements since 10/01/2015

MobileView: Improvements as follows -

Simplified web access interface from laptop to make it more user- friendly when accessing data in Docking Station;Introduced a lock feature to software where the Administrator can choose to lock a file from other viewers if necessary;Added a protection feature in software where file cannot be deleted regardless of user actions or retention time;Added optional Microsoft Azure cloud storage solution;Added a mute function into body-worn camera;Implemented a feature into the software so that all data from the body-worn cameras and any other documentation pertaining to the case are linked together.

ti

I

2


* MVC: Body Camera Solution released March 2016.

■ Reveal: Improvements as follows -

• Reveal has developed and launched its intelligent Kiosk solution for body worn camera management, upload and charging that functions independently but with its Digital Evidence Management Solution.The Kiosk solution provides agencies with an enterprise level, scalable solution for camera uploads which is intelligently aware of network conditions and adjusts based on available resources. The Kiosk solution also provides a user experience to allow for personal assignment, dynamic assignment and temporary assignment on the fly. The Kiosk solution is the backbone between the camera fleet and the evidence management system with a high level of integration to support large-scale deployments across multiple installation locations. Kiosks can be deployed where there is sufficient internet/network connectivity and AC power.

• DEMS, Reveal's Digital Evidence Management System, has been optimized for Cloud implementation and delivery and is now running in Microsoft Azure’s Government Cloud platform. Reveal has integrated enhanced playback features to allow playback of videos in low bandwidth scenarios while preserving native (original} video resolution with full audit and chain of custody.

• DEMS Web has also been optimized to allow agencies the flexibility of sharing evidence internally and externally to support the needs of the judicial systems. The DEMS web solution provides three distinct methods of sharing video evidence driven by user role permission hierarchy managed through the Active Directory platform.

• DEMS Web has been optimized to allow for on the fly clip creation from original video evidence. This can be done directly from the video file playback and the clip is automatically added and stored.

• RS2 Camera hardware has been improved with a new processor and sensor, as well the video files now possess a stronger compression algorithm which generates smaller file sizes in 720/1080P.

• The RS2 has benefitted from a slightly larger battery and memory to address longer run times, and pre-event video capture.

• The RS2 now includes three areas of security that include video system encryption, system access security and playback security. The RS2 includes a front facing LCD used widely in Europe that allows for video playback. The RS2 allows agencies to lock down playback to individual officer security.

I

3


• The RS2 is now available with a quick release magnetic mounting solution to allow mounting on a variety of uniforms, jackets and shirts without puncturing or degrading clothing.

■ Securashot: New model not commercially available until 06/15/2016.

■ Taser International, Inc.: Improvements as follows -

Hardware Improvements -Video Resolution Configurable up to 1080PPre-Event Buffer Video 30seconds Configurable up to 2minField of View from 130° to 143°IP Rating IP67Wi-Fi Offload CapableAxon Signal equipped auto-activationVibrationVideo MarkersAudio MuteAllowing Mute in buffer Replaceable Battery Increased storage to 64GB

Software Improvements -• Improved Tags for Cases and Evidence• Partner API Updates: Reporting Resources• Partner Agency Management Enhancements• User Audit Historical Data• Device Assignment App for AxonBody2• Media Player Enhancements• Redaction: Workflow and User Interface Improvements• Redaction: Keyboard Shortcuts for Mask Placement• User Account Management: Simplified User States• User Account Management: Only Administrators Can Assign

Usernames and Email• User Audit Trail in CSV Format• Reporting Enhancements to User Summary, Evidence Created, and

Evidence Deleted Reports• Axon Body 2 Support and Camera Settings Changes• Partner API Enhancements: Basic Case, Evidence, and Device

Resources• Manual Redaction Enhancements: Blur Level Selection and Audio

Masking

I

l

4


• Reporting Enhancements: Category Summary Report Support for Date RangesPartner API Enhancements: Category Summary Report Update Axon View for iOS Released PDF Document Viewing SupportNew Image Features: Crop, Rotate, Brightness, and ContrastPartner API: Evidence Updated Report TypeNew Evidence.com Release Naming SystemEvidence Sync Update for Axon Body 2 SupportAxon View for Android ReleasedAxon Capture for iOS ReleasedSimplified Case Acceptance with Partner AgenciesAdditional Languages SupportedAxon Capture for Android ReleasedRedaction Enhancements for Improved User ExperienceAccelerated Video PlaybackView Evidence Page EnhancementsSupport for Reassigning Cases to a GroupPartner API Updates: Evidence and Case Resource Improvements

“ Utility (Body Worn): Improvements as follows -

• BodyWorn has been updated to include several features that enable officers to activate the cameras without needing to manually operate a camera.

• In addition to several other software updates, BodyWorn has been integrated with Live Streaming, In-Field viewing, Officer Down Alerts, Smart Redaction, and SmartEvent capabilities.

■ Vievu: Improvements as follows -

• These improvements include the LE4, and significant enhancements to the Microsoft Cloud VIEVU Solution software system with autoredaction capability.

• Auto-activation holster and emerging wearable technologies that leverage the 50 year legacy of The Safariland Group, and partnerships with HP and Microsoft.

Hardware Improvements -• Video- 1920x1080 (FHD), 1280x720 (HD) or 848x480 (Widescreen

SD), 95 Degrees (Diagonal)• Audio- Pulse-Code Modulation

p

ii

5


WiFi- 802.11 G, WPA2, Up to 10 ft without Antenna. Up to 200 ft with Included Removable Long Range AntennaEnvironmental Conditions- IP65, Waterproof Non-Submersible with Antenna or Antenna Cover FittedBattery - Up to 10 hrs at FHD, 11 hrs at HD, 12 hrs at SD with Prerecord buffer disabled*Storage- 64 GB (Non-Removable], Up to 10 hrs at FHD, 25 hrs at HD, 50 hrs at SD*Certifications- IP65 with Antenna or Antenna Cover Fitted

■ Visual Labs: New and improved smartphones are released on a regular basis by a variety of manufacturers and the Visual Labs system can be used on these devices, as they are made available. Updates to the Visual Labs system are released on a regular basis.

■ WatchGuard: Improvements as follows -

A new version (version 4] of WatchGuard Video's evidence management software, Evidence Library, was released in the third quarter of 2015.Evidence Library utilizes Microsoft SQL Server databases.Evidence Library 4 added new features, including:

o Management of both the 4RE in-car video system and the VISTA body camera

o Web client accesso CLOUD SHARE - The ability to share video by publishing it in a

hosted CJIS compliant cloud data center.

• Wolfcom: Improvements as follows -

• Extended the battery life of the camera by offering an extended battery pack that allows for 23 hours of continuous recording and buffering.

• Anti Video Activation Technology (AVA). This feature prevents the body camera from accidentally turning on and recording in the event the officer inadvertently pushes the switch. This feature also compliments the current Anti Video Deactivation Technology (AVD) feature that we have pioneered into both of our body cameras. The Anti Video Deactivation Technology prevents the camera from accidentally turning off when the switch is bumped when an officer gets into a fight or struggle with a suspect.

6


B. Summary of Findings

After reviewing all of the responses to the vendor questionnaire, three themes emerged, aside from typical hardware and software improvements: 1) cloud storage offerings; 2) smartphones as body cameras; and 3) auto-activation.

First, most vendors have either improved or introduced a cloud storage option. The LAPD has required cloud storage for its digital evidence from the body cameras since late 2014.

Second, some vendors introduced new body cameras into the marketplace after October 2015. The trend for these cameras is to utilize an existing smartphone, upon which software is added in order to turn the device into a "body camera." This is a relatively new approach and has not been widely adopted by most law enforcement agencies. At this time, this approach provides no improvement over the recommended Taser International, Inc. (Taser) solution, and in fact, raises several concerns. For example:

■ Significant modification(s) to police vehicles required to maximize capabilities

■ Battery life does not meet minimum specifications without additional charging or external batteries

■ Attachment to shirt presents several issues■ Uniform modifications and/or external vests required■ Inability to capture video and enter data on the smartphone via

mobile apps simultaneously■ Inferior field of view due to limitations of smartphone hardware* Addition of wrist-worn devices or similar devices for manual

activation* The average phone model is available for 18 to 24 months. Variations

would impact cost, attachments, software, image quality and training.

Third, a few vendors now offer add-on technology to their body camera offering that enables the auto-activation of the camera (e.g., light bar activation]. Taser also offers auto-activation technology (Axon Signal), and the proposed agreement with Taser now includes auto-activation sensors for all 1600 patrol vehicles at no additional cost (i.e., an additional cost savings of $142,000).

As the updated market research did not reveal any significant change in the state of the body camera market since October 2015, the LAPD's recommendation is to continue with the Taser body camera solution. ,

7


2. Requests for Proposals Awarded in Past 12 Months

The following table lists RFP's that were awarded in the past 12 months for a body worn video solution that meets the LAPD's minimum specifications, and requests a minimum of 1,000 body cameras.

Vendor SelectedNumber of Cameras

Law Enforcement Agency

2500Baltimore City Charlotte

Taser1420 Taser1500Cleveland Taser

Dallas 1000 TaserLouisville 1100 Taser

2060 TaserMemphisMilwaukee 1200 TaserSan Antonio 2000 Taser

1800 TaserSan Francisco

Not one of the nine agencies listed in the table above received more favorable pricing or terms than those included in the proposed agreement between the LAPD and Taser. While it would be possible for the LAPD to utilize one of the procurements listed above, instead of the Kern County procurement, the resulting proposed contract with Taser would not differ. The City would be required to repeat several steps that were already completed to prepare the proposed agreement (requiring time from LAPD contracts staff, the City Attorney and the CAOJ, only to submit a contract with the exart same terms and conditions. As such, this does not appear to be an efficient use of the City's limited resources, and the LAPD recommends that the City proceed with the utilization of the Kern County procurement.

3. Cost Benefit Analysis

Justice and Security Strategies (JSS) is a third-party research firm, led by Dr. Craig Uchida, that specializes in outcome evaluations of large programmatic efforts in criminal justice organizations. JSS is the research partner, under the $2 million grant the Los Angeles Police Foundation received from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to study the impact of body worn video on the LAPD, its officers and the community.

i

i

8


As such, the LAPD requested that JSS conduct the Cost Benefit Analysis to determine the potential savings the City might realize as a result of the body camera implementation. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is the Cost Benefit Analysis produced by JSS.

In addition to the attached Cost Benefit Analysis, JSS will be submitting periodic reports of the findings of their research pursuant to the grant from NiJ.

4. Termination for Convenience

A "Termination for Convenience" clause in a contractual agreement allows the City to terminate the agreement for any reason, without cause. The proposed agreement with Taser includes such a clause. [See Section 8.2 of the proposed agreement]

5, Most Favored Customer Clause

A "most favored customer" clause in a contractual agreement guarantees that the City of Los Angeles will be given the best price given to any other buyer for substantially similar goods/services for the term of the contract. The proposed agreement with Taser includes such a clause. [See Section 7 of the proposed agreement.)

Conclusion

For the reasons stated herein, the LAPD requests the approval of the proposed agreement with Taser.

IIi

I

9

EXHIBIT A

BODY CAMERA PROGRAM MARKET RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE

j\

£££EtE

Los Angeles Police DepartmentBody Camera Program Market Research Questionnaire

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD] is conducting market analysis for a comprehensive end-to-end body camera program. Vendors responding to this questionnaire must answer every question posed below, within the space allotted.

Section 1. Deployments

Complete Chart A below and provide a copy of (or link to) the contract, if publicly available. If not publicly available, provide a brief summary of the scope and services provided to the agency. For each of the three deployments, indicate how long each body camera has been running and what generation camera and video management version are currently deployed.

1.

Please submit a specification sheet, documenting the features for each camera currently in use for the three deployments specified in the chart, and highlight those improvements added to the product/system since October of 2015.

2.

Section II. Video Evidence Production

3. Complete Chart B below to explain how video evidence is produced for prosecutorial agencies and Court.

Section III. Security and Chain of Custody

4. Describe your approach to security for the device, the video, and the storage system currently deployed to a large public safety agency. Specifically, describe how your system validates a one-to-one transfer from device through storage (chain of custody reporting). Also, include how security updates are delivered to each of the components and systems within your design. (Please limit your response to this question to one (1) page.)

Section IV. Product Specifications

5. Complete Chart C below to explain your camera and video management capabilities.

Section V. Technical Improvements

6. Describe any technical improvements, and/or new services or goods offered to your complete body camera solution between October 1, 2015 and May 1, 2016 (i.e., do not describe what was already in existence prior to October 1, 2015). (Please limit your response to this question to three (3) pages.)

1


Thank you for responding to the LAPD’S body camera market research questionnaire. Should you have any questions, please submit them in writing to Sergeant II Daniel Gomez, Tactical Technology Section, at [email protected].

All responses to this questionnaire must be delivered in writing (two hard copies and one electronic copy] no later than 4:00 PM on Friday, May 20, 2016 to the following address:

Los Angeles Police Department Police Administration Building Attn: Sergeant II Daniel Gomez 100 W. First Street, Room No. 842 Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 486-0370

2

mailto:[email protected]


Chart A (Question 1) - Deployments:What are your three largest paid contracted deployments?

Hyperlink to Contract, or, If contract is not

publicly available, a Summary Description of Scope and Services

Date Generation/VersionCameras of Camera and

Video Management System Deployed

Numberof

CamerasAgency Contact

InformationLaw Enforcement

Agency Name wereDeployed

3


Chart B (Question 3) - Video Evidence Production:For each of the three law enforcement agency deployments listed in the chart above, describe how video evidence is provided to other agencies (e.g., provided to prosecutors, submitted to Court, etc.). __________________________

OfficeReceiving/Requesting

Video Evidence (e.g:, District Attorney,

City Attorney, Superior Court)

Ifyes to online sharing, briefly describe the how this is

accomplished and if additional licensing and/or software are

required.

Contact Information for Prosecutorial

Agency, Court Point of Contact, etc.

OnlineSharing

Y/N

StorageMediumAgency Name

4

Los Angeles Police Department .Body Camera Program Market Research Questionnaire

Chart C (Question 5) - Product Specifications:__.............. 1. " | 2. ................................

Does your body camera solution upload directly to a cloud based

solution?Y/N

3. 4. 5.As of October 2015, do you

manufacture and own your body

camera?Y/N

As of October 2015, do you manufacture and

own your video management system?

Y/N .

If "No" to #2 or #3, Indicate Third Party

Provider Information

What is the total local storage available on your

body camera?

8.Does camera capture

pre-recording of video only with no audio?

6. 7. 9. .Does your device allow for review of footage and the addition of metadata in

the field without physically connecting to a

computer?Y/N

10.

; Do you provide a i native video and

audio redaction solution in your

video

Is proprietary software required

to view, play or download f:

captured video?. y/n

Does your battery achieve 12 hours under the listed

conditions?Y/N

30 second pre-recording, Standard definition (720), 3.5

hours of recordings, Local storage only (direct to device), No additional connected batteries or

charging__________

management system?

Y/N

AV

■Y

5

EXHIBIT B

THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF BODY WORN CAMERAS

L

t-

i$

ii;i-tt-

E

Justice & Security Strategies, Inc. Moving Organizations ForwarduooThe Costs and Benefits of Body-Worn Cameras

By

Craig D. Uchida, Ph.D.

June 2016

Recent research on the use of body-worn cameras shows that wearing the cameras reduces the number of uses of force and the number of complaints made by citizens against the police. Table 1 shows findings from the three most recent studies in the United States.

Table 1. Research Results of Body Worn Cameras on Use of Force and Civilian Complaints

% Reduction in Use of Force

% Reduction in Civilian Complaints

Jurisdiction

lRialto (CA) Mesa (AZ)2 Phoenix (AZ)3

59.0%75.0%

Not provided

87.5%40.0%23.0%

These results have important ramifications for police in general and for the LAPD specifically. By reducing the number of uses of force and complaints, there will be a reduction in the amount of time that it takes for investigators, supervisors, and command staff to investigate and conduct reviews of these incidents. In addition, for non-categorical uses of force and for some civilian complaints, footage from the cameras will enable supervisors to make decisions more quickly about situations and reduce the time an investigation is pending.

Anecdotally, in Newton and Mission Divisions where cameras are currently being used, the Captains and sergeants indicated that in at least three instances where civilians made complaints, they were able to review the footage quickly and determine that the complaints were unfounded. Rather than take a week to conduct an investigation (including interviews, write-ups, and time away from the street), the Captains were able to make decisions within a day. More importantly, they were able to reach a firm decision in the adjudication of the complaint (“unfounded” or demonstrably false”) rather than one that was undetermined (“not resolved”). The study that is

being conducted by Justice & Security Strategies, via a $2 million grant from the National Institute of Justice, will provide more details about these reductions.4

IiiCii

t

i

iJustice & Security Strategies, Inc.PO Box 61BBSilver Spring, MD 20916

Tel +1 (301)438-3132Fax +1 (877) 788-4235Email [email protected] www.jssinc.org

!


http://www.jssinc.org

Justice & Security Strategies, inc. Moving Organizations ForwarduooWhat are the potential cost and time savings of body-worn cameras?

This section briefly examines cost and time savings for complaints, lawsuits, and uses of force.

Complaints

Currently, about 2,200 personnel complaints are filed against LAPD officers annually. Using conservative estimates based on the research findings above, we assume that LAPD will see a reduction in complaints of 30% annually or about n=660. Based on an estimate of 40 hours for an investigation, this would equate to about 26,400 hours saved in sworn staff time (660 X 40 = 26,400). The average fully-loaded-officer-hourly rate is about $83. Thus, we anticipate a savings of about $2,191,200 ($83 X 26,400) annually or about 12-15 officers back on the street per year.

Lawsuits

Since 2011 the city and LAPD have paid out $65 M in settlements and jury verdicts for Civil Rights violations and excessive/unlawful uses of force. Two major cases were recently settled, one case for $8 M and another for $15 M. In both instances, video footage may have assisted the Department in exonerating the officer or mitigating the circumstances of the cases.

Lawsuits filed against the LAPD have increased each year since 2014. To defend the city and the Department, we estimate that it costs about $100,000 to $200,000 per case. Table 2 shows the year, number of lawsuits and estimated costs to defend the cases each year.

Table 2. Lawsuits against the LAPD

Defense Cost(range of $ 100K to $200K)

$9.3 M to $18.6 M $13.5 M to $27 M

NumberYear2014 93

1352015YTD

$16 M to $32 M (projected)2016 40 (160 projected)

With audio and video footage from body-worn cameras there are a number of scenarios that could occur. First, if the evidence favors the police, it is likely that the lawsuit will be dropped. Second, if the evidence shows that the officer acted inappropriately, then the case could be settled earlier and not involve extensive litigation. If 25 cases occur that exonerate the police, then $2.5 M to $5 M will be saved in defense costs alone.

Uses of Force

Table 3, below, shows the number of uses of force per year for 2000-2014. During the 15-year period, 28,515 use of force incidents occurred, with an average of 1,901 across the period. The

Justice & Security Strategies. Inc.PO Box 6188Silver Spring, MD 20916

Tel +1 (301)438-3132Fax +1 {877} 788-4235Email [email protected] www.jssinc.org



Justice & Security Strategies, Inc. Moving Organizations ForwardUOOresearch results, noted above, indicate that reductions of 59% occurred in Rialto, CA and 75% in Mesa, AZ because of body-worn cameras.

If a 10% reduction in use of force incidents occurred in the LAPD as a result of the body-worn cameras, then about 190 fewer incidents would take place each year. Using the same logic and figures from the civilian complaints, we calculate the number of hours saved and the dollars saved for a reduction of use of force. Based on a very conservative estimate of 40 hours for a use of force investigation, this would equate to about 7,600 hours saved in sworn staff time (190 X 40 = 7,600). The average fully-loaded-officer-hourly rate is about $83. This equates to about $630,800 ($83 X 7,600) annually or 4-5 officers doing other investigations per year.

Table 3. Annual Uses of Force, LAPD, 2000-2014

Number of Uses of Force

Year

2000 19152001 20252002 20262003 22762004 2036

189220052006 1808

182220072008 16782009 17772010 1655

184520112012 18592013 19242014 1977Total 28,515Avg, 1901

Other cost and time savings

Potentially, body worn cameras can lead to additional benefits:

• reduced injuries to officers• reduced injuries to citizens• reduced overtime• less stress and greater job satisfaction among officers.• enhanced positive public opinions i

|Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.PO Box 6188Silver Spring, MD 20916

Tel +1 (301)438-3132Fax +1 (877) 788-4235Email [email protected] www.jssinc.org



Justice & Security Strategies, Inc. Moving Organizations Forward|J0&The effects on these items have not been evaluated, as of yet, so determining costs and time saved is difficult. However, reductions in injuries to officers and citizens and overtime can be tracked and measured based on officers using cameras compared to those not wearing cameras. Stress and job satisfaction among officers wearing cameras and public opinion are being measured through officer surveys and citywide community surveys. Results will be available in the fall of 2016.

i Ariel, B., Farrar, W.A., & Sutherland, A. (2015). The effect of police body-worn cameras on use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(3), 509-535.2 Ready, J.T. & Young, J.T. (2015). The impact of on-officer video cameras on police-citizen contacts: Findings from a controlled experiment in Mesa, AZ. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(3), 445458.3 Katz, C. M., Kurtenbach, M., Choate, D.W., & White, M.D. (2015). Phoenix, Arizona, Smart Policing Initiative: Evaluating the Impact of Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.4 This project is supported by Award No. 2014-R2-CX-0101 awarded to the Los Angeles Police Foundation by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U. S. Department of Justice.

i

fJustice & Security Strategies, Inc.PO Box 6188Silver Spring, MD 20916

Tel +1 (301) 438-3132 Fax +1 (877) 788-4235 Email [email protected] Web www.jssinc.org

i



Documents

INTRADEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCEclkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-1738-S1_misc_06-09-2016.pdf · 6/9/2016 · INTRADEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE June 8, 2016 1.17 TO: The Honorable