By Dulce Gomez, PTMP, SHRM-CP:
The California Mobility & Parking Association (CMPA) surveyed agencies throughout California from December 10, 2025, through January 10, 2026, to understand the use and impact of Body-Worn Cameras (BWCs) in parking enforcement. Across CMPA respondents, BWC adoption in parking enforcement is emerging but not yet widespread.
Where cameras are deployed, members most frequently cite reduced complaints and improved public interactions. A minority highlight governance barriers or mixed behavioral effects, underscoring the need for clear policy, training, and change management.
We received 35 responses across city/county, police, universities, private operators, and others. These results provide an early, data driven picture to help members weigh adoption, policy, training, and community relations.
Key Findings (at a glance)
- Adoption rate (34 responses to status)
- Yes: 11 (32.4%)
- No: 20 (58.8%)
- In Planning: 3 (8.8%)
- By organization type
- Police Departments: 100% yes (5/5)
- University/College: 25% yes (2/8)
- City/County: 12.5% yes (1/8)
- Private/Other: 0% yes (0/2)
- Other: 30% yes (3/10)
- Top reasons for implementing (multiselect; adopters + planners)
- Officer Safety (25.9% of total selections)
- Reducing/Resolving Complaints (25.9%)
- Transparency & Accountability (25.9%)
- Evidence Collection (22.2%)
- Most noted impacts (multiselect; all who answered)
- Reduction in complaints (34.5%)
- Improved public interactions (31.0%)
- Other single mentions (~3.4%)
- Helps clarify frivolous complaints, Customer service accountability, No noticeable impact, Not yet, etc.
- N/A responses: 6.9%
Member voices (anonymized):
- “When upset civilians see a camera is running, they think twice.”
- “Recorders emboldened some staff and increased disputes.”
- “BWCs provide an impartial recording … clarifies whether a violation occurred.”
What we’re hearing
- Governance & legal: Several agencies are prohibited from BWC use for parking enforcement (e.g., city attorney/risk management/labor relations).
- Operational readiness: Successful adopters emphasize policy clarity, training, supervisory reviews, and communications with the public.
- Data practices: Clear rules on activation, retention, access, and privacy are essential to member trust and compliance.
Recommendations (for Members considering BWCs)
- Start with a pilot (90–180 days) using measurable outcomes: complaint rates, incident escalations, officer/public satisfaction, and citation dispute resolution.
- Adopt a clear policy: activation triggers, privacy redaction, retention, access requests, and supervisor review cadence—aligning with member’s legal counsel and labor.
- Train for deescalation + technology use: emphasize professional conduct standards, camera positioning, and consistent activation.
- Communicate with the community: explain goals (safety, accountability) what’s recorded and when, and privacy protections.
- Monitor equity & customer service: ensure BWCs support fairness and service quality.
Notes: Counts and percentages derive from 35 valid organizational responses; multi‑select items report share of total selections, not respondent‑level percentages.
This is an informational snapshot, not a scientific sample. Results may be subject to response bias and variation in local policy, labor, and legal contexts.
Tables with additional data will be published in the February newsletter.
Dulce Gomez, PTMP, SHRM-CP, is an Assistant Parking Manager for the City of Pasadena, CA. Dulce can be reached at dugomez@cityofpasadena.net.
Forum Question: How can agencies ensure Body Worn Cameras support fairness rather than escalate conflicts?