Although it is common to talk about closed-circuit television (CCTV) as if there were just one type, nothing could be further from the truth; indeed, it is doubtful whether any two systems or schemes are ever the same. For example, the technical specifications of cameras differ markedly, so they vary considerably in terms of what and how much they can ”see” and how reliable they are. Also, the process of transmitting images from a camera to a place where they can be viewed and analyzed affects the quality of the images, and there are a variety of ways to do the analysis. Then there is the ability of the operators—those who watch the screens and act on what they see. They have vastly different skill levels and commitment to the job; and the quality of management of both the equipment and the people involved varies.
The different types of cameras have different capabilities. Redeployable cameras move around a location and can be positioned at hotspots. The term mobile cameras usually refers to those that are located in vehicles. Then there are cameras that are static in one location, although some of these may ”pan, tilt and zoom” or rotate 360 degrees and so on. This is by no means an exhaustive list of all the features of CCTVs, but it does indicate reasons why CCTV systems are unlikely to be the same and why the police, like anyone else, need to be wary of a casual approach to supporting or denigrating CCTV systems (see, for example, Gill 2006; Gill and Spriggs 2005; Nieto 1997; Nieto, Johnston-Dodds, and Simmons 2002; Pierce 2002).
In discussing CCTV, therefore, one has to be aware of these differences. Unfortunately, studies of CCTV have not always been explicit about the characteristics of the schemes in question and this complicates comparisons. Nevertheless, there is now a rich body of research that offers important insights and this has helped us to understand how CCTV can be used. This is especially the case in Europe where some countries—the United Kingdom being a case in point—have embraced CCTV wholeheartedly such that CCTV is commonplace in workplaces, public areas including nearly all city centers and most town centers, and many residential streets. Therefore, although privacy issues loom large in concerns about the use of CCTV (see, for example, Davies 1998; Goold 2004; McCahill 2002; McCahill, and Norris 2003; Norris and Armstrong 1999), this does not amount to a collective view that it is a bad thing. Most evidence suggests the public likes cameras, and the speed with which the police issued pictures of those suspected of the Summer 2005 London transit bombings appears to have reminded the public in the United Kingdome of their value. But just how effective is CCTV, and how useful is it to the police?
The Effectiveness of CCTV
The research evidence on the effectiveness of CCTV produces mixed findings. Of course, one has to be careful about what is meant by ”effectiveness.” There are a variety of ways of measuring effectiveness. The most commonly used is that of impact on crime rates, something with which the police would clearly identify. However, one review that assessed the most scientifically rigorous studies found that CCTV was wanting in this respect (Welsh and Farrington 2002). It concluded that CCTV did have some impact on crime rates in some American apartment blocks and when implemented alongside other measures in car parks, but overall supporters of CCTV had little to be positive about.
But there are many other measures of CCTV as a variety of studies have shown (Gill and Turbin 1999; Tilley 1993) and as the police have discovered over time. For example, CCTV can make people feel safer and can be used to manage crowds and (controversially) to monitor staff. Its images can be used to track suspects, and this may help deter offenders because they fear they will be caught. These are but a few examples; the real question is, do they work?
Recently a major study of CCTV, sponsored by the British Home Office, reported its findings (Gill and Spriggs 2005) and they were instructive. For example, of the thirteen project areas studied, six showed a reduction in overall crime relative to the surrounding area, but in only one of these could the reduction be confidently attributed to CCTV, and that project was a car park scheme focused on reducing vehicle-related crime. There were a number of successes across the schemes although few distinct trends were apparent. In general, alcohol-related offenses were less likely to be reduced than theft and other premeditated offenses.
In general, fear of crime was found to be reduced after the implementation of CCTV yet rarely at a rate greater than experienced in each project’s respective control area (that is, in a comparison area that did not have CCTV). Generally, public support for CCTV decreased after the public had experience with it, mainly because members of the public became more realistic about what it could do. For example, the number of individuals who believed CCTV would lower crime went down substantially postimplementation. For the most part, good studies of CCTV have painted a somewhat less than favorable impression of its effectiveness.
But examining why such a mixed bag of results occurs gives clues, and important ones, as to how CCTV may be used in the future. The truth about CCTV is that it is quite a complex measure, there is a lot to get right, and it is a relatively new measure and one about which there is very little information. Many of those who have used CCTV have done so with little experience and little guidance, and this has certainly contributed to disappointing results (Gill and Spriggs 2005). However, as a knowledge base grows, so does the opportunity to influence improved performance.
Policing and CCTV: The Future
Although the police at a strategic level have long endorsed CCTV in the fight against crime, at lower levels they have experienced problems. Offenders who have been interviewed about CCTV have tended to play down its effectiveness, because they can wear disguises, because all too often no one is looking at the screens, and most importantly because the images are not of a sufficient quality to support a prosecution of them (Gill and Loveday 2003). Of course, where the image is good, it is a good friend of the police, but often images are not that good. There is another problem, there are so many images—many cameras generate images 24/7—that to both assess them all and respond to each incident would be impossible. The police have to prioritize, and this can cause disquiet. Certainly some British residents were disappointed that CCTV had not marshaled a police response more often, and this in part led some to lessening of their support for it (Gill and Spriggs 2005).
In a different way, the police are still learning to trust CCTV. They have certainly been skeptical about the quality of operators, and some police just don’t trust them. Remember also that the police perform a range of duties in public space, and these can now be monitored. Every decision police officers make can be scrutinized in detail in court later. This can work both ways: It can protect the police, but it can also magnify their errors.
CCTV in Perspective
Whole topics have now been written about CCTV, and in this short article it has been possible to discuss just a few issues about its use in policing. What is clear is that CCTV is a valuable tool with enormous potential to assist good policing and highlight poor practice. But there are a few things that need to be underlined. First, it is a technical measure and technology is moving fast; its usefulness is likely to be enhanced along the way, but there is a need to keep abreast with developments in technology. Second, although a technical solution, CCTV needs people to help make it work, and those people need special preparation to act as operators. Third, CCTV is complex to use, there is a lot to do to get it right, and the police and society generally are only just beginning to understand how to use it for the best. So while there are advocates of CCTV who herald it as the silver bullet in the fight against crime, in truth, it is still maturing and we have to do a lot more to integrate it into mainstream policing if its full potential is ever to be realized.
