There are two sides of the coin when it comes to the effectiveness of video surveillance. Many people consider it to be an essential way to deter and cut down on crime where others believe that it is an invasion of privacy that has shown no real proof that it is effective. With two opposing viewpoints, actual evidence becomes imperative backed with real numbers that can either prove or disprove the value of video surveillance. The Chicago police department thinks they have an answer.
The Chicago Police Department says that Operation Virtual Shield, the city’s network of public and private surveillance cameras, has led to more than 5,500 camera-related arrests since 2006. The key behind their video surveillance efforts relies on cooperation. Chicago’s police department works with private and public partners that also use video surveillance for a myriad of reasons whether it is for safety or crime. The police department has access to all of these different video surveillance feeds which increases their scope of coverage of the city exponentially. The second key aspect to the success of their video surveillance or “virtual shield” is the live monitoring that is handled by their personnel assigned to the task or other on duty police officers in the field.
The Urban Institute report – Evaluating the Use of Public Surveillance Cameras for Crime Control and Prevention – examined public surveillance in Baltimore, Chicago and Washington, D.C., to gauge the technology’s effectiveness.
It found that cameras reduced crime in most areas examined:
- Roughly four months after cameras were installed in Baltimore in 2005, crime dropped, on average, by more than 30 incidents per month, and declines held steady through 2008. As of April 2008, the system’s estimated total cost was $224,000 per month for 36 months, but the estimated savings in criminal justice costs – police, court and corrections costs as well as victimization costs – was $334,000 per month.
- In the Chicago area of Humboldt Park, the crime rate dropped 20 percent two months after cameras were installed in 2003 (there was a brief spike in crime the first month). Average monthly crime rates fell by one-third.
- There was no change in crime rate in the Chicago area of West Garfield Park, but the cost-benefit of Humboldt Park’s cameras made up for both. The city spent about $190,000 per month on cameras but saved $815,000 a month.
- In D.C., the cameras had no effect on crime.
Not all districts used or monitored the video surveillance in the same way. The jurisdictions that had the most success were the one that monitored the video surveillance feeds live. In D.C. where there was no effect on the crime rate, they only viewed video surveillance footage that was recorded. There was no way they could stop a crime as it was happening which in essence made the video surveillance cameras lose their ability to act as a deterrent.
Video surveillance by itself, just like with any other technology, can be completely ineffective if not used in the right way. With live monitoring and shared video surveillance feeds via private and public partnerships, video surveillance can not only be an effective crime fighting tool a proven cost saving measure as well.