To receive a presentation from the Panel’s external advisers on the effective use of CCTV for community safety purposes.
Minutes:
The Panel received a presntation from Dr. Tim Pascoe from PRCI about the use of CCTV for community safety purposes. PRCI were a “spin out” company from the University of Leicester and specialised in looking at issues concerned with community safety and, in particular, CCTV. They could provide a range of services including research, consultancy, evaluation and training and facilitation.
They were currently assisting the Council and the Safer Communities Partnership by reviewing the operation of CCTV systems within the Borough and this included providing support for the scrutiny review on the issue.
Where CCTV systems had been successful, they had clear objectives and sustainable strategies. CCTV as a crime prevention measure appeared to have a life cycle. It was necessary to renew and update systems from time to time and to market them so that the public remained aware of their existence otherwise deterrent value would be lost. CCTV had greater preventative effects on some types of crimes, such as car park crime, than others. It had little effect in deterring disorder but could be effective in assisting an effective response to it. It was most beneficial when used in conjunction with other crime reduction measures and tailored to the local setting. It did not always have to be used to just deal with the “hard” issues – it could also be used for finding lost children, helping people find their cars and monitoring traffic.
There was clear evidence that CCTV made people feel safer and that they had considerable faith in its deterrence value. There were now over 4 million cameras in operation within the UK and their numbers had trebled within the last 3 years. The National Evaluation of CCTV had shown that CCTV could work but in a lot of cases, it did not work as well as it could.
Many projects suffered from not having clear objectives. The existence of funding for CCTV had created pressure to bid for it during its early years, often in the absence of reliable intelligence indicating where CCTV would be likely to have the most effect. Schemes needed to be properly managed and this required:
· Access to technical expertise
· The full engagement of end-users
· The appointment of a suitable project manager
· Independence.
There was a shortage of suitably qualified people to manage schemes. Independence was of particular importance as there could often be tensions between partners involved in schemes.
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. Too little coverage tended to prevent efforts to track offenders for detective and evidential purposes. However, systems with a high density of cameras did not necessarily produce a greater reduction in crime. Camera coverage was linked to camera positioning and needed to take account of the nature of the area to be monitored and the objectives of the CCTV system
Police intelligence was invaluable when positioning decisions were taken, as was the input of the operators who were to monitor them when extending existing schemes. Operators sometimes found that the cameras were not positioned in the best way to enable them to perform the tasks that were set for them. Many errors in the positioning of cameras arose from over-reliance on the technical manager to the exclusion of other parties. Only a minority of projects had a structured procedure for deciding the positioning of cameras.
Decisions could be led by installers and systems could sometimes have serious defects. For example, some cameras were unable to cope with artificial lighting in the hours of darkness. Systems also needed to be “future proof” and this could mean having sufficient capacity and the capability of switching from analogue to digital recording methods. In addition, there needed to be proper maintenance to ensure that cameras continued to work effectively and were not obstructed.
The use of CCTV needed to be supported by a strategy outlining the objectives of the system and how these would be fulfilled. This needed to take account of local crime problems and prevention measures already in place. It was important that there an understanding of:
· How CCTV should operate
· Its effectiveness; and
· The role of evaluation
CCTV could reduce the fear of crime and prevent it occurring by impacting on risk and opportunity. It could prevent crime occurring by the early identification of trouble spots. Where crime did take place, CCTV could lead to an increased actual rate of offenders being caught. CCTV pictures could, for instance, be used as evidence for prosecution of offenders. In addition, CCTV could provide added value to other measures that were in place.
CCTV systems could meet their objectives by managing at least these factors:
Independent review of schemes was important in order to ensure that they were as effective as they could be and to help guide future investment. It was particularly useful to look at the following matters:
What difference had the scheme made? This was tied strongly to the aims and objectives set for the scheme. The impact of the scheme should be measurable as far as possible, so there needed to be consideration of targets and the collection of baseline data relevant to the scheme’s specific aims and objectives. This stage raised the questions that the evaluation should aim to answer.
How will it be known whether it has made a difference? The evaluation should be evidence-based, including measurements, exemplar materials, and records wherever possible.
Was it worth it? At a suitable time, perhaps one year after the implementation of the scheme, it was useful to take stock and review. Consideration needed to be given to any implementation problems and how they were resolved, the cost-effectiveness of the scheme and how the experience might inform future evaluations.
It was crucial that the context was considered so that it was clear what effects were as a result of CCTV and what might have happened anyway. The context would also determine how transferable a particular approach might be to a different situation.
Dr Pascoe circulated details of the timetable for the work that PRCI were doing in Haringey. As part of their work, they were available to assist and guide the Panel in their work. In answer to a questions, he stated that he felt that the CCTV system in operation in the London Borough of Camden was an example of particularly good practice.
The Panel thanked Dr. Pascoe for his contribution.