1. The Proposal for the Mandated Use of Body
Cameras in the Maryland State Police
Patrick Erstling
MPA 699 Fall ‘15
Dr. Roy Merolli
14 December 2015

2. ii
The Proposal for the Mandated Use of Body Cameras in the Maryland State Police
Patrick Erstling

3. iii
Abstract
This paper will aim to show through a theoretical and analytical approach, the
need for the mandated use of body cameras on law enforcement personnel in the
Maryland State Police Department. The goal of the proposed innovation is to strengthen
the relationship between law enforcement and citizens in order to promote a safer society.
Through the review of classical and contemporary public administration writers, retired
and current law enforcement officers, and the empirical data of scholars in the field, this
paper will propose an innovation to be implemented in the Maryland State Police.
The paper will cover the definitions of; innovation; public value; internal
stakeholder; external stakeholder; and more terms of the like. The paper will examine
classic theories in Public Administration such as the Scientific Management Theory as
outlined by Frederick Taylor and the Theory of Bureaucracy as outlined by Max Weber.
The paper will contain a strategic analysis where the major stakeholders will be analyzed
as well as an environmental scan to establish a link between the organization’s key
strengths and weaknesses. In this section the paper will establish a clear organizational
impact of the innovation. Furthermore, the paper will outline thoroughly a roadmap of the
proposed innovation and the process required for the implementation of the innovation.

4. iv
Acknowledgements
At this time, the author would like to take the opportunity to give sincere thanks to law
enforcement personnel, specifically those of the Maryland State Police Department.
Thank you for providing an honest and thorough insight regarding the agency and thank
you all for your hard work, dedication and for putting your livelihood at stake everyday
in order to promote safety and security for all civilians.

5. v
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction
Pg. 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Pg. 8
Chapter 3: Strategic Analysis
Pg. 16
Chapter 4: Implementation
Pg. 25
Chapter 5: Conclusion
Pg. 34
References
Pg. 40

6. 1
Chapter #1: Introduction
I. Statement of Problem:
This paper will aim to examine the tumultuous relationship between law enforcement
and citizens in society. The problem that exists within the state of Maryland is a fear and
distrust that exists between law enforcement and citizens. This problem was further
exacerbated because of the events that took place regarding Freddie Gray. Freddie Gray
was mysteriously found dead as a result of injuries that were sustained while he was in
police custody in Baltimore (Graham, 2015). Because of the geographic area in which
the event took place, relations between law enforcement and citizens in the state of
Maryland are timid. Furthermore, this paper will attempt to provide a feasible innovation
to the policies of the Maryland State Police Department by creating legislation that will
require the use of body cameras on all acting law enforcement personnel. This proposed
legislation would create a safer and more stable work and living environment for both the
law enforcement personnel and the citizens of the state of Maryland. This legislation will
hopefully help to set a precedent for other departments and municipalities to further
strengthen the relationship between law enforcement and citizens nationwide.
One can argue that innovations and proposed innovations can and should be measured
in public value that they contain. Moore discusses the drastic differences between public
and private value because of the lack of voluntary individual input that exist within public
values (Moore). Unlike the private sector, where individuals are free to choose which
goods and services they wish to buy and use, the public sector forces these services
through what Moore calls coercive measures (Moore). One can infer that through the text
by Moore, public value is defined as the cooperation of the people through the

7. 2
implementation of coercive measures by the government. Furthermore, one can argue
that if the citizens and the government are working in sync in reference to services that
are rendered by the government; those services should be considered valuable. In
reference to the mandated use of body cameras, this paper will aim to prove that the
proposed implementation of this legislation will be met with positive feedback from both
the citizens and the high ranking officials in the government. This combination of
positive feedback is what will give this proposal a high amount of public value.
II. Organization Overview:
As stated above, this paper will aim to examine the practices and procedures of the
Maryland State Police. According to the Maryland State Police Department’s mission
statement, “the mission is to protect the citizens of Maryland from foreign and domestic
security threats, to fight crime, and to provide roadway safety by upholding the laws of
the State of Maryland” (Maryland State Police, 2015). In essence, this mission statement
aims to provide the citizens with the reassurance that the sworn officers of the Maryland
State Police will aggressively work to keep the citizens of Maryland safe (Maryland State
Police, 2015). The Maryland State Police claims that their work will be accomplished
through patrol, investigation, intelligence gathering and interdiction efforts; while also
providing leadership and assistance to other agencies in the state (Maryland State Police,
2015).
While the mission of the Maryland State Police Department revolves around their
efforts for stopping crime and ensuring safety, their vision is slightly more politically
worded. The vision of the Maryland State Police Department states that, “they will be a
model of a responsive, composite, coordinated statewide police department that operates

8. 3
independently, yet in support of other law enforcement agencies” (Maryland State Police,
2015). The vision of the Maryland State Police Department relies on the notion that their
officers will act professionally and efficiently at all times (Maryland State Police, 2015).
The Maryland State Police makes this claim of professionalism and efficiency by stating
that, “we are committed to the utmost professionalism in delivering all encompassing
police services that is focused on traffic safety, homeland security, crime reduction, and
criminal apprehension. We continually strive to develop the skills of our members and to
effectively and efficiently manage the resources as we carry out our public
responsibilities” (Maryland State Police, 2015).
There are many stakeholders, both internal and external that will play a part in the
implementation and further the evaluation of the proposed legislation. On one hand, the
internal stakeholders will be the members of the Maryland State Police, from the low
ranking Troopers to the highest-ranking officials such as the Superintendent. These
internal stakeholders are already committed to pursuing and preserving a professional and
efficient work environment. This paper will aim to prove that the highest-ranking
officials will be advocates of the proposed implementation, while there are expected
opponents from the lower ranking employees. This advocacy and opposition hypothesis
stems from the notion that the high-ranking officials will have the opportunity to review
and discipline troopers in issues of misconduct from the use of body cameras. On the
other hand, low ranking employees may oppose such an implementation because of the
hypothesis that body cameras may prevent troopers from properly performing their daily
duties with the constant fear of having their every move documented.

9. 4
This paper will argue that there will be little to no opposition stemming from external
stakeholders such as citizens and politicians. In the past few years, there have been
numerous major incidents between law enforcement and citizens involving police
misconduct and a general negative perception of law enforcement. These incidents have
led to a major push for accountability from citizens and thus politicians. This paper will
show that a governmental response for accountability rests in the use of mandated body
cameras for law enforcement members in the Maryland State Police.
III. The Proposed Innovation
In the context of Bryson’s ABC of Strategic Planning, one can decipher the three
stages and attempt to analyze the proposed body camera legislation accordingly. Bryson
outlines stage A by discussing the current state of the organization (Bryson, 2004). One
must understand that while the current state of the Maryland State Police Department is
functioning properly, there are still issues that can and should be fixed and improved.
Bryson continues to outline stage A of the Strategic Planning Guide by underlining the
mission and vision of the organization and how one should take that into consideration
when discussing the potential changes that should be implemented (Bryson, 2004). This
paper has outlined the mission and vision of the Maryland State Police Department and
they can be referenced above. Stage B of the Strategic Planning Guide discusses the
potential for change and more specifically the goals of the proposed innovation (Bryson,
2004). The goal of the proposed innovation is to ensure accountability is held for both
law enforcement personnel and the citizens in whom they have the duty to protect and
serve. This paper will argue that this accountability will be reinforced through the
mandated use of body cameras for all law enforcement personnel. Further, the goals of

10. 5
the proposed innovation will also be to further strengthen the bond between law
enforcement and citizens, while also rebuilding trust that has been broken and eliminating
fear between the two entities. Finally, and most importantly, this paper will discuss stage
C of the Strategic Planning Guide by discussing the ‘how to’ process to achieve the goals
that are outlined above. Bryson discusses stage C by touching on how imperative it is to
have a strategic planning stage (Bryson, 2004). This planning stage will include
everything from a budgeting proposal to constitutional issues that may arise in the midst
of the proposal.
There is certainly a historical context for the problem of police brutality, police
accountability and a general disconnect between law enforcement and citizens. This
paper will outline scenarios throughout history, and attempt to show that these problems
can be addressed and alleviated through the implementation of the proposed innovation.
According to Brad Smith and Malcolm Holmes, the people of the American society want
to believe in equal justice for all, but there is a certain skepticism that exists throughout
the nation (Smith & Holmes, 2003). This skepticism is further developed into fear and
distrust when it is combined with episodes of police brutality and the general notion that
law enforcement often operates with free reign. Smith and Holmes outline similar issues
that this paper aims to shed light on the issue of use of force and its acceptance in society
(Smith & Holmes, 2003). Although the authors admit that police use of force is a
legitimate part of police work, they also agree that use of force can be dangerous and is
often arbitrarily reviewed (Smith & Holmes, 2003). Smith and Holmes state that, “the use
of force may be judged as proper or excessive, depending upon whether it is necessary
and justified to accomplish a legitimate police duty (Smith & Holmes, 2003). These

11. 6
terms as listed in the previous quote are extremely vague and thus only further the
skepticism shown by citizens. It is the goal of this paper to show that by mandating the
use of body cameras, instances of possible police brutality can be reviewed accordingly.
There are certainly constitutional and legal issues that go beyond the scope of police
brutality when discussing the proposed innovation. According to Devallis Rutledge, there
are potential constitutional issues referencing the Fourth Amendment specifically when
discussing the use of body cameras (Rutledge, 2015). According to Rutledge, the
Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement have the right to record anything that they
lawfully see and/or hear (Rutledge, 2015). Unfortunately, there are snags in reference to
this analysis when one discusses the expectation of privacy; in one’s home, car, etc.
(Rutledge, 2015).
This paper will attempt to analyze the proposed innovation through the scope of
program evaluation, a concept discussed thoroughly in Public Administration. The
program evaluation will show that the mandated use of body cameras will successfully
help to “keep the citizens of Maryland safe”, an excerpt from Maryland State Police
Department’s mission statement (Maryland State Police, 2015). The use of body cameras
is consistent with the department’s mission statement because the goal of the proposed
innovation is to help strengthen ties between law enforcement and citizens, which will
allow for a better working relationship and thus a safer community and society.
Simultaneously, the proposed innovation represents a strategy for helping to achieve the
department’s mission and goals by vehemently exhausting the potential pitfalls that may
exist in the planning stages. These pitfalls that must be taken into consideration deal with
budgetary logistics as well as constitutional and legal issues.

12. 7
This paper will incorporate many strategies that will ultimately be used to have the
proposed innovation implemented into legislation. The paper will use a basic cost and
benefit analysis to help prove the point that the mandated use of body cameras in law
enforcement will benefit both law enforcement in general, and the citizens in which they
protect and serve. The costs will be both financial and political. It will take sufficient
governmental funding to finance the use of body cameras for all law enforcement
personnel in a department that has over fourteen hundred sworn troopers (Maryland State
Police, 2015). Political costs will largely deal with the compromises that must take place
between high-ranking government officials and union leaders for the police department.
More importantly, the benefits will be immense. The use of body cameras will ensure that
law enforcement personnel and citizens are held accountable for their actions. This
accountability that is certain to take shape will help to rebuild the trust between law
enforcement and citizens. This paper will prove that the accountability as a result of the
use of body cameras will help to create a safer society.

13. 8
Chapter #2; Literature Review
I. Relation to Classic Public Administration Writers
This chapter of the paper will examine and analyze the correlation between the
major public administration thinkers and writers and the proposed innovation of the
mandated use of body cameras in the Maryland State Police. By analyzing the works of
classic public administration thinkers and writers, it will help to further improve the
chances of success for the proposed innovation. This chapter will discuss the works of
Frederick Taylor and Max Weber in order to better understand the proposed innovation
for the mandated use of body cameras in the Maryland State Police Department. It is the
goal of this chapter to prove through the works of classic public administration writers, as
well as contemporary scholars, the benefits that this proposed innovation would create.
This chapter will objectively provide a theoretical approach as well as an empirical
approach to the proposed innovation in order to properly convey both a supportive means
and an opposing means to the proposed innovation.
One can relate the proposed innovation of body cameras in the law enforcement
sector to the scientific management theory that is outlined by Frederick Taylor. Taylor’s
Principles of Scientific Management was published with the goal of outlining scientific
theories that would better the processes that are implemented in public organizations
(Grachev & Rakitsky, 2013). According to Grachev and Rakitsky, Taylor’s text offered
an analytical point of view for production processes and scientific or technological
advancements (Grachev & Rakitsky, 2013). Although Taylor’s theories were originally
postulated for the industrial era, it has been accepted that these theories have transcended
the times and are certainly applicable for technological advances in any era (Grachev &

14. 9
Rakitsky, 2013). One of the goals of Taylor’s theory was to improve productivity and
prosperity through the implementation of scientific management (Grachev & Rakitsky,
2013). Taylor created a shift in management strategy specifically referencing the need for
implementing a system that moved from “men to management” (Grachev & Rakitsky,
2013). According to the authors, this new implementation system consisted of managing
on a case-by-case basis, versus the former ‘rule of thumb’ system (Grachev & Rakitsky,
2013). This new mode of operation was far ahead of its time because it considered the
possibility of the unknown (Grachev & Rakitsky, 2013). One can argue that this system
that prepared men for the unknown is a major reason why Taylor’s theory of scientific
management transcended time. One can argue that by referencing Taylor’s theory of
scientific management, one can see the connection to the benefits of the proposed
implementation of the mandated use of body cameras for law enforcement. The mandated
use of body cameras for law enforcement personnel will allow the use of technology to
increase productivity and prosperity for both law enforcement personnel and the citizens
in which they protect and serve.
One can analyze the work of Max Weber and his views on bureaucracy and
politics in order to find a correlation to the issues that arise when discussing the proposed
innovation of body cameras on law enforcement personnel (Spicer, 2015). Although one
can argue that Weber would be critical of the decision to implement body cameras on law
enforcement personnel because of the bureaucratic process that would need to take place,
one can argue that Weber provides good insight on the pitfalls of bureaucracy (Spicer,
2015). Although Weber is critical of bureaucracy, he also admits that bureaucrats are far
better than what he calls dilettantes, those who make decisions in a particular field

15. 10
without any real knowledge (Spicer, 2015). Weber’s theory on bureaucracy relates to law
enforcement when one discusses Weber’s theory of civil servants. Weber, unlike other
contemporary theorists of his time did not see civil servants as mindless operators, but
rather those who are “perfectly capable of ethically principled conduct within their own
proper sphere of action” (Spicer, 2015). Weber claims that the proper vocation for the
genuine officials of civil service require moral discipline (Spicer, 2015). Furthermore,
Weber claims that civil servants are necessary, but their power must be checked by “other
spheres of human action” in order to ensure their power does not become dominant
(Spicer, 2015). One can argue that the proposed innovation of body cameras on law
enforcement personnel in the Maryland State Police Department would offer a necessary
system of checks and balances that Weber alluded to. While Weber argues that civil
servants, such as law enforcement personnel, are more than capable of acting morally,
there is a need for a checks and balances system (Spicer, 2015). In essence, body cameras
are not meant to undermine the authority of law enforcement, but rather ensure that their
discretion in the use of their powers can be reviewed by “other spheres of human
authority” (Spicer, 2015).
II. Relation to Contemporary Public Administration Writers
When discussing the potential benefits and pitfalls that may arise when
referencing the proposed innovation of the mandated use of body cameras on law
enforcement personnel, one must research and analyze contemporary academic sources to
review empirical data that already exists. In reference to the use of police body cameras,
there are multiple issues that must be considered before their mandated implementation.

16. 11
According to an article published in an education journal, there are certain constitutional
privacy concerns that exist regarding the use of body cameras (Blad, 2015). According to
Blad, the use of body cameras in law enforcement has been on the forefront of police
reform since the case of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO (Blad, 2015). While the case of
Michael Brown and the tragedy that took place is reason enough for police reform, it was
more specifically the reason for reform due to the conflicting reports from citizens and
law enforcement (Blad, 2015). Because there was no video evidence, and eyewitnesses
told conflicting stories to law enforcement, it created a difficult situation for law
enforcement review of the incident (Blad, 2015).
This particular article written by Evie Blad references the use of body cameras in
a school setting, however the crux of the article refers to the constitutional issues that
exist, specifically one’s right to privacy (Blad, 2015). One police executive was quoted in
saying that, “people are generally on their best behavior when they know they are being
recorded” (Blad, 2015). This is an example of one of the benefits that the proposed
innovation will create, the essence of behavior among citizens that understand their
actions will be documented (Blad, 2015). Furthermore, the same police executive is
quoted saying that, “these cameras provide objective evidence to use in criminal
proceedings, and they could help to refute or prove accusations of officer misconduct”
(Blad, 2015). One can argue that the use of body cameras will help to ensure that if
nothing else, police officers are doing their job to the letter of the law (Blad, 2015).
It is important to consider the fact that body cameras on law enforcement
personnel will not come without some opposition. There are some legal and
constitutional issues that need to be considered before one makes an informed decision

17. 12
on whether or not to implement the mandated use of body cameras. It is the hope that in
general, the public will be able to review the law enforcement efforts by reviewing body
camera video that is available through open-records laws (Blad, 2015). One legal
argument against the use of body cameras is the fear that police videos will go viral and
leave what are known as digital footprints that will trace back to the parties involved in
the videos (Blad, 2015). One can argue that by allowing the videos to be viewed as public
records, and thus the possibility of said videos going viral, there will be numerous
incidents of personal defamation cases filed against law enforcement (Blad, 2015).
It is important to consider the perceptions of all key stakeholders that may be
involved in the potential implementation of the proposed innovation (Jennings, Fridell &
Lynch, 2014). In article published in the Journal of Criminal Justice, the authors outline
the issues, both positive and negative, that technology has created in reference to law
enforcement (Jennings et al, 2014). According to the authors, technology has transformed
modern policing by enhancing crime fighting capabilities, police accountability and
police-community relationships (Jennings et al, 2014). Specifically, the latter two
examples referring to police accountability and police-community relationships will
become major topics of consideration when one makes a decision to support or oppose
the mandated use of body cameras for law enforcement officers (Jennings et al, 2014). It
is important to realize that the use of body cameras or the proposed use of body cameras
is not the only form of enhanced technology that is affecting law enforcement (Jennings
et al, 2014). Rather, law enforcement technological advancement also consists of the use
of license plate readers, social media accounts and global positioning systems to name a
few (Jennings et al, 2014). While the implementation of different forms of technology is

18. 13
important, the perception and attitude that exists from the civil servants whose job it is to
use these instruments is equally, if not more important. The article written by Jennings,
Fridell and Lynch attempts to explore the perception of law enforcement personnel in
regards to the use of body cameras (Jennings et al, 2014).
As noted above, the discussion and the push for the mandated use of body
cameras for law enforcement personnel stems from the tragic incident regarding the
shooting of a young man named Michael Brown (Jennings et al, 2014). Brown was shot
and killed, with no video evidence, by a police officer in Ferguson, MO in 2013
(Jennings et al, 2014). The purpose of the article published by Jennings, Fridell and
Lynch was to investigate the perception of officers that would be forced to use body
cameras (Jennings et al, 2014). The authors established that the officers generally
reported high rates of agreement in reference to the question that their departments
should mandate the use of body cameras (Jennings et al, 2014). Furthermore, officers
were in general agreement that the citizens in whom they protect and serve would exhibit
better behavior if they knew the law enforcement personnel were wearing body cameras
(Jennings et al, 2014). The results were mixed in reference to whether or not officers
would comply with the rules and regulations in a more strict manner if they were wearing
a body camera (Jennings et al, 2014). This information as outlined above is absolutely
crucial because of the support that it offers to the proposed innovation. It was
hypothesized in the proposal that one of the oppositions to the proposed innovation
would be the low ranking law enforcement personnel because of the hampering effect
that body cameras may have on the duties that they must perform on a daily basis. This

19. 14
article outlines the support that low ranking law enforcement personnel seem to have
regarding the mandated use of body cameras (Jennings et al, 2014).
III. Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter was to attempt to analyze and connect the works of
classic public administration writers, contemporary public administration writers and the
proposed innovation of the mandated use of body cameras in the Maryland State Police
Department. In doing so, the proposal will strongly consider the works of Frederick
Taylor and Max Weber, specifically regarding their theories on scientific management
and bureaucracy respectively. Taylor’s work regarding scientific theory ties into the
proposed innovation by discussing the possible production advancement through the use
of technology. Although Taylor’s theory was postulated during the industrial era, it has
transcended time and is still applicable to today’s society. The impending chapters will
outline further the use of scientific management as discussed by Frederick Taylor.
A second classical public administration writer that was analyzed in this chapter
was Max Weber. Weber’s theory of bureaucracy and its criticisms relates to the proposed
innovation of the mandated use of body cameras by analyzing the purpose of civil
servants and the importance of a checks and balances system in bureaucracy.
Specifically, the checks and balances system that Weber alludes to can be paralleled to
the use of body cameras. The mandated use of body cameras will act as a checks and
balances system for the public to ensure that the power of law enforcement does not go
unchecked.

20. 15
The contemporary articles that were analyzed in this chapter aim to show the
perceptions of law enforcement officials that are key internal stakeholders in the
proposed innovation. The articles measured the perceptions of both high ranking law
enforcement officials and low ranking law enforcement officers to ensure that nobody in
the scope of law enforcement was overlooked. It was hypothesized that the high-ranking
law enforcement officials would support the proposed innovation because of the
accountability that it would create among the lower ranking officers. The articles
referenced above proved this hypothesis. Conversely, it was hypothesized that the low
ranking law enforcement personnel would oppose the proposed innovation because of the
possibility of the micromanaging that could exist with the implementation of body
cameras. The second article analyzed proved that low ranking law enforcement personnel
are also in favor of the proposed innovation.

21. 16
Chapter #3: Strategic Analysis
I. Organization
Overview
The Maryland State Police Department is a proud organization whose goal has
been to patrol and protect the citizens of Maryland for nearly one hundred years
(Maryland State Police, 2015). Since 1921, the Maryland State Police Department has
been charged with the duty of patrolling highways and enforcing both criminal and traffic
laws with the goal of keeping people safe, one that they take very seriously (Maryland
State Police, 2015). One can understand the values and culture of the Maryland State
Police by examining their mission statement, which outlines their goals and standards
(Maryland State Police, 2015). According to their mission statement, “our mission is to
protect the citizens of Maryland from foreign and domestic security threats, to fight
crime, and to provide roadway safety by upholding the laws of the State of Maryland”
(Maryland State Police, 2015). The Maryland State Police is a paramilitary organization
and their structure and hierarchy reflect as such (Maryland State Police, 2015). The
purpose of this chapter is to examine the proposed innovation of the mandated use of
body cameras on law enforcement personnel and how this innovation will further benefit
both the law enforcement personnel and the citizens of Maryland.
While their mission statement reflects their goals in maintaining public safety and
security, their vision reflects their desire for statewide cooperation among other agencies
which one can argue refers strongly to their values and culture (Maryland State Police,
2015). The Maryland State Police has a vision that states, “we will be a model of a
responsive, composite, coordinated statewide police department that operates
independently, yet in support of other law enforcement and state and local agencies”
(Maryland State Police, 2015). This vision says a lot about the values of the Maryland

22. 17
State Police because it shows that while they are comfortable to operate independently,
they are also driven to work along side other agencies in order to achieve their goals
(Maryland State Police, 2015).
The Maryland State Police, similar to many other law enforcement agencies,
addresses social, economic and political needs in the state. Socially, law enforcement
plays an enormous role because of the responsibility they bear in reference to working
with citizens (Maryland State Police, 2015). One needs to look no further than the slogan
that exists in many law enforcement agencies, “To Protect and Serve”. This slogan is
aimed at the citizens in the communities and municipalities in which law enforcement
serve. Specifically, the Maryland State Police discusses these social needs in their
mission statement when they state that, “our mission is to protect citizens…” (Maryland
State Police, 2015).
From an economic standpoint, law enforcement in general must prove their worth.
Because law enforcement agencies like the Maryland State Police are public
organizations, their funding comes from taxpayers and thus their worth is measured in
how well they perform their duties (Department of Justice, 2015). The Maryland State
Police relates to the state economy because their funding is directly correlated to the state
budget (Maryland State Police, 2015).
One can easily decipher the connection that law enforcement has in regards to
politics. The political framework in the United States outlines that the policy makers, or
the politicians usurp much of the power in the society. The connection that the Maryland
State Police has with a political scope in mind is also outlined in their mission statement,
“…to fight crime, and to provide roadway safety by upholding the laws of the state of

23. 18
Maryland” (Maryland State Police, 2015). These laws that are outlined are often the
result of policy implementation in politics and it is the responsibility of the Maryland
State Police and other law enforcement agencies to follow through in the upholding of
these laws (Maryland State Police, 2015). The Maryland State Police is distinctive in the
exhaustive measures they take to uphold the law (Maryland State Police, 2015).
II. Stakeholder
Analysis
As outlined in Chapter 1 of the paper, there are many stakeholders, both internal
and external that play a part in all program and policy implementation and the potential
evaluation of the proposed innovation. Internal stakeholders are those within an
organization that have a distinct interest in the success and failures of the organization
because they may be rewarded or punished accordingly (Boundless, 2015). In this case,
the internal stakeholders for the Maryland State Police would be the low ranking
Troopers to the highest-ranking officials such as the Superintendent (Maryland State
Police, 2015). Conversely, external stakeholders are those that stand to benefit or suffer
from the efforts of the internal stakeholders (Boundless, 2015). In the case of the
Maryland State Police, the external stakeholders will be the citizens and politicians that
will either benefit or suffer as a result of the efforts of the Maryland State Police.
Both the internal and external stakeholders measure the organization’s
performance in similar ways (Calea, 2003). Performance management is one of the most
crucial features for any organization that attempts to propose innovation (Calea, 2003).
This paper will aim to show how the internal and external stakeholders will have similar
procedures in evaluating the performance of the Maryland State Police (Calea, 2003).
The first way to evaluate the success of an organization is through the reviewing of crime
rates (Calea, 2003). Some experts argue that reduced crime rates in law enforcement are

24. 19
what profit is to private companies; it is the bottom line (Calea, 2003). Because crime
rates are public record, they can be utilized by the public and thus show that both the
police department and the citizens are using some of the same measures to analyze the
operational effectiveness of the organization (Calea, 2003). Because there are many
factors aside from police effectiveness that can influence the ebb and flow of crime in a
particular state, there must be other measures that evaluate the effectiveness of an
organization (Calea, 2003).
A second way in which the Maryland State Police is evaluated is through arrests
and citations (Calea, 2003). According to Calea, arrests represent one of the most viable
measuring tools for both the internal and external stakeholders (Calea, 2003). Internally,
Troopers are measured and rewarded by the number of ‘clean’ arrests and citations (MSP
Source, 2015). A source in the Maryland State Police bolstered this point in an interview
claiming that while the number of arrests and citations is important, the quality of each
arrest and citation is equally if not more important (MSP Source, 2015). This source
furthered touched on the topic of quality arrests by outlining the characteristics of a good
arrest (MSP Source, 2015). The Maryland State Police source claimed that good arrests
consist of arrests in which troopers follow procedure properly and when the arrest leads
to charges being successfully filed (MSP Source, 2015). Furthermore, if the arrest leads
to the termination of another crime, it is considered a good arrest (MSP Source, 2015).
Because the term arrest and citation can be both ambiguous and confusing for the public,
it is not always the best way for the public to evaluate the effectiveness of the
organization, but it is an option (Calea, 2003).

25. 20
A third option in which both the internal and external stakeholders evaluate the
effectiveness of a law enforcement organization is through case clearances (Calea, 2003).
Clearances are similar to arrest in the way that the data is collected, but far different in
their definition (Calea, 2003). Case clearances are defined as the cases that are actually
solved by the police (Calea, 2003). As stated above the data collected for arrests can be
ambiguous because arrests do not necessarily equate to crimes being solved (Calea,
2003). For this reason, case clearances provide a more in depth and specific data
collection in which citizens can rely on for evaluating law enforcement (Calea, 2003).
On an internal level in the Maryland State Police, Troopers are given the
opportunity to review and critique the practices inside the organization (MSP Source,
2015). According to a Maryland State Trooper, personnel are required to perform certain
‘in-service training’ in which the law enforcement personnel are re-trained on some
topics and introduced to new policy and tactics (MSP Source, 2015). After the
completion of the in-service training, troopers are given the opportunity to critique the
training courses and offer their opinion on what worked, what could be changed and what
could have been examined more in depth (MSP Source, 2015). Furthermore, the
Maryland State Police source summarized that the internal stakeholders at the Maryland
State Police are measured not strictly in quantitative measures, but rather a combination
of quantitative and qualitative with a higher importance placed upon quality (MSP
Source, 2015).
III. Environmental
Scan
(SWOT)
The Maryland State Police is a proud organization that prides itself on the
professionalism and courtesy that it operates with on a daily basis (Maryland State Police,
2015). That being said, while it is an organization with many strengths, it is not unlike

26. 21
nearly all other organizations in the weaknesses that it possesses. This sub-heading will
outline the strengths and weaknesses that exist in the Maryland State Police. According to
a Maryland State Police source, three major key strengths that exist within the Maryland
State Police are public image, political reliance and financial resources (MSP Source,
2015). According to a Maryland State Trooper, public image is a major strength because
of the professionalism that the members of the Maryland State Police operate with on a
daily basis (MSP Source, 2015). According to the source, this professionalism becomes
noticeable from the public and thus reflects well on the organization (MSP Source, 2015).
The second major strength that the Maryland State Police possesses is that of political
reliance. According to the source, because the Governor of Maryland is their Commander
in Chief, it provides tremendous political backing (MSP Source, 2015). Specifically, the
current governor, who happens to be a major proponent of the Maryland State Police,
offers a lot of political support to the organization (MSP Source, 2015). Finally, the
financial resources that are allotted to the Maryland State Police are an enormous asset to
the organization (MSP Source, 2015). Because the Maryland State Police is the only
major law enforcement agency that operates off the state’s operating budget, the
organization receives a tremendous amount of funding and thus resources both financial
and technological (MSP Source, 2015).
As stated above, while the Maryland State Police possesses many strengths, it is
not unlike all other organizations that also possess some weaknesses (MSP Source,
2015). According to a Maryland State Trooper, many of the organization’s strengths
double as some of their weaknesses (MSP Source, 2015). Although it is stated above that
political reliance is a major strength of the organization, there is a certain fickleness that

27. 22
exists when the Commander in Chief is an elected position with a term limit (MSP
Source, 2015). The political backing that is currently enjoyed by the personnel of the
Maryland State Police lasts only as long as the term of the current governor (MSP
Source, 2015). It is possible and historically backed that not all governors are proponents
of law enforcement and this lack of political backing can be a major weakness to the
organization (MSP Source, 2015). Another strength of the Maryland State Police that was
previously outlined is the state’s operating budget that has recently provided tremendous
funding for the organization (MSP Source, 2015). The source from the Maryland State
Police discussed that while this funding is superb presently, it is not always the case
(MSP Source, 2015). Because of frequent political change, the state’s budget does not
always reflect positively in reference to the law enforcement personnel (MSP Source,
2015).
One can argue that the key forces that affect the law enforcement sector are that
of public perception. According to O’Connor, Hogan, Prabha and Stretesky, the contact
and the nature of the contact that citizens have with law enforcement are largely
correlated with their perception of law enforcement (2013). Specifically, citizens that had
involuntary contact with law enforcement described negative feedback while citizens
with voluntary contact with law enforcement described positive feedback (O’Connor et
al, 2013). In reference to the mandated use of body cameras in the Maryland State Police,
the organization has the opportunity to further improve their working relationship with
the citizens of Maryland as well as improve overall public perception of law enforcement.
Although the source from the Maryland State Police outlined that public image was a

28. 23
strength of the organization, one can argue that public perception of law enforcement in
today’s society is ever changing.
Conversely, the Maryland State Police faces some political challenges and threats
over the course of the next three to five years. According to a Maryland State Trooper,
because of the term limits of state governor’s it is impossible to forecast the political
changes that will take place over time (MSP Source, 2015). Because this political
forecast is so difficult to decipher, the strengths of the organization can quickly become
weaknesses.
IV. Organizational
Impact
The proposed innovation for the mandated use of body cameras on law
enforcement personnel links to the mission and vision of the Maryland State Police
through the protection of citizens clause in their mission statement (Maryland State
Police, 2015). The Maryland State Police Department’s mission statement outlines the
task of protecting citizens at all costs. This paper aims to show that by taking a proactive
approach and implementing the mandated use of body cameras on law enforcement
personnel now, it will help to protect citizens in the future.
Based on the environmental scan of the Maryland State Police, the organization’s
goal is to protect citizens. The proposed innovation will help to address the need to
protect citizens by taking a proactive approach on protecting the public to ensure
tragedies such as the Michael Brown case and the Eric Garner case never happen again
(Harvard Law Review, 2014). According to the Harvard Law Review, the shooting of
Michael Brown, an unarmed man in Missouri and the choking of Eric Garner, an
unarmed man in New York were both incidents that needed more objective evidence
(2014). According the Review, this evidence could have and should have come in the

29. 24
form of body cameras (2014). This paper aims to prove that if the Maryland State Police
implements the proposed innovation, they will be taking a proactive approach towards
improving police conduct and improving public perception.
The Maryland State Police will aim to capitalize on the strong political backing
that currently exists through the support of the Commander in Chief of the organization,
the Governor (MSP Source, 2015). By taking advantage of the strong political backing
that currently exists, it is possible to argue that it will be easier to have the funding raised
for the organization. Conversely, because of threat of a change in political power in the
impending years, it is imperative that the proposed innovation is implemented as soon as
possible to ensure that the funding is available in the next operating budget. The
succeeding chapters will outline the implementation of the proposed innovation and the
specific details that are needed to evaluate said innovation.

30. 25
Chapter #4: Implementation
I. Implementation
Overview
This chapter will aim to take the proposed innovation from its current state to its
desired destination. This chapter will outline the definition of an innovation and how it
relates to the proposed innovation being discussed in this paper. According to text,
innovation is defined as a fundamental rethinking of an organizational process whose
goal it is to create considerable improvements in measures of quality, efficiency or cost
(Merolli, 2015). Moreover, innovations must strive to answer three main questions: is the
change fundamental in nature, does the change create a dramatic effect, and does the
change require a process (Merolli, 2015). Specifically the fundamental aspect refers to
what an organization does and how it does it (Merolli, 2015). The dramatic change aspect
refers to a major shift in how tasks are performed (Merolli, 2015). Finally, the process
aspect alluded to above refers to the set of techniques that are required to reach the goal
of implementation (Merolli, 2015).
The proposed innovation being referenced in this paper is the proposal for the
mandated use of body cameras on law enforcement personnel in the Maryland State
Police Department. This chapter will aim to prove that the proposed innovation meets the
requirements of what it means to be innovative. On a fundamental level, the
implementation of body cameras on law enforcement personnel will improve the
relationship between police and citizens by increasing the accountability on both ends. If
the proposed innovation is accepted and implemented, the change will be dramatic
because of the drastic alterations that will exist in reference to the discipline and review
process (MSP Source, 2015). According to a Maryland State Trooper, the discipline and

31. 26
review process currently operates by collecting evidence and statements from the law
enforcement personnel involved and complainants (MSP Source, 2015). The proposed
innovation will allow the proper review boards the opportunity to view video footage to
further facilitate their option to discipline an officer or not. The proposed innovation will
certainly require a process in order to be implemented. The process will consist of
multiple steps ranging from policy approval to government funding.
In order to understand the need for body cameras on law enforcement personnel,
one can review statistics that are collected to show the number of complaints against
police for their alleged misconduct (Hickman, 2006). Large police agencies, or those that
have more than one hundred sworn members, received over 26,000 citizen complaints
referencing police misconduct, specifically use of force, in 2002 (Hickman, 2006). The
statistics show that the large agencies make up 59% of law enforcement personnel
(Hickman, 2006). According to Hickman, there was a rate of 6.6 use of force complaints
per 100 sworn officers in large agencies (2006). Furthermore, Hickman discusses that
34% of cases against officers were not sustained, 25% of cases were unfounded and 23%
of cases led to officers being exonerated (Hickman, 2006). Complaints against police
officers were only sustained in 8% of cases in 2002 (Hickman, 2006). Although one can
argue that 8% is a low number, when referenced to the 26,000 cases brought against law
enforcement, the result is nearly 2,100 cases in which citizens had grounds for a case of
police misconduct (Hickman, 2006). The result of the analysis of these statistics is a
reason to adopt the proposed innovation of the mandated use of body cameras in the
Maryland State Police. It can be hypothesized that the use of body cameras will lead to
more accountability for both law enforcement personnel and citizens. On one hand, law

32. 27
enforcement personnel will be forced to think before engaging in behavior that may be
constituted as police misconduct. On the other hand, citizens will have peace of mind
knowing that police officers can and will be disciplined based of video evidence, while
also knowing that false claims of police misconduct will be quickly dismissed by a
review board.
II. Key
Personnel
There are many key personnel both advocates and opponents that will play a large
role in the implementation of the proposed innovation. These key personnel are both
internal and external stakeholders for the Maryland State Police. Internal stakeholders are
those within an organization that have a distinct interest in the success and failures of the
organizations because they may be rewarded or disciplined accordingly (Boundless,
2015). Conversely, the external stakeholders are those that stand to benefit or suffer from
the efforts of the internal stakeholders (Boundless, 2015). In the case of the Maryland
State Police, the internal stakeholders will range from the lowest ranking troopers to the
highest-ranking officer like the Superintendent (Maryland State Police, 2015). On the
other hand, the external stakeholders in reference to the Maryland State Police will be the
citizens and politicians that will either benefit or suffer as a result of the efforts of the
Maryland State Police.
One can argue that the person best suited to take the lead in the policy
implementation stage would be a third party bystander that does not stand to benefit from
either the accepted or rejected policy outcome. While a third party bystander would be
the most effective way of measuring and evaluating the proposed innovation, the leader
of the policy implementation should come from within the department (MSP Source,
2015). Furthermore, a source in the Maryland State Police claims that the senior officer in

33. 28
the Internal Affairs Unit coupled with the senior officer in the Education and Training
Division should spearhead the process of the use of body cameras (MSP Source, 2015).
The Internal Affairs Unit would be the division responsible for the review and discipline
of the video footage, while the Education and Training Division would be responsible for
the indoctrination and training for the use of body cameras (MSP Source, 2015). The
leader responsible for proposing this innovation can and should outline empirical
evidence the shows the relationship between advanced technology and the increase in
police productivity (Jennings, Fridell & Lynch, 2014). According to Jennings, Fridell &
Lynch, technology has improved modern policing especially in the areas of police
accountability, police-community relationships and enhancement in crime fighting
capabilities (2014). Jennings, Fridell & Lynch provided sound evidence that shows that
low-level law enforcement personnel are advocates of the mandated use of body cameras
(2014). The authors established that officers generally reported high rates of agreement in
reference to the question that their departments should mandate the use of body cameras
(Jennings et al, 2014). Furthermore, the officers were in general agreement that the
citizens in whom they protect and serve would exhibit better behavior if they knew that
law enforcement personnel were wearing body cameras (Jennings et al, 2014). One can
argue that because these advocates of the proposed innovation are those that would be
getting the most use out of the proposed innovation, their opinion would help to bolster
the claim of how necessary body cameras are in law enforcement.
In specific reference to the Maryland State Police, a source outlined previously
that the current Governor and Commander in Chief of the Maryland State Police is a
large proponent of law enforcement in the state (MSP Source, 2015). With a favorable

34. 29
Commander in Chief, combined with the support from the low ranking officers, one can
argue that the policy implementation will move smoothly. Conversely, the source
outlined the political fickleness that exists within the state particularly in reference to the
Governor (MSP Source, 2015). This fickleness revolves around the fact that each
Commander in Chief may have a different level of affection for the law enforcement in
the state (MSP Source, 2015). Because the proposed innovation would need to be passed
at the state level for funding purposes, a governor that is a proponent of the Maryland
State Police is crucial (MSP Source, 2015).
III. Funding
The funding portion of the proposed innovation is obviously an imperative step
that cannot be overlooked or simplified. According to studies, many police departments
that do not have programs with body cameras cite cost as the major reason (Judy, 2015).
Specifically, 39% of departments that have explored the body camera program have cited
costs are their reason to reject the implementation (Judy, 2015). According to research,
the most reasonably priced body camera company sells them for $199 per unit with an
additional $55 per unit for data storage (Judy, 2015). This number is far cheaper versus
the body cameras that many police departments are purchasing in which the cost ranges
roughly $800-$1200 per unit and storage (Judy, 2015). The amount of funding will be
immense because the Maryland State Police operates with over fourteen hundred sworn
troopers (Maryland State Police, 2015). Using the number of sworn troopers multiplied
by the cost of roughly $250 per unit and storage, the number of funds needed to start the
program is roughly $350,000. Unfortunately, $350,000 is the minimum amount of money
that is needed to implement the proposed innovation because it would only cover the cost

35. 30
and storage for the most basic model of body cameras. Because some cameras sell for
upwards of $800 per unit, the cost of the program could be $1,120,000.
The funds could be raised through in the increase in taxes for the citizens of the
cities, however there are other more innovative ways to raise the funds for the proposed
innovation. Maryland could choose to follow the precedent proposed by one New Jersey
legislator where fines for offenses would be increased in order to raise more money for
the state (Harvard Law Review, 2014). This New Jersey legislator proposed that people
convicted of DUI and minor sexual offenses would be required to pay higher fines
(Harvard Law Review, 2014). This legislator hopes that the results will be beneficial in
two ways: taxpayers will not be forced to pay more in taxes and the policy
implementation will work as a deterrent for criminals (Harvard Law Review, 2014). On
one hand, if people break the law they will pay the price both literally and
metaphorically. On the other hand, if the legislation works as a deterrent, there will be
less crime in the state and people will be safer. Although the cameras will likely be a one-
time expense, the cost to continually archive data will cost a significant amount of money
annually (Judy, 2015). If Maryland increased the fines for lower level offenses, it would
have a cyclical effect and provide funding continually.
According to a source in the Maryland State Police, there are multiple large
departments that have been fortunate enough to receive federal grants for the explicit
purpose of implemented the use of body cameras (MSP Source, 2015). A federal grant
would help to lower the amount of funds needed to be raised through the policy as
outlined above.
IV. Timeline

36. 31
In order to successfully estimate the timeline that is necessary to fully implement
the proposed innovation, one must research pilot programs in other jurisdictions in order
to understand what works and what does not. It is imperative that this research takes
place on an agency of similar size and capabilities to ensure that the correlations are
uniform. It would be prudent that the first step in the program implementation be a small
pilot program consisting of 100 units. This procedure would be following the lead of the
Rochester Police Department, which sponsored a small pilot program for six to eight
weeks (Sullivan, 2015). This pilot program will test the benefits and potential pitfalls,
both operational and financial, that may arise in the test stage (Sullivan, 2015). Following
the successful pilot program, it would take roughly one year to generate enough money
through arrests and fines to generate money for a startup. It can be estimated that a fully
operational body camera program can become operational in a little over one year
following the program introduction. It should be noted that a federal grant would
eliminate the time needed to raise funds through arrests and fines and therefore the
timeline could be expedited.
V. Process
Assessment
The proposed innovation will be measured through the assessment of its program
outcomes (Rossi, Lipsey & Freeman, 2004). An outcome is the state of the target
population or conditions that a program is expected to have changed (Rossi et al, 2004).
In reference to the Maryland State Police, the predicted outcome is the improvement in
the relationship between law enforcement and citizens. This outcome can be measured by
the number of misconduct cases that are reported by citizens to law enforcement.
According to Rossi et al, it is important to measure outcomes that are observed
characteristics of the target population and not of the program (2004). It is important that

37. 32
the evaluation does not overlook the possibility of opposite reactions (Rossi et al, 2004).
Specifically, this opposite reaction refers to the possibility that the number of cases of
misconduct could potentially increase with the implementation of the proposed
innovation. Although this is unlikely, it is imperative that program assessments are
thorough and unbiased (Rossi et al, 2004).
The program can also be measured through an impact assessment by using the
officers equipped with body cameras as an experimental group and the officers without
them as a control group (Rossi et al, 2004). This experiment will be used to measure the
difference in the use of body cameras. Specifically, the experiment will measure the
impact of the mandated use of body cameras versus those officers that are operating
without them. This experiment will operate under a quasi-experimental scope in which
the targets that participate in a program are compared to non-participants who are
presumed to be similar in the critical ways (Rossi et al, 2004).
One can argue that the most ethical way to evaluate the program would be to
contract an agency to empirically measure the efficiency in which the body cameras are
being utilized (Rossi et al, 2004). This unbiased contracted agency would have no reason
to benefit if the use of body cameras proved to have a positive impact or not (Rossi et al,
2004). Furthermore, the evaluation that is gathered by this third party agency will be
condensed into an in-service training for the law enforcement personnel of the Maryland
State Police. As discussed in prior chapters, all members of the Maryland State Police are
required to perform in-service training to reeducate themselves on new tactics and
policies (MSP Source, 2015). This in-service training will offer the troopers an

38. 33
opportunity to learn about the new policy as well as to voice their opinion on the new
implementation.
In the succeeding and final chapter, the paper will wrap up by summing up the
major points that were discussed throughout.

39. 34
Chapter #5: Conclusion
I. Overview
This paper attempted to argue the theoretical and analytical reasoning behind the
implementation of the mandated use of body cameras on law enforcement personnel
in the Maryland State Police Department. Such an argument could only be made
through extensive research and strategic analysis on the agency being discussed, as
well as classic and contemporary scholars in the field of public administration. The
research and analysis is accurate because it is based off of empirical data gathered by
scholars in the field. The most helpful sources were those that offered empirical data.
These sources were so helpful because numbers and figures help to bolster the claim
of the benefits that will be a result of the proposed innovation. In order to achieve the
desired goal of a strong strategic analysis and a thorough review of the costs and
benefits, one must understand the process that took place.
The first step of the process was to outline the proposed innovation and the
agency that is being innovated. This is a broad process that consists largely of
studying the agency’s mission and goals while outlining any major legal or
constitutional issues that may have existed. The initial step laid a roadmap that would
help to outline the topics that would be covered more in depth as the paper moved
forward. The second step in the process consisted of researching and applying the
theoretical approaches of public administration writers, both classic and
contemporary in order to fully understand the scope of the issue from a public
administration point of view. This process was achieved by researching and applying
works of classical theorists Frederick Taylor and Max Weber. The third and fourth

40. 35
stages of the process required the most in depth research and writing because they
consisted of much of the relevant information regarding the agency and the proposed
innovation. The third step in the process required a thorough outline of the key
stakeholders that would play a role in the implementation of the proposed innovation.
In the third step of the process, an environmental scan or SWOT was created to
measure the organization’s strengths and weaknesses. The final stage of the third step
was to summarize how the proposed innovation will link and further benefit the
organization in regards to their mission and goals. The fourth step in the process
required a thorough outline of the innovation and the steps that will be required for
the ultimate implementation of said innovation. This process consisted of discussing
key personnel that would be needed to implement the innovation as well as the
funding required to achieve the ultimate goal.
II. Dramatic and Positive Change
After the thorough and extensive research on the matter, one can argue that the
proposed innovation will result in a major change to the agency and further, society at
large. As discussed in the paper, innovation is a fundamental rethinking of an
organizational process that will aim to bring about a dramatic improvement to critical
measures of performance such as quality, service and efficiency (Merolli, 2015).
Further, the change must be dramatic in that it is not simply a minor change in
process, but rather one that affects the agency as a whole (Merolli, 2015). The paper
aimed to achieve this goal by proving that the implementation of the proposed
innovation will build trust between law enforcement personnel and the citizens of
Maryland, it will lower crime rates, and it will lower the number of cases of police

41. 36
misconduct. As outlined empirically in the previous chapter, there were over 26,000
cases of police misconduct nationwide in 2002 (Hickman, 2006). Because large law
enforcement agencies such as the Maryland State Police and other agencies of the like
make up 59% of law enforcement personnel, it is imperative that the use of body
cameras be mandatory in order to help lower this number. To bolster this argument,
studies have proven that police officers believe that citizens would behave better if
law enforcement personnel were required to wear body cameras (Jennings, Fridell &
Lynch, 2014).
III. Capitalization on a Current Strength
As discussed in previous chapters, the proposed innovation will help to capitalize
on a current strength of the agency by utilizing the strong financial resources and the
strong political reliance that the agency possesses (MSP Source, 2015). Specifically,
the political reliance that the agency possesses will be critical in the implementation
of the proposed innovation (MSP Source, 2015). As outlined by Trooper Tim Erstling
in previous chapters, because the governor, the Commander in Chief in Maryland, is a
large proponent of law enforcement, it makes for better allocation of resources for the
Maryland State Police (MSP Source, 2015). Furthermore, because the Maryland State
Police is the only major law enforcement agency that operates off the state’s
operating budget, the organization receives a tremendous amount of funding and thus
resources both financial and technological (MSP Source, 2015).
IV. Weaknesses and Threats
A threat that may exist is the further disconnect between law enforcement and
citizens of Maryland if the proposed implementation fails. Citizens may lose hope in

42. 37
law enforcement if complains of police misconduct do not decrease as a result of the
proposed innovation.
Furthermore, the innovation will help to address threats and weaknesses that are
present in the agency, specifically referencing the review and discipline process of
law enforcement personnel. One needs only to examine empirical evidence on
agencies that have instituted and promoted the mandated use of body cameras.
According to Lucas Owens and Casey McQuillan, scholars that studied the events in
Ferguson, MO after the death of Michael Brown, they claim that body cameras can
and have improved the number of police misconduct cases in respective agencies
(Owens & McQuillan, 2015). Specifically, the use of body cameras lowered the
number of incidents of police misuse of force by sixty percent and the number of
citizen complaints by ninety percent (Owens & McQuillan, 2015). This empirical
evidence is both consistent the hypothesis of this paper and bolsters the claim that the
mandated use of body cameras will help to reduce the number of cases of police
misconduct.
V. Program Evaluation and Shared Results
As outlined in chapter four, the innovation will be measured through its program
outcomes (Rossi, Lipsey & Freeman, 2004). A program outcome is the state of the
target population or conditions that a program is expected to have changed (Rossi et
al, 2004). As outlined throughout the paper, the goals of the proposed innovation are
to strengthen the relationship between law enforcement personnel and the citizens in
which they protect and serve. This goal can be reached through the implementation of
the proposed innovation. Furthermore, the results of the program evaluation can and

43. 38
will be shared with the internal stakeholders through in-service training. This in-
service training is under the direction of the Education and Training Division, one of
the two departments that will be spearheading the body camera initiative (MSP
Source, 2015). Furthermore, the Internal Affairs Unit will also have a major role in
reviewing and teaching personnel the proper use of body cameras (MSP Source,
2015). According to a Maryland State Trooper, in-service training is a process by
which all members of the Maryland State Police must participate in learning new
tactics and policies (MSP Source, 2015). In this in-service training, law enforcement
personnel will be able to gather information based on the new implementation and
voice their questions or concerns in a private forum among other law enforcement
personnel (MSP Source, 2015).
VI. Appraisal
As outlined in chapter 4, the fundraising process of the proposed initiative is a
crucial step. It has been outlined that the funds will either come from the increase in
fines from low level crimes, or from federal grants (MSP Source, 2015). As prior
discussed, the timeline for the proposed innovation will be a little over one year from
the start of the pilot program. The success of the pilot program will allow for the
proposed innovation to receive positive feedback and thus the department will have
reason to apply for a federal grant.
As outlined in previous chapters, specifically ones that reference the key
stakeholders, both internal and external, the paper aimed to prove that there will be
very little resistance from the organization. The law enforcement personnel, the

44. 39
internal stakeholders, are those that are committed in pursuing and preserving a
professional and efficient work environment. This commitment from the internal
stakeholders, combined with the studies on law enforcement where it has been proven
that many law enforcement members are in agreement for the mandated use of body
cameras show that the implementation will come with little resistance from internal
stakeholders. The paper also aims to prove that there will be little to no resistance
from the external stakeholders, specifically citizens and politicians. Currently, the
Governor, being a large proponent of law enforcement is expected to back the
proposed implementation.
VII. Conclusion
As discussed in chapter four, there is a need for a research stage to be conducted
through the duration of the pilot program. During the pilot program, the agency will
have the opportunity to review statistics and potential changes in the relationship
between law enforcement personnel and the citizens. With a strong political backing
and the opportunity to raise the funds for the program without raising taxes, one can
argue that this innovation will be met with very little resistance. The goal of the
program is to improve the quality of life for both law enforcement and citizens. With
this goal in mind, it will remind people that even the best organizations can and
should improve.

45. 40
References
Blad, E. (2015). Body cameras on school police spark privacy concerns. Education
Journal, 4. Retrieved from:
http://go.galegroup.com.online.library.marist.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA405512
590&v=2.1&u=nysl_se_marist&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w
Boundless. (2015). Internal stakeholders. Concept (13). Retrieved from:
https://www.boundless.com/management/textbooks/boundless-management-
textbook/ethics-in-business-13/business-stakeholders-96/internal-stakeholders-
451-7622/
Calea. (2003). Measuring the performance of law enforcement agencies. Update
Magazine (83).
Erstling, T. (2015). Interview with source from maryland state police. Conducted on: 17
Novemeber 2015).
Graham, D. (2015). The mysterious death of freddie gray. The Atlantic
Hickman, M. (2006). Citizen complaints about police use of force. United State
Department of Justice.
Jennings, W., Fridell, L., Lynch, M. (2014). Cops and cameras: Officer perceptions of the
use of body cameras in law enforcement. Journal of Criminal Justice. 42 (6),
pages 549-556
Judy, C. (2015). The cost of police body cameras. WPIX News
Grachev, M., Rakitsky, B. (2013). Historic horizons of Frederick Taylor’s scientific
management. Journal of Management History. 19 (4), pages 512-527
Maryland State Police Department. (2015). Retrieved from:
http://mdsp.maryland.gov/Pages/default.aspx
Merolli, R. (2015). Notes from mpa 699. Marist College.
Moore, A. (2004). Creating public value. Retrieved from:
https://ilearn.marist.edu/portal/site/0913c973-348b-4222-9a18-
48e82c7e6427/page/3f326240-e95a-455a-9b99-f4f4459393c8

46. 41
O’Connor, T., Hogan, M., Prabha, U., Stretesky, P. (2013). Public opinion and
satisfaction with state law enforcement. Policing 36 (3) ppg. 526-542
Owens, L., McQuillan, C. (2015). Learning from ferguson: Using body cameras and
participatory governance to improve policing. Harvard Journal of African
American Public Policy.
Rossi, P., Lipsey, M., Freeman, H. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Sage
Publications Inc.
Rutledge, D. (2015). Legal issues with body cams. Law Enforcement Magazine.
Smith, B. & Holmes, M. (2003). Community accountability, minority threat and
police brutality: An examination of civil rights criminal complaints. Criminology,
41 (4), 1035- 1063.
Spicer, M. (2015). Public administration in a disenchanted world: Reflections on Max
Weber’s value pluralism and his views on politics and bureaucracy.
Administration and Society. 47 (1), pages 24-43
Sullivan, M. (2015). A timeline for police body camera deployment takes shape in
rochester. WGEM.