Analysis Shows Automatic Redaction and Offloading Drastically Lowers Costs of Police Body Camera Deployment
Utility has published an analysis that shows how the 5-Year Total Cost of Ownership for police body cameras could be cut in half. The analysis provides insight into several hidden, yet unnecessary, expenses many police departments will face if they only consider the cost of the device when implementing a body camera program. This analysis shows the Utility BodyWorn solution can save law enforcement agencies more than $12,000 per camera over five years.
"This analysis is intended to educate government leaders, police executives and procurement staff about the true total cost of implementing and operating a body camera program. The body camera hardware is just the start of the total cost of ownership," said Robert McKeeman, CEO. "Police departments have been surprised by significant additional costs for network infrastructure; operations staff support; police officer overtime; security; backup and disaster recovery; and video storage, redaction and administration costs. Our analysis addresses the 5-Year Total Cost of Ownership of a police body camera solution."
The total cost of ownership analysis was calculated based upon a 100-unit body camera deployment over a five-year period. Utility based the comparison of representative body camera devices in three overall cost categories:
Deployment Costs – Camera and docking station hardware and software, network infrastructure enhancements, software seat licenses and training Direct Operational Costs – Operations support staff, video upload and storage, officer overtime to dock cameras, and retraining for changes in video recording policy and operating procedures Indirect Operating Costs – Police department video management support staff for video classificiation, redaction, security, and distribution; District Attorney; and other video consumer support staff
This analysis did not attempt to quantify the additional benefits of capabilities that increase Officer Safety, integration with Police CAD and Records Management Systems, and real-time Mission Critical Intelligence that some body-worn cameras can provide, but these benefits are substantial.
"Body-worn cameras should reliably capture video and audio without burdening the Police Officer. As documented in the September 2015 study by the United States Department of Justice titled, "Phoenix, Arizona, Smart Policing Initiaitve: Evaluating the Impact of Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras", officers only remembered to turn on manually-operated body cameras 13 percent of the time the Phoenix Police policy said they should have. Police Departments should want body-worn cameras that also increase police officer safety, particularly when the 5-Year Total Cost of Ownership is less than half that of a simplistic manually-operated, clip-on camera," said McKeeman. "However, video redaction is the true 'Elephant in the Room.' It is the major cost that rarely gets considered when evaluating body cameras, even though handling redaction automatically could end up improving operations and saving departments millions. Police transparency and accountability, and protecting the privacy of police officers and citizens, very much depends upon being able to redact video quickly and at low cost. We encourage all Police Departments to tailor our analysis to their specific situation so they make an informed purchase choice that provides the best solution to increase police officer safety while also providing the best value for their taxpayers."
