Doubts surrounding the effectiveness of CCTV have been revived yet again in the wake of critical comments voiced by Dr Kate Painter. Ian Drury reports on a Scarman Centre project that's addressing the issue head-on.
BETWEEN 1996 AND 1998, CCTV ACCOUNTED for over 75% of total Home Office expenditure on crime prevention. Just prior to Christmas, the Government approved a further 250 new surveillance schemes under Round Two of a three-year, £170 million package first announced back in 1999.

The latest grant of £79 million (covering schemes in both England and Wales) would seem to suggest that Whitehall mandarins are firmly in favour of the technology – but is that really the case?

The Treasury is now said to be "concerned" at the continued (high) level of funding enjoyed by CCTV schemes and, to this end, is currently examining the cost benefits of surveillance projects targeting the public domain – ranging from city and town centre schemes to those aimed at monitoring housing, train and bus networks and car parks.

At a time when surveillance projects are under intense scrutiny (the results of a comprehensive study examining the crime prevention effects of CCTV are expected later this month), Dr Kate Painter used the recent British Security Industry Association-backed conference 'Ensuring the Effectiveness of CCTV' to voice her concerns.

Painter – who stepped down from her role as the Home Office's programme director for CCTV and vehicle crime reduction last December – said: "Closed-circuit television does indeed reduce crime to a small degree, but we don't yet know whether it's really cost-effective. What we do know is that CCTV is a costly business."

Gaps in current CCTV knowledge
Dr Painter firmly believes that the forthcoming Home Office research study completed by Brandon Welsh and David Farrington – entitled 'Crime Prevention Effects of Closed Circuit Television: A Systematic Review' – together with 1999's 'Surveillance of Public Space: CCTV, Street Lighting and Crime Prevention' point to problems and gaps in current knowledge.

"The time periods set aside for examining the impact of CCTV before and after installation are too short. Does any effect wear off?" said Painter "In addition," she continued, "most evaluations are borne of small sample sizes, while the analytical techniques employed are either weak or non-existent."

Many studies have had no control areas or comparable data, so there is no assessment of crime patterns in regions where crime may be falling – indicating something other than a 'CCTV effect'"(eg Neighbourhood Watch schemes, police patrolling and targeted burglary reduction programmes, etc).

"Without control areas," added Painter, "there is little evidence as to whether CCTV displaces crime or whether any beneficial impact has spread to areas not covered by the cameras. This is the 'diffusion of benefits' factor, about which we know very little."

Dr Painter – a senior research fellow at the University of Cambridge – pinpointed other omissions in our knowledge about CCTV, including an unclear picture about which types of crime are most/least affected and in which contexts (town centres and car parks, for instance), as well as a lack of offenders' perspectives on the deterrent effects of CCTV.

The views of offenders were included in a 1998 report examining the effectiveness of CCTV in Airdrie. Completed by Professor Jason Ditton and Emma Short of the Scottish Centre for Criminology, the response to CCTV was described as "varied, complex and unpredictable". Ditton and Short stressed it was "hard to establish, in the face of a populist and chiefly amateur onslaught, that CCTV always and in every conceivable way 'works'".

Ditton was also the author of a controversial 1999 study into the effectiveness of CCTV in central Glasgow. Commissioned by the Scottish Office, the study concluded that CCTV was not a "universal panacea" for fighting crime, and was no longer glibly accepted by the majority as being so.

The time periods set aside for examining the impact of CCTV before and after installation are too short. Most surveillance evaluations are borne of small sample sizes, while the analytical techniques employed are either weak or non-existent

However, Ditton added that while some of the more exaggerated claims of the effectiveness of open street CCTV had been put into perspective, it still has a role to play. "Shorn at last of its 'magical' properties, open street CCTV now stands revealed as a believable and probably useful addition to city centre policing," said Ditton. "It can 'work' in limited ways in different situations. Future evaluations might be wise to concentrate on 'how' it might work rather than 'if'".

Thankfully, the Home Office has commissioned researchers at the University of Leicester's Scarman Centre to conduct an evidence-based independent evaluation of 17 of those schemes selected under Round Two of the Government's funding spree. The purpose behind the research study – funded to the tune of £1.5 million by the Home Office's Crime Reduction Programme – is to determine just how effectively each CCTV project works in relation to other anti-crime interventions.

Cost-effectiveness is also being measured, alongside any other effects on the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour.

In addition, the three-year study – which formally began last October – is aiming to assess whether or not there have been any displacement or 'diffusion' effects (ie the knock-on crime reduction benefits experienced in a neighbouring area to one that is covered by CCTV surveillance).

Scarman Centre researchers are keen to point out that the study will pay particular attention to the context in which each scheme is set, taking into account the socio-demographic composition of a given area, the particular crime problems experienced by all relevant parties, the nature and type of the CCTV scheme and its management, communication and co-ordination structure.

'Before-and-after' evaluations
Speaking about the study, Scarman Centre director Professor Martin Gill told SMT: "The problem is that, although quite a bit of research has been successfully completed, much of it has been very small scale, finished on a tight budget or simply hasn't incorporated a 'before-and-after' evaluation. We'll be looking at areas before any CCTV is introduced, and then visiting them again post installation and commissioning. We'll then compare the results with those of a designated control area. In other words, a similar area that doesn't have any CCTV. We'll also complete a 'before-and-after' study here as well."

Gill feels that such studies haven't generally been completed before now as they are expensive to conduct. "If they aren't carried out, though," he warned, "it's very tricky to decipher the impact of CCTV on crime reduction. It's always going to be difficult to come to firm conclusions about the sorts of circumstances in which CCTV works best. Even if you know it works in one place and not in another, what made it work there? We can't answer that question yet, hence this study."

Despite funding from the Home Office and close interest from many other Government departments (including the Department of Local Government, Transport and the Regions), Professor Gill is confident of being able to publish the study's results – whatever 'nasties' might be revealed.

"In any event, it's not a case of saying that CCTV works or doesn't work," stressed Gill. "It's about revealing where CCTV does work and why. Where CCTV doesn't work, what do we need to change to ensure that it does? Clearly, CCTV images are being used to support potential prosecutions, but how might resources be better spent to help the further integration of CCTV with a more effective crime prevention strategy?" Gill is adamant that, if surveillance is proven not to work in certain circumstances, the industry needs to know why – and how that situation can be rectified.

Peter Fry, director of the CCTV User Group, told SMT that he welcomes this latest research project. "In general, I do not believe there's been sufficient in-depth evaluation of many CCTV schemes," suggested Fry, "and in particular those elements of each scheme that make some work while others don't. It's a complicated arena. After all, any CCTV scheme is the sum of all its parts, including the operators' training and skill levels. We need to determine best practice, and then encourage its adoption by installers and end users."

To produce meaningful study results, the seven-strong Scarman Centre research team – including Professor Peter Fisher, Dr Ziggy MacDonald and analysts Polly Smith and Angela Spriggs – is intent on collecting a wide range of information. This will include details of what each CCTV scheme is intended to achieve, what problems a given installation is procured to remedy and what effects each scheme should have. The team is also looking to determine the anticipated and unanticipated impacts of each project.