Counting the cost

Town centre CCTV schemes always provide a good source of material for debate. Over the past ten years of rapid growth we have heard a cacophony of competing claims and counter claims – all of them revolving around the singular theme that CCTV either 'works' to reduce crime in the locality or that it doesn't work. The system 'owners' (ie the local authorities and the police) usually state that town centre CCTV systems certainly make the area safer, reduce crime and – importantly – reduce the fear of crime.

Another (but no less vociferous) theme concerns the perceived threat to civil liberties. We have been bombarded by claims about Big Brother and the emergence of the so-called 'super surveillance society'. This aspect has been further confused by the squabbles over the use of digital recordings.

Town centre CCTV systems are an emotive subject and various groups have lined up on either side of the argument. That said, only one truism is agreed upon by all parties concerned – there's not enough proper, balanced evidence available to support any one of the viewpoints expressed over and above another.

In itself, this is quite extraordinary given that the UK boasts the greatest number of public space CCTV systems in the European Union (EU). Some estimates put the number of town centre systems at 1,400, with central Government providing more than £205 million to fund them. Local partnerships have contributed a similar amount of matching funding, and are currently struggling to meet more than £50 million in annual running costs.

There are of course many good reasons as to why town centre CCTV systems are installed and supported. However, none of them manage to raise as much attention as the media's favourite pre-occupations of crime, funding and civil liberties. This is somewhat regrettable, as the reasons overshadowed may offer a better picture of the role of town centre-based schemes.

The overriding concern about town centre CCTV systems is their contribution to the battle against crime. This emphasis is not the fault of the media, but of politicians. Since the inception of public space CCTV, both central and local Government has used it as a high profile tool in the PR campaign to address rising crime statistics, and the general public's increased fear of crime. Indeed, such is the 'spin' associated with town centre CCTV as a crime reduction measure that by 1997 the bulk of the Government's crime reduction budget was being spent on it.

That said, this expense hasn't been accompanied by any reliable evaluation of its success against any agreed crime reduction targets. Inevitably, this has led to regular claims that town centre surveillance schemes are an ad hoc response to political stimuli. An opinion echoed by the House of Lords back in 1998.

Thankfully, this unsatisfactory state of affairs is now being tackled such that some clarity might at last appear on the horizon. A formal, independent evaluation of the impact of town centre schemes on crime, disorder and the fear of crime is being conducted by researchers at Leicester University's Scarman Centre, with the final report due next year.

Local financing of surveillance
Aside from the well-worn topics of crime reduction, civil liberties and funding, there are a host of other factors involved in the establishment of town centre surveillance schemes. The most important is that the Government has been giving money to local partnerships. This could be described as temptation or self-interest depending on your point of view, but it's a sure-fire method of attracting attention to public space CCTV.

For the past 15 years, central Government has provided funding through the Safer Cities Initiative, the CCTV Challenge and latterly by way of Crime Reduction Partnerships. Central Government funding is undoubtedly used to coax local authorities into carrying out a political programme. Although this is something of a 'perverse incentive' for local authorities, it still provides a 'win-win' scenario for all partners involved.

The main point of interest lies in the qualifying conditions for these funds, as well as others including EU structural funds. Not only is the funding intended to help reduce crime but, more significantly, it's designed to encourage the development of economic enterprise and community life. Such largesse is indeed 'Hobson's choice' for our many and varied cash-strapped local councils. It's also a perfectly legitimate objective for local partnerships. If CCTV can bring finance and employment to the local environs, then it's obviously something deserving of support.

Not surprisingly, the main supporter of the 'magic bullet' effects of town centre CCTV systems has been the security industry itself. CCTV has proven to be a real goldmine for systems manufacturers, and the market has witnessed exceptional growth as a result. The British Security Industry Association has claimed that CCTV is "a powerful tool in deterring and detecting crime, and reducing the fear of crime". However, the Association also notes that it's "not a cure for all ills".

Regardless of this caveat, it has still proven somewhat difficult to dispel the claim that town centre schemes are a solution emanating 'straight from the manufacturers' womb'. The creation and maintenance of British jobs – including my own – is, in any case, a commendable activity.

The security industry's trade journals have played a significant part in spreading the good news about town centre systems, carrying a stream of uncritical reports.

They have an obvious vested interest in doing so given the advertising revenues that are generated through CCTV manufacturers and suppliers. There's nothing wrong with that, though. It's simply another economic benefit to be derived from CCTV.

Being seen to act on crime A close examination of the available literature shows that supporters of town centre CCTV systems have consistently made a number of other claims. These relate to the public opinion in favour of CCTV, the economic well-being of the local area and improving an area's image.

Doing next to nothing about crime is not an option for central or local Government. Why, then, can’t the support for town centre CCTV schemes be acknowledged as an honest response to a major issue? The fact that they may not be proven to be particularly e

That said, these points have never received the same degree of coverage as crime statistics, funding or civil liberties issues. The general public clearly wants the systems to work, and want something to be done to arrest crime and the fear of it. Opinion polls have demonstrated this on many occasions. The media, who ignore any inconvenient facts to the contrary, regularly reinforce this support.

Regardless of any research evidence, town centre CCTV systems are strongly supported by local partnerships and central Government. They are popular because they assist in tackling a range of important local concerns. In reality, there is very little attempt by any of the partners involved – including the police – to claim that town centre CCTV systems actually reduce crime.

Their popularity stems from other considerations rounding on financing, economic benefits, public opinion, partnership building and the management of town centres.

Town centre CCTV has been described as the classic example of local authorities being seen to be doing something so far as security is concerned. Although this can be taken as a dismissive remark, it's surely also a legitimate action. Doing next to nothing about crime and the public's fear of crime is not an option for central or local Government. Why, then, can't the support for town centre schemes be acknowledged as an honest response to a major issue? After all, the fact that it may not be proven to be particularly effective is not a good reason for rejecting its accompanying benefits.

Town centre CCTV is claimed to create a 'feel good' factor, although that's something of a fictitious concept with little evidence to support it. Nevertheless, town centre CCTV systems give an impression that something is being done to combat the fear of crime – which in itself has almost become pathological. The vandalism and graffiti associated with this can be directly linked to fears about economic recession in town centres.

Local politicians know that there is extensive public support for CCTV systems, and rightly regard surveillance set-ups as a necessary component of an area's utilities. Public space CCTV is now regarded as part of the overall community jigsaw, and everyone wants a piece of the puzzle. The demand is normally driven by a 'keeping up with the Jones'-style approach. Both the local community and the local police agree that CCTV is a "good thing", and fully support it. In blunt terms, if there's no town centre system, the public will ask: "Why not?"

Local economic benefits
Many of the reports published to date on town centre CCTV have mentioned its perceived economic benefit for the neighbourhood. This is certainly an important matter for the local partners, despite it having been derided as 'part fashion, part desperation'.

There's no doubt that people in towns without CCTV feel vulnerable and are cajoled down a certain route by local pressures, particularly from the local media.

Politicians and businesses believe that there are local economic benefits to be gained by supporting CCTV systems. All town centres are in competition with one another, and to this end there's a widely held perception that the lack of a system indicates a second class area.

A CCTV system is a very clear sign of investment in the local community. Indeed, some local councils can point to impressive rises in employment in those areas covered by the cameras.

The flexibility of CCTV systems also assists in the general management of town centres. There are numerous instances of helping shoppers, finding lost persons and summoning ambulances, etc. Council officials can view city centre camera images, enabling them to keep the area tidy by identifying any illegal fly-posting, rubbish tipping or graffiti.

Above all, the police value town centre CCTV for its management capabilities. With its powerful archive potential, it's recognised as a very useful part of their operational toolkit. CCTV has played a major role in investigating crimes, and has often resulted in a saving of police costs. Both of these are obvious reasons for the police to support CCTV systems.

In essence, the case for town centre CCTV systems is simple. They provide both local and national surveillance-related jobs. They bring additional funding into the local economy. They reassure the public, and they help in the management of town centres and, of course, in catching crooks.

Let's face it. Town centre schemes are funded and supported for a number of good reasons. Those reasons may not enjoy the same degree of prominence afforded to crime reduction and civil liberties, but they are real and tangible reasons when considered at the local level.

On this basis alone, town centre CCTV systems must surely be seen to be a valuable asset for the community. Let's not over-analyse the subject though, because we risk throwing out the baby with the bath water.