Why Supervisory Review Isn’t Enough

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 reviews twenty body-worn camera recordings during the month. The supervisor identifies two coaching opportunities, documents several positive performance observations, and determines that no incidents require formal investigation. From the supervisor's perspective, the review process was successful.

At the same time, executive leadership remains unaware that across the agency:

• Officers are consistently delaying radio notifications during traffic stops.

• Supervisors are documenting reviews very differently from one another.

• Several recurring policy questions continue to emerge.

• Similar tactical issues are appearing in multiple divisions.

• Officer safety observations are becoming increasingly common.

None of those trends were visible through individual supervisory reviews. Each supervisor completed their video review assignment. No one was responsible for looking beyond the individual incidents. Leadership should ask an important question:

Who is reviewing the agency while supervisors review the officers?

Supervisory review and agency-level review serve different purposes. Supervisors appropriately focus on the individual event. They evaluate officer performance, identify coaching opportunities, determine whether policy concerns exist, and decide whether issues require escalation.

Agency-level review asks different questions. Instead of focusing on a single incident, leadership should examine what multiple incidents reveal about the agency.

For example:

• Are similar operational issues appearing across multiple divisions?

• Are supervisors applying review expectations consistently?

• Are recurring policy questions indicating a need for clarification?

• Are training investments addressing the issues most frequently observed?

• Are agency risks increasing, decreasing, or remaining unchanged over time?

• Are review practices producing reliable information for executive decision-making?

These questions rarely emerge from reviewing a single video. They become visible only when agencies intentionally examine body-worn camera footage from a governance perspective. This is not additional supervisory work. It is a separate, agency level, governance responsibility.

An agency should never assume that supervisory review alone provides executive leadership with the information necessary to understand agency-wide risks, emerging trends, or governance effectiveness. Both levels of review are necessary. Supervisory review strengthens individual performance. Agency-level review strengthens the agency itself. An effective body-worn camera program depends on both.

Executive Governance Series Links:

Article 1: From Governance Principles to Governance in Practice

Article 2: Why Did Two Supervisors Reach Different Conclusions?

Article 3: What Should Leadership Expect from an Effective Supervisory Review?

Article 4: Why Supervisory Review Isn't Enough