New Report: Public Surveillance Cameras Worth The Investment

Oct 17, 2011 by admin

WASHINGTON—Public surveillance cameras are successful at reducing neighborhood crime depending on how they are set up and monitored, according to a new report from the Urban Institute on the usefulness of surveillance cameras.

The report’s objective was to fill the knowledge gap that exists when it comes to a municipality’s return on investment when deploying surveillance cameras. “With jurisdictions across the country tightening their belts, public safety resources are scarce–and policymakers need to know which potential investments are likely to bear fruit,” the study’s authors wrote.

The study, which was released on Sept. 19, evaluates the surveillance systems in three cities: Baltimore, Chicago and Washington, D.C. To read the full report, download it here. Following is a brief summary.

In Baltimore, which in 2005 deployed more than 500 cameras in its downtown area, the authors “found significant declines in total crime, violent crime, and larceny downtown from January 2003 through April 2008,” the report states.

The report estimated the surveillance program cost Baltimore a total of $8.1 million as of April 2008, while it saved about $12 million in criminal justice and victimization costs, which means for every dollar the city spent on the surveillance system, it saved $1.50.

In Chicago, the report considered roughly 2,000 cameras deployed in 2003 in the Humboldt Park and West Garfield Park neighborhoods. The cameras have flashing blue lights and are connected by a wireless network to allow officers to view live feeds. While the cameras significantly reduced drug-related and violent crime in Humboldt Park, where an average of 53 cameras are deployed per square mile, the report’s authors found no reduction in crime in the West Garfield Park neighborhood, where an average of 36 cameras were deployed per square mile, “which could have influenced officers’ ability to interrupt crimes in progress, intervene, make arrests, and deter potential offenders.”

Despite the lack of results in West Garfield Park, the report still determined the investment was worth it, estimating that Chicago saved $4.30 for every dollar it spent on the surveillance cameras in both neighborhoods, which was a total of roughly $6.8 million as of August 2006.

In Washington, D.C., an early adopter of surveillance cameras for crime prevention, “cameras alone did not appear to have an effect on crime,” the report states. One major difference in D.C. cited by the authors as a possible reason for their ineffectiveness is that the city council imposed restrictions on the surveillance systems, including what monitoring officers could and couldn’t look at, because of privacy concerns.

In conclusion, the report’s authors enumerated a number of recommendations based on their research:

•    Balance utility with privacy: “When deciding how to monitor the cameras, jurisdictions must balance privacy and utility–guidelines that are too restrictive can limit what the system can do, but residents must be protected against invasion of privacy.”

•    Involve the community at the outset: “Developing and disseminating written policies on how the footage will be used and secured can go a long way toward building public support.”

•    Don’t underestimate costs: “Stakeholders at all three sites stressed the cost of installation, maintenance, and monitoring–which turned out to be much higher than the cost of the cameras themselves.”

•    Anticipate technology upgrades: “Camera technology is constantly evolving, offering greater resolution and more useful features with each new version. … Planners need to anticipate and budget for such upgrades.”

•    Start small: “Installing cameras in one or two areas first lets police figure out how best to place cameras and monitor them before going to scale.”

•    Consider location: “While camera locations should be guided by high-crime hot spots, practical concerns will also play a role.”

•    Invest in live monitoring: “Active monitoring allows police to zoom into a scene to capture important details of a crime that may be missed if the camera is simply programmed on an automated tour, panning back and forth. But active monitoring takes a lot of time and resources and raises public concerns about privacy.”

•    Prioritize training: “Detectives and prosecutors need to be trained on how to use camera footage and how to retrieve it,” the report states. “They should also learn the limitations of video evidence and how it typically enhances, rather than serves as a substitute for, witness testimony.”