-
- Kable, Tuesday 26 May 2009 15.50 BST
An academic review of 44 research studies by the Campbell Collaboration, funded partly by the Home Office, said camera systems are effective in cutting vehicle crime in car parks, when combined with better lighting and the use of security guards, but of little impact in city and town centres and on housing estates.
So it is unfortunate that Britain spent around £500m on CCTV systems in the decade to 2006. One study within the review found that a 30 camera system in Cambridge city centre scheme had no effect on crime but led to an increase in its reporting to the police.
This provides a clue as to why CCTV has been used so heavily in Britain over the last decade or so: it is a highly visible way for the authorities to appear to be doing something about crime. In the way that police officers walking around residential areas seem to please the public while having no impact on criminality, street cameras are an example of 'security theatre', systems and processes which have little use but are visible and reassuring.
CCTV is popular with many. Although a camera is clearly not able to stop a crime taking place, it may discourage it, or provide evidence of one. The current government also seems to have relished the way cameras annoy civil liberties campaigners, as that makes it appear tough on crime regardless of the consequences – and, in this case, regardless of efficacy as well.
Public backing for cameras is also boosted by the use of footage by broadcasters, both for news items on court cases (of crimes which were clearly not stopped by the cameras filming) and for programmes about policing based heavily on CCTV footage. The latter are often entertaining, but while police forces may appreciate the cheap PR and broadcasters the cheap programming, subsidising them is not the best use of public funds.
It is fairly easy to understand why street cameras are, on their own, ineffective. Determined criminals can take countermeasures such as moving outside their range, or wearing clothes or hats that hide the face. Cameras are only fully effective in controlled areas, where for example staff can insist on the removal of motorcycle helmets, such as takes place in banks – or, as the Campbell study found, in guarded car parks. There is also a case to be made for the use of cameras in transport hubs, where the output can be analysed to monitor flows of people for safety reasons, and to look for unusual behaviour for security purposes. But again, this is only likely to work in a closed area, rather than on open streets.
Fear of crime is rarely rational, and some might argue that if street cameras reduce that fear, they are justified even if they are ineffective. But given that CCTV has accounted for much crime prevention spending, by the Home Office, local authorities, police forces and by the private sector, it is highly likely that other methods have been underfunded. This may well have indirectly increased crime, by neglecting better ways to prevent it.
The Home Office's funding of this study is welcome. It should change its funding of crime prevention to a much wider range of techniques as a result, and pay for more openly published studies of how they compare. Some techniques are likely to be simple, such as neighbourhood crime prevention work, while others, such as support for drug users, are not technology based. However, there is certainly a place for ICT, such as better data mining of information on crime or establishing the secure communications needed to enable agencies to work together. Technology vendors should see this as an opportunity.
