Patrick Baldrey and Kate Painter investigate whether the image of closed circuit television as a weapon against crime has become distorted.

Watching them watching us

Recently, the largest CCTV network in Europe was launched in Angus, Scotland. The 51-camera network cost £1m to set up, covers specific areas of seven towns and, according to the Scottish home affairs minister Henry McLeish, 'crime and the fear of crime in the area will be reduced'. But will it?

Without doubt, CCTV schemes are perceived by many to be a vital weapon in the fight against crime and disorder. There is hardly a town or city centre without a CCTV scheme monitoring public use of the streets.

While camera installation is justified by many uses, it is the presumed deterrent to crime and disorder that remains the primary objective. However, some local authorities are starting to question the benefits versus the costs.

CCTV is assumed to be effective in reducing crime and increasing safety, but sound evidence is hard to come by. Most of the claims for the crime-reducing effects of CCTV are based on post-hoc, amateurish projects carried out by parties who may feel under pressure to justify installation and maintenance costs.

The costs of CCTV schemes vary with the geographic area covered and the technical sophistication of the network installed. Nonetheless, some average costings can be gauged. A standard town centre scheme consists of approximately 20 cameras and costs £250,000-£350,000 to install. To monitor such a system 24 hours a day, seven days a week costs £80,000-£100,000 per year. The total cost of monitoring current town centre schemes in 1996 was put, conservatively, at £23M per year. With the proliferation of new schemes this is expected to rise to £100M by 2000.

These costs, borne primarily by local authorities, are considerable and will be for years to come. But just how effective are they in reducing crime?

Unlike locks, bolts and security fencing, CCTV is not a physical barrier to crime. Consequently, politicians and council officials need to be aware of what it is about CCTV which might reduce crime and in what places that potential can most effectively be delivered.

One possible way CCTV could reduce crime is by deterring offenders who will wish to avoid being seen, recognised, apprehended and convicted if caught on camera. If this increases their perceived risk of offending, they decide not to offend or to offend outside of the range of the camera. This proposition rests on two assumptions. First, offenders and the rest of the public are aware that the cameras are installed and operating. Second, offenders must rationally weigh up the costs and benefits of committing crime and decide to desist.

With regard to levels of public awareness, research reveals that between one-third and two-thirds of the public are unaware that cameras have been installed. With such low levels of public awareness, it is unlikely that perceived risks of offending are heightened, crime deterred or public safety enhanced.

Even in areas where the public are aware of cameras, confidence in the deterrent effect has been found to be low. A Home Office study found that people perceived CCTV would be unlikely to deter shop break-ins, assaults, disorderly behaviour, vandalism and theft, because criminals will do it anyway'.

Equally, evidence shows that the vast majority of offences caught on camera relate to impulsive, disorderly and aggressive behaviour, which tends to occur when offenders are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. These are hardly circumstances in which offenders are likely to rationally calculate the risks of offending and be deterred by CCTV.

One evaluation of CCTV on crime in Newcastle, Birmingham and King's.Lynn was carried out by the Home Office with mixed results. It found that in those areas covered by the cameras property crime reduced in Newcastle-upon-Tyne and King's Lynn, but overall crime levels in Birmingham remained relatively unchanged. The effect on theft from the person in all three places was negligible or negative. There was some displacement of personal crimes to areas not covered by the cameras in Birmingham and an increase in theft from vehicles occurred in these same areas.

Thus, if crime is simply being moved to surrounding areas or displaced to different crime-types, it is not being reduced overall. In addition, the study concludes that even if effective, any initial reduction in crime fades over time. Meanwhile, the exorbitant capital and maintenance costs, like the cameras, roll on and on.

But if the crime deterrent and reduction outcomes of CCTV are questionable, it can still be argued that CCTV is an effective tool of detection, because it leads to the identification, arrest and conviction of those who commit crime.

There are some highly publicised cases where serious offences have been caught on camera and this has facilitated the arrest and conviction of offenders. But these cases are atypical. The use of cameras to detect an offender after an event are rare. Besides, this is hardly an effective way of impacting on crime - if the purpose of the cameras is primarily preventive, then quite clearly they have failed.

The overpowering evidence from numerous studies is that cameras are used to deal with small-scale, disorderly, public nuisance incidents. This is not to underestimate the negative impact of disorder on fears for personal safety, but it is important to ask whether expensive surveillance equipment is the most appropriate or effective way to deal with the problem.

Fear of crime and concerns for personal safety are important issues in their own right. Irrespective of the impact of cameras on crime, it could be argued they are justified because they make people feel safer. But the presence of cameras can also have the reverse effect of sending out a non-verbal message that the area is unsafe and fears for personal safety may increase.

There is some limited evidence that CCTV can play a part in reducing fear and increasing street use after dark, but it is fair to say that the topic has been inadequately researched. One study found that 35% of people felt safer in the streets during the day and 48% felt safer at night after installation of CCTV. Yet, this still leaves a majority of those surveyed who reported that the cameras had made little difference to their personal safety, day or night.

Concern about the effects of surveillance cameras on civil liberties has not received much attention. However, it should be noted that while public support for CCTV is considerable, it is by no means unanimous. A study carried out in Cambridge prior to camera installation, revealed that almost a quarter of those surveyed were worried about the civil liberty implications of CCTV: 37% disliked the idea of being watched; 24% feared greater police and state control over their lives and 18% were concerned about the control and accountability of CCTV schemes.

It was also noted that the public thought that other measures such as police patrols and improved street lighting would be more effective than CCTV in preventing crime and increasing personal safety.

The most recent study to look at CCTV effectiveness and civil liberties was conducted in three areas of the country and almost 600 hours of monitoring were observed. With regard to crime, the authors noted that out of 900 targeted surveillances the police were deployed on only 45 occasions which led to only 12 arrests, of which seven related to minor offences of disorder,

Camera operators were found to target certain social groups on the basis of stereotypical assumptions rather than crime. Being young, male and black attracted camera attention, especially if the individuals loitered in groups.

CCTV has not been thoroughly evaluated and most claims that it reduces crime are based on very questionable data. For example, there is a heavy reliance on police recorded crime to measure effect. Not only may the statistics gathered not entirely match the areas covered by the cameras, but also, crime levels in small areas fluctuate up and down from week to week, irrespective of any crime prevention measure. Consequently, without any controlled comparison area, it is impossible to know what would have happened in a particular location, without the installation of CCTV.

Furthermore, CCTV schemes are frequently accompanied by improved public lighting. This confounds any possible effect of CCTV on crime and public safety, especially since numerous studies carried out throughout the country have found either a reduction in crime and/or fear of crime following lighting installation alone. So even if crime does reduce, the effects of CCTV cannot be separated out from the effects of improved lighting.

In general, CCTV is little more than a political placebo; there to show that politicians, keen for votes, are doing something about crime. For the most part, too little thought has gone into why, where and how CCTV could be most effective.

Often the justification for introduction of CCTV in one town centre is because the town next door has got one. This is not the way to spend scarce resources, especially when there are so many pressing demands on the public purse.