Is public CCTV effective?

[Editor's note: John Honovich publishes this and other information on network video at IPVideoMarket.info.]

While we continue to spend more on public CCTV systems, the debate on CCTV effectiveness has reached a polarizing and inconclusive standoff. On the one side, you have a number of studies and leading thinkers who cleary contend that CCTV systems are ineffective. On the other, you have numerous municipalities who are weekly green-lighting new CCTV projects.

This report offers key findings from the 20 top studies/articles in the field and offers practical recommendations on how to optimize the use of public CCTV systems.

A directory of the 20 top papers in the field are included at the end of this document. This report is based on those papers.

Key Findings Summary

• The expectation that CCTV systems should be deployed to reduce crime rather than solve crime has created huge problems.


• While the studies show serious doubt on CCTV's ability to reduce crime generally, a strong consensus exists in CCTV's ability to reduce premeditative/property crime


• CCTV is consistently treated as a singular, stable technology, obscuring radical technological changes that have occurred in the last 10 years


• Differences in per camera costs are largely ignored, preventing policy makers from finding ways to reduce costs


• Routine comparison of police vs cameras is counterproductive

Practical Recommendations Summary

• Stop claiming that CCTV can generally reduce crime


• Optimize future public CCTV projects around crime solving rather than crime reduction


• Optimize future public CCTV projects around material and premeditative crimes


• Target technologies that support crime solving and material/premeditative crimes


• Focus on minimizing cost per camera

Finding: Crime Reduction vs Crime Solving

Finding: Reducing Crime Generally vs Premeditative/Property Crime



ACLU's








Finding: CCTV as Singular, Stable Technology

UK Home Office Report of 2005





2005 UK Home Office Report




Finding: Differences in Per Camera Costs Largely Ignored

2005 UK Home Office study








Finding: Cops vs Cameras Comparison Counterproductive














Recommendation: Abandon emphasis on general crime reduction





Recommendation: Focus Projects on Crime Solving






Recommendation: Focus Projects on Material/Premeditative Crimes






Recommendation: Target Technologies that Support Crime Solving








Recommendation: Minimize Cost Per Camera






Conclusion

• Set the goals appropriately on tasks that can succeed: Crime Solving and Property Crime Reduction


• Select technologies such as IP and megapixel cameras that improve performance


• Ensure spending per camera is controlled and benefits from new technologies

With these practices, we can ensure both effective CCTV systems and a positive economic contribution to society.


Directory of CCTV Effectiveness Studies

The debate on the effectiveness of CCTV is amazingly complex. Dozens of studies done over more than a decade with frequently conflicting positions makes the situation hard to assess. This problem is magnified by the difficulty of finding reference material.

This directory provides a catalog of as many publicly available studies and reports I can find on the web.

• UK Home Office CCTV Review 2005: The most frequently cited review in the literature, basically the authoritative source. I found it to be the most comprehensive and nuanced, providing details on operation, technology used, costs plus breakdowns of effectiveness by types of crimes. Despite its length, absolutely worth reading. 176 pages.


• UK Home Office CCTV Review 2002: The second most frequently cited report in the CCTV study literature. 68 pages.


• UK Parliament CCTV Summary 2002: 4 page report summarizes CCTV issues and studies.


• Department of Justice Guide to Video Surveillance 2006: In-depth analysis on CCTV performance and extensive guidelines on use of CCTV. 100 pages.


• Study for Los Angeles CCTV Use 2008: A balanced and in-depth 91 page analysis of the general merits and the specific deployments within Los Angeles.


• Northampton UK Success Story 2002: A 1 page review by the town itself on how their actively monitored CCTV system reduces crime by 30% and generates 250 arrests per month.


• Dozen US CCTV Case Studies circa 1999: An extensive anecdotal review of numerous CCTV deployments in the US. Author is a researcher at the California Research Bureau.


• Harvard CCTV Case Study 2007: Provides an analysis of existing studies citing a 4% reduction in crime with strongest reduction in property crimes. Offers a qualitative review of Harvard's existing deployment. Report, 12 pages.


• Temple CCTV Philadelphia Case Study 2008: Statistical Analysis by Criminal Justice Professor Demonstrates 13% reduction in crime. Report, 12 pages.


• Baltimore CCTV Review 2007: Article reviewing the number of cameras, deployment, use and results of Baltimore's CCTV system. Claims 15% reduction in crime through active monitoring. 4 pages.


• ACLU Review of Surveillance Cameras 2008: Reviews numerous studies and contends that meta-analysis demonstrates that surveillance cameras offer no benefits. Report, 13 pages.


• Washington DC CCTV Article 2008: Washington Post shares details on pricing, number of cameras, use and results to date. Article, 2 pages.


• San Francisco Bay Area CCTV Review 2007: Provides details on the frequency of CCTV camera use in San Francisco and in comparison with other systems in the Bay Area. 5 pages.


• Survey and Summary of CCTV Studies by EPIC 2002: Civil liberties research center provides an overview of issues involved and a review of findings and statistics available.


• Glascow CCTV Study 1999: Demonstrates CCTV cameras had no impact on reducing crime or solving cases during the test period of 1994/1995.3 pages.


• Guardian London CCTV Review 2008: Reports that only 3% of street crimes are solved with CCTV; mentions that new program is now solving 15%-20% of cases in limited areas. Article, 2 pages.

About the author: John Honovich, PSP, is an independent researcher and consultant focused on the world of networked video surveillance. He is author of IPVideoMarket.info and has previously worked in product development and management positions at security technology companies such as 3VR and Sensormatic.