A Principis Group Insight Article When an agency identifies a weakness in its body-worn camera program, the natural response is to fix it. That may mean revising policy, increasing supervisory review, expanding training, adding reporting requirements, or changing internal processes. Those actions are important and may be appropriate but they should not come before one more basic step: Understanding the governance structure that already exists. Leadership should have a clear p

Every body-worn camera program has, or should have, someone responsible for keeping it running. That may be a program manager, technology unit, training section, records function, or another administrative component. Someone manages accounts, coordinates equipment, tracks requirements, handles vendors, and keeps the program operational. However, administrative responsibility is not the same as governance ownership. A body-worn camera program affects policy, supervision, train

Executive Governance Series | Article 8 A body-worn camera program can continue operating while the governance supporting it gradually weakens. Cameras remain in service, supervisors complete reviews, reports reach command staff, yet the practices behind those activities may no longer reflect the structure leadership originally established. The executive question is straightforward: How does leadership know whether the governance system it built several years ago still functi

A body-worn camera program may operate under one agency policy, one technology platform, and one set of expectations. That does not necessarily mean those expectations will be experienced or applied identically across every district, shift, work unit, or supervisory chain. Two body-worn camera audits released in 2026 by Philadelphia’s Citizens Police Oversight Commission provide a useful illustration of the governance issue. In April, CPOC released an audit of the Philadelphi

Governance Insight Leadership cannot govern what it cannot see. In a body-worn camera program, that means having enough visibility to understand whether review, documentation, escalation, and oversight are functioning consistently across the agency. Leadership visibility is not about executives watching more video or inserting themselves into routine supervisory review. Supervisors remain responsible for reviewing incidents, employee performance, policy compliance, and other

Body-worn camera programs generate a great deal of review activity. Supervisors examine individual incidents, identify policy issues, address performance concerns, correct documentation problems, and surface training needs. That work is essential. But leadership should also ask a broader question: What happens to the information produced by those reviews? That question moves the discussion from incident review to program governance. Review Produces Information Every superviso

Body-worn camera programs operate in an environment filled with requirements. Policies establish when cameras should be activated. Supervisors review recordings. Agencies conduct audits. Training requirements are tracked. Retention schedules are established. Documentation is maintained. All of those activities matter but none of them, individually or collectively, necessarily demonstrate that an agency has an effective governance system. That distinction is important because

Periodic audits play an important role in a body-worn camera program. They can provide leadership with independent confirmation that specific statutory, policy, data-management, and operational requirements are being met. But an audit and a governance system do not answer the same question. The recently released South Lake Minnetonka Police Department 2026 Body Worn Camera Audit provides a useful illustration of that distinction. The Minnesota Security Consortium conducted th

Executive Governance Series #7 Body-worn camera programs generate a significant amount of information. Agencies track reviews completed, audits conducted, policies followed, and requirements met. These measures provide useful information. However, activity alone does not demonstrate effective governance. A program can complete thousands of reviews and maintain high completion rates while still lacking the structure necessary to understand whether those activities are producin

Executive Governance Series | Article 6 A body-worn camera program produces a significant amount of information every day. Supervisors review incidents, personnel responsibilities are evaluated, concerns are documented, and individual decisions are made. The ability of an agency to govern its body-worn camera program depends on whether leadership can see, understand, and act on information that extends beyond individual reviews. Leadership visibility is the connection between

Two recent posts on LinkedIn about ALPR technology caught my attention. One focused on the importance of independent auditing. The other raised questions about access, acceptable use, policy, training, records management, auditing, and accountability following reported misuse of an ALPR system. Both raise an issue that extends well beyond ALPRs. Bottom Line: Technology requires governance. Whether an agency uses body-worn cameras, ALPRs, drones, real-time crime center technol

Executive Governance Series | Article 5 Most supervisory body-worn camera reviews end exactly where they should. A supervisor reviews the video, documents observations, provides coaching if necessary, and closes the review. That is the usual outcome, but what happens if the supervisor identifies some aspect of the video that requires them to “escalate” the issue beyond the routine review process? In governance terms, "escalation" means formally elevating information, decisio

Law enforcement agencies continue to invest significant time and resources in body-worn camera programs. Leadership updates policies, expands training, purchases new technology, implements artificial intelligence, increases supervisory review, and strengthens “auditing”. Each of those investments may improve some aspect of the program but there is a question that often goes unanswered” Is the governance supporting the program capable of producing consistent, accountable, and

Executive Governance Series | Article 4 Most law enforcement agencies have established supervisory review processes for body-worn camera footage. The task looks something like this: Supervisors review videos They evaluate officer performance They identify coaching opportunities They document policy compliance They determine whether issues require additional attention Those responsibilities are essential and part of an effective program. Leadership Scenario A patrol supervisor

Executive Governance Series | Article 3 Most law enforcement leaders expect supervisory review to identify policy violations, training needs, or performance concerns. Those expectations are reasonable, but they are also incomplete. Leadership Scenario A patrol lieutenant receives three supervisory reviews completed during the same week. The first consists of two sentences. The second contains nearly two pages of detailed observations. The third simply states, "Video reviewed.

Executive Governance Series | Article 2 Imagine two supervisors independently reviewing body-worn camera recordings of the following incident: An officer conducts a nighttime traffic stop on a vehicle with expired registration. During the stop, the officer: Advises dispatch of the stop but does not immediately provide the vehicle license plate. Positions the patrol vehicle at a slight angle behind the violator. Approaches on the driver's side. Does not use a flashlight while

Executive Governance Series | Article 1 Over the past several articles, I have focused on the foundational principles of body-worn camera governance. Those articles examined topics such as documentation, leadership visibility, governance ownership, consistency, escalation, supervisory review, scalability, and governance readiness. Together, they shared a common message: effective body-worn camera programs depend on more than policy, technology, or training. They depend on gov

Not every body-worn camera program needs governance reform. Every program, however, should understand how its governance actually functions. Leadership often responds to program challenges by revising policy, expanding training, adding technology, or increasing supervisory accountability. Those actions may prove necessary. But they should not come first. Leadership should first answer a more fundamental question: Does the organization's governance structure support consistent

Most body-worn camera programs depend on supervisors to maintain consistency in a directed footage review program. They review recordings. They document findings. They identify issues. They make decisions. They escalate concerns. They reinforce organizational expectations through their review activity. This supervisory responsibility matters within an overall agency risk management program. However, many organizations ask supervisors to enforce standards that leadership never

Many body-worn camera programs function effectively when review volume remains manageable. Supervisors know their personnel. Command staff maintains visibility. Review workloads remain reasonable. Informal processes often fill gaps that formal governance structures never addressed. As programs grow, however, those informal solutions stop working. Review volume increases. Supervisors review more footage. Leadership oversees larger amounts of activity. More personnel participat