Home
Bookshelves
Philosophy
Ethics in Life and Vocations (Whitman)
6: Criminal v. Racial Profiling and Surveillance
6.2: Evaluating the Use of Public Surveillance Cameras for Crime Control and Prevention

6.2: Evaluating the Use of Public Surveillance Cameras for Crime Control and Prevention

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 80184

$ \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $ $ \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} $$\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$ $ \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}$ $ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$ $ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$ $ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$ $ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$ $ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$ $ \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$ $\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$ $ \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}$ $ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$ $ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$ $ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$ $ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$ $ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$ $ \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$$\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}$

(Taken directly from Urban Institute Report).

Purpose

The Urban Institute studied the surveillance systems in three cities, Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; and Washington, D.C. In response to this knowledge gap, The Urban Institute (UI) undertook a rigorous process and impact evaluation of the implementation and use of public surveillance cameras for crime control purposes; The results of the evaluation, funded by U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office), illustrate the variety of ways in which cameras can be implemented and used by jurisdictions and suggest that these differences affect the degree to which cameras reduce crime (UI, 2011).

Working With an Outside Evaluator

In-house evaluation provide by the COPS Office and the Urban Institute and this study relied heavily on literature review of European and U.S. cities.

Developing an Evaluation Plan

The evaluation process of this study involved the synthesis of qualitative data obtained from interviews with 44 stakeholders representing the planners and public officials involved in each city’s decisions to acquire and employ this technology, as well as the law enforcement officers, civilians, and other local criminal justice practitioners engaged in camera use. This was supplemented with interviews, document review relating to implementation and monitoring use. The UI team observed monitoring practices and use of the cameras by patrol, detective and supervisory personnel of the police department (UI, 2011).

Findings on the implementation and use of public surveillance systems varied from each municipality as the City of Baltimore saturated the test area and provided 24 hour monitoring of the live video stream. Chicago employed an extensive wireless network of cameras and enabled access to all sworn officers; while Washington implemented the fewest cameras in specific high-crime areas, restricting the monitoring due to privacy safeguards (UI, 2011).

Identifying Goals and Objectives

The process evaluation component of the present study is based upon qualitative data and is organized around the following research questions: Why do cities choose to invest in public surveillance technology for public surveillance purposes? What do they hope to gain from their investment? What factors play a role in decisions about the types of cameras that are purchased and how they are deployed and monitored? How is the public involved in decisions to invest in and use public surveillance cameras? How are cameras used to support real-time arrests, and how are they used for investigative purposes? What are the advantages and limitations to using public surveillance cameras for prosecution purposes?

Thus, the process measures collected during the course of this evaluation were guided by the types of information that would be most helpful to those cities that are considering investing in public surveillance technology, as well as those that are looking to improve or expand current public surveillance use (UI, 2011, p.9).

Evaluation Experiments

Prior evaluations have contributed greatly to the knowledge of how best to measure public surveillance technology’s impact on both crime and possible displacement or diffusion effects. The impact evaluation relies on quantitative data on reported crimes, demographics, land use, camera installation locations and types, and cost data. UI researchers used these data to conduct both general and crime-specific time series and difference-in-differences analyses to examine the impact of public surveillance technology on crime.

Researchers also employed detailed location-specific diffusion and displacement analyses to determine the degree to which crime was reduced, diffused, or shifted to nearby areas. Stemming from findings from the impact analysis, a cost-benefit analysis of camera use was conducted in two study sites, Baltimore and Chicago. The cost-benefit analysis explored whether the costs associated with public surveillance technology are proportionate to any reductions in crime and increased efficiencies in investigations that may be attributed to the intervention (UI, 2010).

Data Collection

The methodology employed in this evaluation combines the collection of both qualitative and quantitative data. The qualitative component is embodied in a process evaluation designed to document the installation and use of the public surveillance systems in three U.S. cities: Baltimore, MD; Chicago, IL; and Washington, D.C. Interviews with jurisdictional and law enforcement leaders, sworn officers, detectives, prosecutors, and civilian camera monitors, along with the review of policies, budgets, and other documents, form the backbone of the process evaluation.

As indicated above the evaluation process of this study involved the blending of qualitative data obtained from interviews with 44 stakeholders representing the planners and public officials involved in each city’s decisions to acquire and employ this technology, as well as the law enforcement officers, civilians, and other local criminal justice practitioners engaged in camera use. This was supplemented with interviews, document review relating to implementation and monitoring use. The UI team observed monitoring practices and use of the cameras by patrol, detective and supervisory personnel of the police department (UI, 2011).

Summary of Project

The Baltimore study realized a reduction of crime of over 35% and the stakeholders considered the cameras an effective tool. Chicago study indicated a 20% reduction in crime and the average monthly crime counts relating to drug and robbery crimes in the highly publicized area decreased by approximately 33% and violent crimes in the camera area decreased by 20%. In both locales they had study areas that showed no decrease as well. However the drop in the crime rates outweigh the camera cost as illustrated in the Chicago study the city saved $815,000 dollars a month in criminal justice and victim costs.

Washington, D.C. camera program was instituted in 2002 primarily for monitoring events. Due to the public outcry regarding citizen privacy the system is not monitored as the other two studies and the officers in D.C. feel it is hit or miss. The value of the comparison demonstrates the camera is smart technology and smart policing but the cameras alone are insufficient to reduce crime (mere presence). The systems must be monitored 24/7 and information gleaned from the surveillance systems must be provided to patrol officers or as in the Chicago study each patrol sector monitors camera information from their patrol vehicle.