Is Public CCTV Effective?

Author: John Honovich, Published on Jul 07, 2008

While we continue to spend more on public CCTV systems, the debate on CCTV effectiveness has reached a polarizing and inconclusive standoff. On the one side, you have a number of studies and leading thinkers who clearly contend that CCTV systems are ineffective. On the other, you have numerous municipalities who are weekly green-lighting new CCTV projects.

This report offers key findings from the 20 top studies/articles in the field and offers practical recommendations on how to optimize the use of public CCTV systems.

A directory of the 20 top papers in the field are included at the end of this document. This report is based on those papers.

Key Findings Summary

  • The expectation that CCTV systems should be deployed to reduce crime rather than solve crime has created huge problems.
  • While the studies show serious doubt on CCTV's ability to reduce crime generally, a strong consensus exists in CCTV's ability to reduce premeditative/property crime
  • CCTV is consistently treated as a singular, stable technology, obscuring radical technological changes that have occurred in the last 10 years
  • Differences in per camera costs are largely ignored, preventing policy makers from finding ways to reduce costs
  • Routine comparison of police vs cameras is counterproductive

Practical Recommendations Summary

  • Stop claiming that CCTV can generally reduce crime
  • Optimize future public CCTV projects around crime solving rather than crime reduction
  • Optimize future public CCTV projects around material and premeditative crimes
  • Target technologies that support crime solving and material/premeditative crimes
  • Focus on minimizing cost per camera

Finding: Crime Reduction vs Crime Solving

The overwhelming majority of studies focus on analyzing CCTV's ability to reduce crime. The general approach is to take current crime statistics for a region and compare those statistics to the period after installation of CCTV. A number of techniques are used to adjust to control for general changes in crime and to track displacement or diffusion of benefits to other areas. Nevertheless, the focus of all quantitative analysis has been on reducing crime.

This is the mirror opposite of the private sector. In the private sector, the overwhelming majority of CCTV systems are justified by their use in solving crime. It is investigations where most private businesses find value and return in their CCTV systems. For businesses, only a very small percentage of CCTV cameras are ever even watched. The systems pay for themselves by periodically being able to identify or prove a criminal activity.

This indicates a failure of expectations for public CCTV systems. In the private sector, when CCTV effectiveness is discussion, the assumption is usually that CCTV is used for investigations. By contrast, the focus on public CCTV effectiveness being determined on reducing crime sets a dangerous expectation that is difficult to achieve and likely to create dissatisfaction within the community.

The problem seems to be the fault of the original advocates of these systems, rather than a deficiency of the testers. The academics and researchers performing these tests were reacting to the expectations that the proponents of these systems made originally.

Get Video Surveillance News In Your Inbox
Get Video Surveillance News In Your Inbox

In the recommendations section, I will examine how we can move beyond this unproductive and problematic situation.

Finding: Reducing Crime Generally vs Premeditative/Property Crime

The media's main focus has been on whether or not CCTV reduces crime as a whole. This often has turned the issue into an all or nothing debate. The testing has also focused on the general impact on crime reduction but notable attention has been paid to different types of crime.

Widespread consensus exists that CCTV is effective in reducing premeditative/property crime. All the studies acknowledge this, even the ACLU's which otherwise is extremely negative towards CCTV. The most frequently cited example is the ability to reduce thefts in parking lots.

By contrast, the same studies widely agreed that CCTV demonstrated little or no affect on reducing crimes of passion. Incidents like public drunkenness or acts of rage generally did not seem to be affected by the presence of CCTV cameras.

This fits a broadly accepted rational actor model and the effect that CCTV cameras has on rational actors. Since CCTV cameras increases the risk that a criminal will be prosecuted for a crime, the criminal will respond accordingly. The cameras will affect the perceived risk/reward calculation. Common sense indicates that this impact is much more likely for property/premediated crimes than it would be for crimes of passionate, where by definition, people are not calculating the consequences.

Rather than engage in political debates over the issue in general, we should use this more nuanced knowledge to optimize our use of CCTV.

Finding: CCTV as Singular, Stable Technology

The studies overwhelming treated CCTV as a singular, stable technology. Only the UK Home Office Report of 2005 even acknowledged the issue of technological change. The rest of the studies do not even discuss differences in technology available. I do not fault them as the evidence available is limited to even conduct such a test. Nevertheless, differences in technology can make an extreme difference.

The studies cover a very broad time period. The oldest study I found was from 1994 with most of the studies available being performed in the period from 2000 – 2004.

The problem is that CCTV technology has experienced a dramatic transformation in that time period. This is somewhat similar to the type of change experienced with mobile phones going from big, bulky, limited and expensive to slim, powerful and ubiqutious. It is quite unfair to assess the question is CCTV effective, in any form, without factoring in the differences in the type of technology used.

The examples found in the studies were fairly shocking compared to today's mainstream CCTV systems. The clear majority of systems employed in the studies used VCRs. Even when systems used DVRs, most were recording under 2 frames per second. All of the systems used standard definition cameras. While none of the reports discussed the type of transmission systems, given that almost all the tests were from 2004 or earlier, it is extremely likely none of them were using IP networks for transmission. Though limited, the best discussion on this topic in the literature is the 2005 UK Home Office Report.

While none of this is the researcher's fault, not factoring changes in technology obscures crucial differences. In the recommendations section, I explore what types of technologies and how they can impact system effectiveness.

Finding: Differences in Per Camera Costs Largely Ignored

While most studies cited general cost numbers, the cost per camera was largely ignored. The most frequently cited number is the amount the UK home office has spent on CCTV (500 million pounds). However, only the 2005 UK Home Office study actually broke down the cost per camera. Since the studies were focused on determining if the crime rate was reduced, this element is understandable. Nevertheless, communities could save significant money and improve effectiveness by more carefully tracking the cost per camera.

Understanding the cost per camera is important to recognize changes in technology and to identify waste. The 2005 UK Home Office report indicated that cost per camera ranged from $7,000 pounds to $33,000 pounds for cameras installed in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The study does not clearly explain the cause of the cost differences.

In my experience deploying similar systems, the main driver of costs from this era is the transmission systems. Because these cameras are generally outdoors and distributed throughout a city, transmission systems need to be built to send the video from the camera to the monitoring center. The solution of choice in this time frame was proprietary analog fiber transmission systems. Such systems required expensive transmission equipment and almost always laying of new fiber. This routinely generated costs of thousands to tens of thousands.

By contrast, today, the solution of choice for transmission is IP networks. IP networks dramatically reduce the cost of transmission. IP networks replace proprietary analog fiber systems with low cost commodity IP equipment. IP Networks often can share existing fiber networks or connect to a telecommunication carriers system to greatly reduce or eliminate the need for new fiber or construction.

Finding: Cops vs Cameras Comparison Counterproductive

A frequent sentiment expressed by interviewees in both articles and studies is the preference for police officers versus cameras. While this is obviously understandable and I expect most every reasonable person would agree that police officers are preferable to cameras, this omits a crucial element.

Since police officers are so much more expensive than cameras, a comparison between the two is very misleading. According to the 2005 UK Report, the annualized cost per camera ranged from 600 to 3000 pounds. This is 1/15th to 1/80th the cost for a yearly police officer (including benefits, training, equipment, etc). In actuality, then the comparison is more like dozens of cameras versus an officer. Furthermore, given the significant price reduction in CCTV systems since most of the tests occurred, the comparison is now between hundreds of cameras and a single police officer.

Examined at a macro level, a similar distortion is apparent. Many of the articles and studies cite the 500 million pound UK Home Office spending over the last decade. Nevertheless, 500 million pounds for CCTV represents less than 1% of the spending on police officers during that time period.

Even if all funding on CCTV was transferred to hire new police officers, it would only increase funding by a very small percent. And, of course, a small percent increase in police officers would not be expected to dramatically decrease crime either.

This is an area where CCTV proponents have created unrealistic expectations that actually undermine their own cause.

Now, let's examine some recommendations:

Recommendation: Abandon emphasis on general crime reduction

Proponents of public CCTV systems should abandon the emphasis and claim that CCTV systems can reduce crime generally. Even if proponents ignore the fact that studies demonstrate this, clinging to this claim only creates greater debate and dissension.

By abandoning this claim, it will heal some of the major discord and allow all parties to focus on better uses of CCTV. Given the vastly improved quality of today's CCTV systems at greatly reduced prices, this should be reasonable to accomplish.

Recommendation: Focus Projects on Crime Solving

Just like the private sector has broadly adopted CCTV by focusing on solving crimes, the public sector should too. This would save communities money as certain features or cameras could be eliminated and designs could be focused on areas and technologies that help solve crimes.

This would simultaneously ease the impact on privacy as less attention and resources would be placed on trying to monitor systems live and thereby the risk of monitoring the innocent public.

Recommendation: Focus Projects on Material/Premeditative Crimes

To the extent that CCTV is used to support crime reduction, such efforts should focus on material/premeditative crimes.

Limiting the locations covered and monitored live to those areas with high rates of these types of crimes will maximize the probability those systems will be effective.

Recommendation: Target Technologies that Support Crime Solving

Though historically the camera of choice has been a PTZ, systems should emphasis the use of megapixel fixed cameras.

A PTZ, or Pan/Tilt/Zoom camera, can be controlled by an operator to look in many different directions and areas. PTZ cameras are favored by security operators as it allows them to control the camera in live monitoring. Two significant downsides exist for PTZs: One, they require a dedicated operator to use the cameras, incurring significant operation cost. Two, PTZs are generally bad for producing evidence because they miss everything expect for the area where the camera is momentarily positioned.

Megapixel cameras are far better fit for public places and crime solving. The cameras being used in the study are standard definition units with very limited abilities to view details. Much like the transition from film cameras to today's digital super high resolution cameras, CCTV systems now routinely employ megapixel cameras that provide dramatically greater detail. Such detail is key for public places that usually cover large outdoor areas. In this scenario, megapixel cameras give you the benefits of PTZ cameras because the detail allows zooming with the benefits of a fixed cameras' ability to always capture video of a set area. This is critical to crime solving because the camera needs to have an image if we are to use the evidence to identify or prosecute a crime.

Recommendation: Minimize Cost Per Camera

Given what we have learned from first generation systems and the advances in technology available today, we should be vigilant about tracking and minimizing the cost per camera. We now have a good sense of what works and does not work. We should optimize around that and ensure that we can keep costs per camera low.

The two key elements in minimizing costs is (1) ensuring that IP networks are leveraged and that (2) unnecessary funding is not spent for needless bells and whistles. By doing this, municipalities should easily be able to deploy systems for between 2,000 and 4,000 pounds per camera. This would drop the cost by 60% or more relative to historical standards.


With our extensive experience and knowledge, we must re-position goals, modify designs and economize our efforts:

  • Set the goals appropriately on tasks that can succeed: Crime Solving and Property Crime Reduction
  • Select technologies such as IP and megapixel cameras that improve performance
  • Ensure spending per camera is controlled and benefits from new technologies

With these practices, we can ensure both effective CCTV systems and a positive economic contribution to society.

Directory of CCTV Effectiveness Studies

The debate on the effectiveness of CCTV is amazingly complex. Dozens of studies done over more than a decade with frequently conflicting positions makes the situation hard to assess. This problem is magnified by the difficulty of finding reference material.

This directory provides a catalog of as many publicly available studies and reports I can find on the web.

3 reports cite this report:

Prominent Blowhard Attacks Video Surveillance on Mar 02, 2010
Bruce Schneier's biases against surveillance cameras are clear, despite his lack of evidence. Schneier is an important public figure as he is one...
Are Public CCTV Cameras an Utter Fiasco? on Jul 21, 2009
The UK's love-hate relationship with CCTV cameras continues. This time, the head of the UK's police video imaging division called their use an...
How Obama Impacts the Security Industry on Nov 04, 2008
The security bubble is burst. With the election of Obama, US demand for security products will drop significantly as subsidies for security...

Related Reports

Ban of Dahua and Hikvision is Now US Gov Law on Aug 13, 2018
The US President has signed the 2019 NDAA into law, banning the use of Dahua and Hikvision (and their OEMs) for the US government, for US...
Eagle Eye Networks Cloud VMS Tested on Jul 26, 2018
Eagle Eye has become one of the most significant players in the industry in the past few years: Eagle Eye's Owner Acquired Brivo Eagle Eye...
$25 Million US COPS SVPP School Security Funding Examined on Jul 24, 2018
The US Congress has authorized the School Violence Prevention Program (SVPP) to fund various security measures and training to mitigate active...
Axis Adds LPR - License Plate Verifier Examined on Jul 24, 2018
Axis is finally releasing their own License Plate Recognition software application called License Place Verifier, but it has some significant...
Directory of Video Surveillance Startups on Jul 18, 2018
This directory provides a list of video surveillance startups to help you see and research what companies are new or not yet broadly known entity...
Amazon Ring Alarm System Tested on Jul 16, 2018
Amazon Ring is going to hurt traditional dealers, and especially ADT, new IPVM test results of Ring's Alarm system underscore. IPVM found that...
Hikvision Wins Chinese Government Forced Facial Recognition Project Across 967 Mosques on Jul 16, 2018
Hikvision has won a Chinese government tender which requires that facial recognition cameras be set up at the entrance of every single mosque...
4 Most Difficult Camera Installs (Statistics) on Jul 12, 2018
Heavy housings, cumbersome brackets, heavy ladders required, and tricky field of view requirements will cause difficulties no matter the camera...
Arecont Acquisition By Costar on Jul 11, 2018
Arecont Vision acquisition by Costar Technologies has been approved by the court, concluding the bankruptcy process triggered by Arecont's...
Amazon Ring Partners With Rapid Response For $10 Monitoring on Jul 10, 2018
Amazon's Ring alarm system is using Rapid Response for monitoring, IPVM has confirmed in our testing. Amazon is arguably the most feared new...

Most Recent Industry Reports

SimpliSafe Violating California, Florida, and Texas Licensing Laws on Aug 14, 2018
IPVM has verified that DIY security system provider SimpliSafe, founded in 2006 and acquired in June of 2018 at a billion dollar valuation, is...
Cut Milestone Licensing Costs 80% By Using Hikvision and Dahua NVRs (Tested) on Aug 13, 2018
Enterprise VMS licensing can be quite expensive, with $200 or more per channel common, meaning a 100 camera system can cost $20,000 in VMS...
Nortek Sues SDS, Battle Over Unpaid Bill and Cancelled Lines on Aug 13, 2018
Nortek and SDS legal battle continues. As IPVM reported, SDS sued Nortek alleging bribery and antitrust violation. However, Wave fired back at SDS,...
Uniview Intrusion Analytics and VMD Tested on Aug 13, 2018
IPVM's IP Camera Analytics Shootout featuring Avigilon, Axis, Bosch, Dahua, Hanwha, Hikvision created some ill will with a Uniview distributor who...
ADT Employees Protest ADT CEO on Aug 10, 2018
So many ADT employees were so upset with ADT's CEO speech reported on by IPVM, that ADT's CEO was forced to send a mass email to employees to...
Axis / Avigilon Legal Battle Rises on Aug 09, 2018
In what is shaping up to be high-powered, will-not-back-down battle, Axis and Avigilon are squaring off in multiple legal contests. In 2017, IPVM...
Camera Focusing Tutorial on Aug 09, 2018
A camera's focus is fundamental to quality imaging. Mistakes can cause important problems. In this guide, we explain focus issues and proper...
Dahua Ban Response: NOT Chinese Government Owned on Aug 08, 2018
Dahua has responded to the US Congress passing a US government ban on Dahua and Hikvision's products. While Dahua offered the now standard...
Bad Move: ADT Markets Rival Amazon on Aug 08, 2018
Amazon may be lining up ADT as its next victim but ADT is happy to promote Amazon. Amazon has made major moves recently, including acquiring...

The world's leading video surveillance information source, IPVM provides the best reporting, testing and training for 10,000+ members globally. Dedicated to independent and objective information, we uniquely refuse any and all advertisements, sponsorship and consulting from manufacturers.

About | FAQ | Contact