An Evaluation of CCTV

The following three reports form the basis of the BBC 'More or Less' programme on CCTV in May 2008 but include more detailed evidence than was presented over the air. These reports have been edited and/or summarised to provide the most useful information for Sociology A2 Crime and Deviance.

Assessing the impact of CCTV

Home Office Research Study Martin Gill & Angela Spriggs, University of Leicester [Gill, 2005] The Leicester researchers evaluated 13 Closed Circuit Television Camera (CCTV) projects (comprising fourteen separate systems) implemented in a range of contexts, including town centres, city centres, car parks, hospitals and residential areas. The projects were funded as part of a Home Office CCTV Initiative. A main objective was to measure the impact of the CCTV projects on crime and fear of crime. Specific findings include:

Of fourteen systems evaluated, only one showed a decrease in crime which could be attributed to CCTV, and that focussed on reducing vehicle crime in car parks. Knowing that cameras were installed in an area did not necessarily lead to a reinforced feeling of security among respondents. When questioned beforehand 15% of the public said that they would venture out more once CCTV was installed. The reality was different, in fact much less did so. On the other hand, only 1 per cent of respondents said they avoided places once CCTV had been installed. Some crime types showed an increase following CCTV installation. This sometimes indicated that the presence of CCTV had brought a greater number of crimes to the attention of the police and thus represented a success. The proportion of respondents happy or very happy about having cameras in their area declined in nine areas following their installation; in five of these the reduction was statistically significant. However, the level of support of CCTV remained high at over 70 per cent of the sample in all but one area. In residential areas, the proportion of those who perceived the impact of CCTV to be positive decreased following its installation.

Many projects did not have clear objectives. Partly this reflected an uncritical view that CCTV was a good thing and that specific objectives were unnecessary. Some systems failed to engage properly with end-users, most notably the police. As a result of the lack of guidance on how many cameras to bid for, the number and density of cameras varied widely between schemes. However, systems with a high density of cameras did not necessarily produce a greater reduction in crime. Images were sometimes extremely useful to the police in their work, helping to identify offenders.

CCTV in London
Michael McCahill & Clive Norris Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice University of Hull [McCahill, 2002] (The 4.2million CCTV cameras in Britain claim) In the Putney sample (based on Putney High Street and Upper Richmond Road) , 41% of premises had CCTV systems in operation. These institutions had an average of 4.1 surveillance cameras. Assuming that the extent of CCTV coverage in Putney is broadly representative of CCTV coverage across the whole of London, it can be estimated that 41% (102,910) of the 251,000 businesses registered for VAT in London would have a CCTV system. Between them these businesses will have 421,931 surveillance cameras. Add to these the number of surveillance cameras operating in other public institutions (open-street systems, transport, hospital, schools etc.) it would not be unreasonable to guesstimate that Londoners are monitored by at least 500,000 CCTV cameras. This means that in London (with a population of 7.2 million residents) there is approximately one camera for every fourteen people. From these figures it's suggested that in the UK (with a population of almost 60 million) there are at least 4,285,000 cameras. Legality: In terms of the legality of CCTV systems just over half (53%) of institutions with CCTV systems in the Putney sample had signage. However, the majority of these signs were not in accordance with the law as stated in the Data Protection Act 2000. Many of the signs, for example, were not clearly visible and legible to members of the public, did not have adequate specification of the data controller (i.e. identity of the person/organisation responsible for the scheme and contact details), and did not give details of the purpose of the scheme (Data Protection Act 2000: 8-9). Based on these criteria less than one-quarter (23%) of the signs in the sample were in accordance with the law. If these figures are an accurate reflection of the legality of CCTV systems in the capitals major businesses, it would mean that 75,124 (73%) of the CCTV systems in Londons business space are illegal.

Crime prevention effects of closed circuit television: a systematic review

Home Office Research Study Brandon C. Welsh and David P. Farrington [Welsh, 2002] This review summarises the findings of previous studies from both the USA and Britain on the effectiveness of CCTV in crime reduction. Forty six relevant studies were assessed according to strict methodological criteria: that CCTV was the main intervention studied; that there was an outcome measure of crime; that crime levels before and after the intervention were measured; that the studies included a comparable control area. The authors considered only 22 of these surveys to be rigorous enough for inclusion in their meta-analysis. The review draws conclusions on the effectiveness of CCTV generally and on its effectiveness in terms of specific settings (e.g. car parks, public transport or city centres). Of the 22 included evaluations, half (11) found a desirable effect on crime (reduction) and five found an undesirable effect on crime (increase). Five evaluations found a null effect on crime (i.e., clear evidence of no effect), while the remaining one was classified as finding an uncertain effect on crime (i.e., unclear evidence of an effect). In city centre and public housing areas in the UK, CCTV had a very small but significant effect on crime in the five UK evaluations in this setting (three desirable and two undesirable) The four evaluations of CCTV in public transportation systems present conflicting evidence of effectiveness: two found a desirable effect, one found no effect, and one found an undesirable effect on crime. In car parks, there was evidence that CCTV led to a statistically significant reduction in crime of about 41 per cent in experimental areas compared with control areas. However, for all of the studies in this setting other measures were in operation at the same time as CCTV. Most studies did not measure either diffusion of benefits or displacement (the concept that crime is simply 'moved on' to another area instead. Overall, the best current evidence suggests that CCTV reduces crime to a small degree (4%). CCTV is most effective in reducing vehicle crime in car parks, but it had little or no effect on crime in public transport and city centre settings In Britain, CCTV is the single most heavily funded non-criminal justice crime prevention measure. Over the three year period of 1999 through 2001, the British government has made available 170 million for CCTV schemes in town and city centres, car parks, crime hot-spots and residential areas. In previous years (1996 through 1998), CCTV accounted for more than three-quarters of total spending on crime prevention by the Home Office.

Broad Conclusions: We have no real idea of the extent of CCTV surveillance in the UK at present nor do we have much idea whether CCTV either prevents crime (except in certain situations such as car parks), or help solve them although clearly in some cases images have helped the Police identify and convict people. Furthermore there is evidence from elsewhere that suggests that CCTV in car parks merely moves car crime into non-CCTV covered areas. Because we have no data on how effective CCTV is, we cannot begin to measure its costeffectiveness against other crime prevention measures (for example Police 'on the beat' or Community policing initiatives) and detection strategies (such as DNA evidence). Finally although it seems the public welcome CCTV at first, believing it to be a 'magic wand', the evidence suggests that they are somewhat more realistic after CCTV has been installed in their area. Furthermore the evidence suggests that 'fear of crime' is not reduced by the installation of CCTV.