The CCTV crime prevention bubble is set to burst unless extra money can be found to maintain public systems, argues Peter French.

Video Nation

Police Review (3/7/98)

Closed circuit television (CCTV) is the largest growth area within the security industry which, in turn, is one of the largest growth sectors within the UK economy.

However, the CCTV bubble is likely to burst unless extra revenue can be found to maintain public systems. In this respect, there is a tremendous business potential for the private security sector and, in the medium to long term, local authority partnerships. Within these initiatives may be an opportunity for income generation for the police service.

A cultural change has developed within Britain where most people are not averse to being watched by the 'electronic eye' as they go about their day-to-day business if it is in the interests of community safety. Politicians and members of the public have seized upon the 'feel safe factor' of CCTV and have put pressure on local authorities (and several police authorities) to install CCTV cameras in many of Britain's town centres.

However, the installation of CCTV in public places is expensive. Some local authorities are deterred by the start-up cost and others that have installed CCTV are voicing concerns about meeting ongoing expense.

Promises of funding from the private sector have not always materialised and the burden once again fails upon the local authority and local residents. In an effort to reduce costs, some local authorities have switched to record monitoring only; a reactive and less effective approach to CCTV. Others cannot afford to repair cameras that are out of action.

CCTV should not be considered-a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Local authorities and partnerships must look upon CCTV as a long-term plan and ensure sufficient finance is in place for at least five to 10 years.

Local authorities are faced with continued budget cuts and those that have funded CCTV systems, or wish to install them, are restricted by current legislation over how to raise funds to finance the schemes.

Local authorities are statute led. They welcome the powers afforded to them in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The Act allows communities to benefit from the extensive reductions in reported crime following the introduction of CCTV. Unfortunately, the extension of powers has not been matched by an increase in the Standard Spending Assessment or Grant, through which central government supports council spending. This has left local authorities in the familiar position of juggling too few resources against increasing demands for services. Some local authorities claim the rigid capping regime prevents them from raising revenue from the local council tax payer. This, in turn, denies councils the opportunity to offer the community the chance to finance additional community safety projects.

The National Non-Domestic Rate (NNDR), through which business contributes to local services, is determined on a national basis and is not a vehicle for local authorities to support CCTV system costs, as most businesses object to the current level of rate and are not generally persuaded that an increase is cost effective.

Most local authorities take a broad view of supporting the revenue costs of CCTV but the challenge of 'best value', currently being promoted by the Government, may produce an interesting response from the community.

If the authorities are to respond to the challenge, councils will be asking residents to compare and contrast services, making choices as to what is provided - for example, does the fear of crime outweigh the provision assisted fares? Equally, the success of reducing crime and the progress towards improving community safety makes continuing funding CCTV surveillance costs a defensible issue. However, the sources of revenue for CCTV or somewhat limited.

If local authority funding is limited, where should partnerships look to seek extra revenue? The police have benefited enormously from the installation of town centre CCTV, but police authorities are equally restricted on budgets.

Contrary to some opinion, the police do invest in CCTV systems by employing staff to copy and store evidential recorded material, training operators and, of course, by responding to calls from operators. The cost to each police force may exceed £100,000 annually. Potential for further funding from police authorities may thus be somewhat restricted. So what other avenues of funding should be explored?

European funding for CCTV is an extremely grey area and one that has not been exploited so for. Some practitioners state that such funding is not available. Inquiries with departments responsible for the European budget, however, state that funding may be available but that partnerships have not made out a valid case for it.

For example, Object 1 to 6 of the European Structural Fund does not allow for the sole funding of CCTV but does allow for economic regeneration. An example may include an area of industrial decline where investment is required. Development of the town centre may be included within the investment and therefore CCTV could be included as part of that package.

Other examples may include where town A has been economically successful and an adjacent town, B, may have suffered as a result. Town B may qualify for European funding in an attempt to generate the local economy so that it can compete with town A.

Closer to home, some towns may qualify for funding under the New Commitment to Regeneration, formerly the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB). The terms will be different to that of the SRB. Reliance will be placed on local authorities providing evidence of commitment to social exclusion, community safety and the targeting of areas of high depravation. CCTV may form part of a wider bid under the New Commitment to Regeneration.

The Home Office CCTV Challenge Competition has now run its course and there are no plans to continue this popular funding. However, there is likely to be a different Home Office challenge scheme in the near future, which will take more of a holistic approach. General crime prevention initiatives, not just CCTV, will qualify for funding as part of the challenge.

Other areas for funding may include the Heritage Fund, where buildings or collections are of importance and CCTV is required to protect them, and the National lottery fund, where registered charities may bid for funding under certain circumstances. The Millennium Commission may also consider bids to fund major and small-scale developments. In all cases, the bidder would have to produce a strong argument to obtain funding from the above bodies.

The New Deal for Schools - formerly the Schools Renewal Challenge - may provide funding for the installation of CCTV at schools. Monitoring costs could be included in the bid and this may assist local authorities with running costs. There are also other innovative opportunities to obtain revenue, although, as discussed, local authorities are currently at a statutory disadvantage.

Prior to developing a town centre CCTV system (or when trying to identify ongoing revenues for established systems), it is imperative that consultation takes place with local residents and commerce. The local press may assist by distributing questionnaires or eliciting public opinion. Within the questionnaire, it is important to try to identify ways of creating extra revenue - for example, will local residents welcome paying an extra 10p on car parking charges (a very contentious issue among town centre retailers, particularly with the popularity of out-of-town shopping centres and their lure of free parking)?

Partnerships should decide whether to lease or buy a CCTV system. Both methods have advantages. Leasing may work out cheaper in the short term but may be more expensive in the longer term. Leasing will come with a maintenance agreement. It is imperative that within the budget, managers allow for a 24 hour maintenance agreement, not only with the suppliers of the hardware but also with the transmission company. A public CCTV scheme that malfunctions at Christmas or on New Year's Eve could lead to embarrassment, undetected crime and a dissatisfied public.

The monitoring of cameras and the design of the control room are important. Although cameras work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year; rarely go sick; do not take maternity leave, refreshment or smoking breaks; and do not go to the lavatory - they don't actually do anything. It is the operators that produce the results required.

Some partnerships have contracted out the monitoring process to security companies. This has distinct advantages and can work out more cost effective - for example, it is the contractor's responsibility to cover sickness, leave and deal with disciplinary matters. Some local authorities have disabled people operating the cameras and thus additional central government funding may also be forthcoming. Regardless of who operates and monitors the cameras, it is imperative that they are properly trained and motivated. The control room should be designed with a view to expansion in the medium term, for reasons that are explained later.

Although the cost of maintaining a CCTV system is a burden to some, if not most, local authorities, there are tremendous entrepreneurial opportunities currently available to the private security sector and local authorities to generate income to fund ongoing costs - for example, what industries and organisations are established within the area? Without doubt, some of these organisations will welcome the opportunity of 24-hour surveillance, 365 days of the year, without the expense of employing extra security personnel.

Other areas of potential revenue include hospitals, schools, privately-owned shopping precincts, out-of-town retail outlets, car park operators, public transport operators (including bus and rail stations), sports organisations, licensed premises and nightclubs.

The requirements for the installation of public CCTV systems can be incorporated into planning permissions and/or liquor, music and entertainment licences. In Harlow, Essex, for example, following a presentation by myself and meetings with the local authority a major property company donated £60,000 to the partnership to install CCTV in the town centre. The financial burden to local residents was further reduced when a local shopping mall owned by a separate property company undertook to monitor the town centre CCTV within their own control room for a nominal cost. Cameras were already monitored within that control room and it made sense to amalgamate the two systems.

There is an excellent relationship between the private security company and the police in the running of the scheme. Occasionally, the police work alongside security staff in the control room for several hours to promote good relations and working practices. Other avenues to reduce the cost of monitoring have also been examined. Several major international companies based locally, with their own state of the art control rooms, expressed initial interest at monitoring town centre cameras. The benefits to the companies may have included extra revenue but, more importantly, there was an investment in community safety within an area where most of their employees live.

The private security industry and the police service has perhaps not seized upon the growth potential as much as it could. Most alarm companies have control rooms that monitor premises throughout the country and yet very few companies or local authorities undertake monitoring of CCTV schemes not located in their immediate area. Some may argue that local knowledge is of vital importance, although this can be overcome with proper training. Others may raise the issue of local accountability. However, as long as there is an effective contract and code of practice, and operators comply with data protection restrictions (correctly supervised and policed by the partnership from the local area), lockal accountability should not be an issue.

The opportunities for income generation are endless. Areas of high crime, such as building sites, could be monitored on a temporary basis. Areas where the permanent CCTV is not viable but where there is an increase in vandalism, could be monitored via the use of mobile CCTV. Householders away on business or holiday could have CCTV installed in their property. Motion detectors, with pictures transmitted via ISDN or fibre optic cable, would identify intruders in the premises and provide evidence to the police to help conviction. There would, of course, need to be an investment in control rooms, with sufficient staff employed to undertake those duties. But would it be practical for the police to provide this service?

Opportunities for local authorities to generate additional income are limited. However, there does appear to be a concerted effort by the Government to free local authorities from stringent regulations that prevent them from providing a service to the public for profit. Once these restrictions have been lifted, we may see local authorities take an even more proactive approach to community safety and crime prevention matters.

A partnership approach with the security industry, police and local business may see local authorities, supported by the use of CCTV, take on the role of 'alarm central station' and 'keyholder response' for local commerce and residents. A physical response to alarms by vetted local authority security personnel may also be possible, This will provide valuable income generation to supplement the use of CCTV.

What happens if the restrictions on local authorities are not lifted or the police or the security industry fail to grasp entrepreneurial opportunities? We may witness the decline of a valuable community safety tool - town centre CCTV.

Peter French is an inspector with Essex Police and is a qualified national instructor in surveillance techniques