Subscriber Discussion

A Council In Australia May Dump CCTV Because It Has Not Reduced Crime

LM
Luke Maslen
Dec 08, 2016
IPVMU Certified

In my home city of Melbourne, Australia, a local council installed an expensive CCTV system following a tragic murder that gained a lot of media attention. The council is now considering discontinuing the system as a review has reported no reduction in crime.

I think this is an interesting story as CCTV was used to solve the original murder case but subsequently has not been helpful in reducing crime. Councillor Samantha Ratnam "favoured the funding of crime-prevention programs rather than CCTV when the cameras were first proposed."

How does one determine if CCTV really will lead to a reduction in crime before installing it?

The full article can be viewed here

(1)
JH
John Honovich
Dec 08, 2016
IPVM

How does one determine if CCTV really will lead to a reduction in crime before installing it?

It is a great question. Many try to do so but it's very hard to determine what causes or reduces crime, since (obviously) so many factors come in to play (changes in economy, changes in policing tactics, etc.) that what generally happens if it crimes go down, each participant uses it to claim success for their element.

A very long time ago (like 8 years) I did a review of such studies in: Is Public CCTV Effective?

Since then, there have obviously been some other studies but I do not recall many that were thoroughly done.

Avatar
Marty Major
Dec 08, 2016
Teledyne FLIR

This is one of my pet peeves about municipal surveillance... once paid for and installed, inevitably the munis seem compelled to commission a study that purports to justify the spend. Even if it was DHS money that was spent and not even their own funds.

Invariably, these 'studies' will take the arrest records of the specific area where the cameras are installed and compare the before and after results/numbers.

When there is an increase in arrests in these areas, 'commissions' like the one in the OP are formed to 'fight for the rights of the consumer' to show that the costs of muni surveillance are not justified. Taking nothing else into consideration.

When there is a lowering of arrests in the areas where cameras are installed, the powers that be point to this and claim that surveillance cameras reduce crime. Taking nothing else into consideration.

imo, there are a myriad of other causal factors that will dictate amounts of street crime in any geographic area. Surveillance cameras will not change the aggregate levels of crime beyond the angles of view that they cover.

Surveillance cameras are like umbrellas.... they can not change the levels of rain, but they can - sometimes - act as one layer of protection from rain/street level crime.

Avatar
Marty Major
Dec 08, 2016
Teledyne FLIR

yes I am aware that DHS does not apply in this case.

I read that same story yesterday and was annoyed about it then. Especially because, if you read the entire document they linked to in that story, you had to turn your head 90 degrees to the left to read the documents they included in their justification for not spending any more money on the project. :(

Luke just fired me up by posting the story today. :)

KR
Keith Roscarel
Dec 10, 2016

Firstly,

I would point out the technology (the platform) is only one factor in surveillance. The others being Process and People.

On the process side:

  • Is there a robust process in place for the communication and handoff of incidents to l

On the technology side:

  • ocal/regional police?
New discussion

Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.

Newest discussions