In recent years, the use of body-worn cameras (BWCs) has become increasingly prevalent in various professional settings, particularly within law enforcement and regulatory authorities. These devices are primarily employed to enhance transparency and accountability. However, their potential to mitigate workplace violence has garnered significant attention. 

This summary  explores the effects of BWCs on workplace violence, drawing on insights from multiple studies and real-world applications.

In researching the article, I conducted a mini literature review where I analysed 10 academic sources from an initial pool of 50, using 8 screening criteria. Each paper was reviewed for 6 key aspects that mattered most to the research question. I won’t bore you with that stuff though.

 

Research Findings

Effects of Body-Worn Cameras on Workplace Violence

Impact on Assaults Against Officers

Summary of findings across the 10 studies:

•     Reduction in adverse outcomes:1 study (Cunningham et al., 2023) found a reduction in resident injuries.

•     Modest reduction with subgroup escalation: 1 study (Kruse et al., 2023) found a modest reduction in aggressive attacks overall, but escalation in some subgroups.

•     No effect: 1 study (White et al., 2017) found no effect on officer injuries.

•     No improvement: 1 study (Sydes et al., 2020) found no improvement in perceptions of safety.

•     No consistent effect: 1 study (Lum et al., 2019) found no consistent effect on assaults or resistance.

•     Increase in assaults: 1 study (Ariel et al., 2016) found an increase in assaults against officers.

•     No mention found: For 4 studies, I did not find mention of effect direction in the available full texts or abstracts.

Effect magnitude reporting:

•     Quantified effect size: 1 study (Ariel et al., 2016) provided a standardized effect size (d = 0.176, Standard Error = 0.058, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.061–0.290).

•     Reported as ”not significant”: 2 studies (White et al., 2017; Lum et al., 2019).

•     Not quantified: 3 studies (Kruse et al., 2023; Cunningham et al., 2023; Sydes et al., 2020).

•     No mention found: For 4 studies, I did not find mention of effect magnitude in the available full texts or abstracts.

Outcome measures:

•     Each of the following outcomes was reported in 1 study: officer injuries, aggressive attacks, assaults against officers, resident injuries, perceptions of safety, and assaults/resistance.

•     For 4 studies, I did not find mention of outcome measures related to assaults or injuries in the available full texts or abstracts.

Key insights:

•     Most studies did not provide a quantified effect size.

•     Effect directions Ire mixed, with some studies reporting reductions, no effect, or even increases in adverse outcomes.

•     For 4 of the 10 studies, I did not find mention of effect direction or magnitude in the available full texts or abstracts.

 

Impact on Use of Force

Summary of findings across the 10 studies:

•     Reduction in use of force or related outcomes: 6 studies found a reduction.

•     No effect: 3 studies found no effect.

•     Mixed effects: 1 study (Jennings et al., 2017) found a decrease for body-worn camera officers and an increase for non-body-worn camera officers.

•     No studies reported an increase in use of force as the main effect.

Effect size reporting:

•     Quantified effect size: 5 studies reported effect sizes using percentages, odds ratios, or standardized effect sizes.

•     Not quantified: 5 studies did not provide a quantified effect size.

Implementation context:

•     Urban United States police: 3 studies.

•     United States correctional facility: 1 study.

•     German police: 1 study.

•     United Kingdom police: 1 study.

•     Australian correctional officers: 1 study.

•     Multi-site, multi-national: 1 study.

•     Systematic reviews: 2 studies.

Key insights:

•     Quantified effect sizes Ire not available for half of the studies.

•     Most studies reporting reductions did not provide a precise magnitude.

•     The majority of studies were conducted in police settings, with only 2 in correctional or prison contexts.

Implementation Context and Effectiveness

Temporal Effects and Duration

•     Temporary effects: Some studies (e.g., White et al., 2017) found that reductions in use of force and complaints Ire temporary, with effects dissipating after 6 months.

•     Limited long-term follow-up: Most studies did not report long-term follow-up, limiting understanding of sustained impact.

•     Variation in deployment duration: The duration of body-worn camera deployment varied, with some studies examining effects over several months and others over a year or more.

•     Lack of standardized follow-up: Most studies did not report standardized follow-up periods, which limits direct comparison across studies.

Departmental Characteristics

•     Range of organizational contexts: The included studies covered urban and metropolitan police departments in the United States and United Kingdom, German state police, and correctional facilities in the United States and Australia.

•     Influence of department size and context: Department size, urban/rural context, and local policy may influence the effectiveness of body-worn cameras.

•     Generalizability concerns: Effects observed in large, urban United States police departments may not generalize to smaller or rural agencies, or to correctional settings where the dynamics of violence and authority differ.

 

Overall Synthesis

•     Heterogeneous evidence base: The included studies provide a heterogeneous and context-dependent evidence base for the effects of body-worn cameras on workplace violence prevention in law enforcement and regulatory authorities.

•     Mixed findings: Several studies reported reductions in use of force and complaints, but these effects were not universal or always statistically significant.

•     Adverse or unintended effects: Some studies reported adverse or unintended effects, such as increased assaults against officers or decreased cooperation, in certain contexts.

•     Quality of evidence: The quality of evidence was limited by methodological weaknesses, inconsistent reporting, and lack of standardisation in body-worn camera implementation.

•     Generalisability constraints: Variation in study settings and populations further constrained generalisability.

•     Need for context-sensitive interpretation: The findings suggest that the effectiveness of body-worn cameras for workplace violence prevention is highly context-dependent, and results should be interpreted with attention to study design, setting, and population.

Practical Takeaways for HR & Safety Managers

Mixed Effectiveness — Context Is King

• BWCs may reduce use of force and some violent outcomes, but they don’t consistently prevent assaults or injuries.
• Effects vary by environment (policing vs corrections vs regulatory authorities), deployment strategy, and duration of use.

Not a Standalone Solution

• BWCs shouldn’t be seen as a substitute for robust prevention frameworks.
• They are best used as part of a systems-based approach, alongside:
  • Staff training
  • Environmental design
  • Leadership modelling
  • Incident reporting protocols

 Potential for Unintended Consequences

• In some settings, BWCs may increase aggression or resistance, especially in frontline encounters.
• HR and Safety Managers should monitor for escalation patterns, especially among vulnerable subgroups or in high-tension scenarios.

 Limited Evidence Base

• Most studies lack quantified effect sizes, and several don’t track long-term outcomes.
• Managers should be cautious in assuming lasting improvements without parallel data collection and ongoing evaluation.

Temporary Gains

• Some benefits (e.g. reduced complaints or aggression) fade after months.
• Consider coupling BWCs with ongoing interventions such as refresher training and climate tracking.

Implementation Tips for HR/OHS Leaders

Tip	Practical Action
Deploy strategically	Pilot BWCs in high-risk zones. Collect baseline data before rollout.
Monitor outcomes	Track incident types, worker sentiment, and escalation trends post-deployment.
Pair with climate tools	Use a Violence Prevention Climate Scale to assess organisational readiness and cultural impact.
Engage staff	Conduct briefings to align expectations, reduce anxiety, and foster buy-in.
Evaluate regularly	Integrate BWC metrics into safety dashboards and workforce surveys.
Partner with unions	Ensure transparency and align BWC use with workers’ rights and safety.

References

Braga, A., Sousa, W. H., Coldren, J., & Rodríguez, D. (2018). The Effects of Body-Worn Cameras on Police Activity and Police-Citizen Encounters: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Lum, C., Koper, C. S., Wilson, D. B., Stoltz, M., Goodier, M., Eggins, E., Higginson, A., & Mazerolle, L. (2020). Body‐worn cameras’ effects on police officers and citizen behavior: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1112

White, M. D., Gaub, J. E., & Todak, N. (2017). Exploring the Potential for Body-Worn Cameras to Reduce Violence in Police–Citizen Encounters. Policing, paw057. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paw057

Kruse, U., Kaufmann, J. M., Seidel, F., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2023). The de-escalating potential of body-worn cameras: Results from six German police departments. Journal of Criminal Justice, 88, 102113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2023.102113

Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., Megicks, S., & Henderson, R. (2016). Wearing body cameras increases assaults against officers and does not reduce police use of force: Results from a global multi-site experiment. European Journal of Criminology, 13(6), 744–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370816643734

Jennings, W. G., Fridell, L. A., Lynch, M., Jetelina, K. K., & Reingle Gonzalez, J. M. (2016). A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of the Effects of Police Body-Worn Cameras (BWCs) on Response-to-Resistance in a Large Metropolitan Police Department. Deviant Behavior, 38(11), 1332–1339. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2016.1248711

Henstock, D., & Ariel, B. (2017). Testing the effects of police body-worn cameras on use of force during arrests: A randomised controlled trial in a large British police force. European Journal of Criminology, 14(6), 720–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370816686120

Cubitt, T. I., Lesic, R., Myers, G. L., & Corry, R. (2016). Body-worn video: A systematic review of literature. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 50(3), 379–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865816638909

Sydes, M., Dodd, S., & Antrobus, E. (2020). Body cameras behind bars: Exploring correctional officers’ feelings of safety with body-worn cameras. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 22(2), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895820959125

Cunningham, B. C., Lawrence, D. S., White, M. D., Peterson, B. E., Coldren, J. R., & Richardson, K. (2023). A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Impact of Body-Worn Cameras in the Loudoun County, VA, Adult Detention Center.