DEVELOPING A PICTURE OF CCTV IN SOUTHWARK
TOWN CENTRES: FINAL REPORT
By Chris
Sarno, Michael Hough and Marjorie
Bulos Criminal Policy Research
Unit South Bank University August 1999
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank a number of
people who have helped the research team to undertake this piece of
work. Stan Dubeck and Aelswith Frayne were consistently helpful in
providing us with contacts and background information about the
schemes. We would also like to thank Spencer Chainey, Romy Conroy,
Chris Arnold and Sergeants Guy Beattie and Steve Mumford for their
help in mapping areas and compiling crime and disorder data. We are
very grateful to the London Borough of Southwark for funding the
research.
We are additionally grateful to
operators and their managers for being so accommodating throughout
the duration of the research. Finally, thanks goes to all police
officers who agreed to be interviewed and helped to provide data in
other ways.
Chris Sarno
Michael Hough
Marjorie Bulos
SUMMARY
This report sets out the results of an
evaluation of four CCTV schemes in the London Borough of Southwark.
Key findings about the impact on
crime
In assessing the impact of CCTV on
crime, we examined trends in the four 'target areas'. These have
been compared with trends in the 'buffer zones' immediately
surrounding the target area, and with 'comparison areas'. Where
possible we looked at recorded crime rates in the two-year periods
before and after implementation. When we refer to ‘recorded crime’
we have excluded the 20% or so of recorded crimes which could not
conceivably be affected by CCTV. Key findings to emerge across the
sites are:
- recorded crime across Southwark
fell during the implementation period. In the year ending January
1999 it was 5% lower than during the previous twelve months
- in the year following installation
recorded crime in target areas fell by between 10% and 12%
compared to pre-CCTV levels
- recorded crime in the target areas
fell more than in the comparison areas
- with the exception of Camberwell,
reductions in crime across the buffer zones either matched or
outstripped the target areas
- crimes most affected by CCTV were:
burglary, criminal damage, street and vehicle crime.
Elephant and Castle
- there was a 17% fall in recorded
crime in the target area in the two years following the
introduction of CCTV
- recorded crime in the buffer zone
also fell by 17% in this period. The effect of CCTV may have
spread to the buffer zone, or there may simply have been an
overall downward trend in the area regardless of CCTV
- however there was a very steep fall
in street crime (robbery and theft from the person) which fell
from 154 in the year preceding installation to 59 in Year 2
post-installation, which can be attributed at least in part to the
CCTV system
- assaults and public order offences
increased in the post installation period. Some of this increase
may have been the result of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry being
held in the area.
Peckham
- we have been unable to undertake a
full ‘before and after’ analysis of recorded crime data in
Peckham. This is because the CRIS system which provided us with
crime data for this study was not operational until after CCTV had
been installed in Peckham
- some manually collected police data
is available for the ‘before’ and ‘after’ period. Street crime and
burglaries within the field of vision of the cameras fell sharply
in the two years following the installation of cameras
- a ‘before-after’ analysis for the
beat buffer zone (town centre beat areas) was undertaken using
data provided by the Crime Management Unit in Peckham. Data were
only available for the months of August and September for the two
years preceding and following camera installation. These data
showed a 17% reduction in recorded offences between the ‘before’
and ‘after’ periods
- at least in part the falls can be
attributed to CCTV. However the methods used by the police to
collect this data were different from our own and do not take into
account the possible displacement from one type of crime to
another or geographical movement of crime to other adjacent
areas.
Camberwell
- recorded crime in the Camberwell
target area decreased both before and after the installation of
CCTV. It fell by 4% in the twelve months prior to installation and
was down a further 12% in the year following the introduction of
cameras
- there were significant reductions
in street crime, vehicle crime and violent crime although these
had already been decreasing prior to the introduction of
cameras
- following the introduction of
cameras recorded crime in the buffer zone and comparison sector
increased by7% and 3% respectively. These increases may be the
result of a shift in crime out of the target area or alternatively
a natural rise after steep reductions in the previous year’s
figures
- disorder calls to the police
increased by 4% in target area during the post installation
period. This was somewhat less than the 14% rise over the same
period for the buffer zone.
East Street
- recorded crime in the target area
increased by 3% in the twelve months prior to the introduction of
cameras. This was followed by a 10% decrease in the year following
installation
- vehicle crime (down 44) and
criminal damage (down 23) both decreased substantially. There was
a rise in street crime from 156 to 190 offences. This conceals
notable variations by crime type. Robberies halved but thefts from
the person increased from 106 to 164
- recorded offences in the buffer and
comparison zones decreased at a higher rate than the target area
both prior to and after the introduction of cameras. It is
difficult to unpick whether this is the result of a diffusion of
benefits from the CCTV scheme or part of an overall downward trend
in this locality
- there was a 9% reduction in
disorder calls to the police in the target area. There was little
change in the buffer zone.
Control room operation
- few incidents were identified at
the Cerise Road control room, thus detections were low
- questions were raised about
reliability of equipment in Camberwell and East Street
- police said schemes could be used
more effectively and they felt partly to blame for the systems'
limited success in detecting crime
- CCTV controllers had little formal
training in what to look for and what constitutes suspicious
behaviour
- the codes of practice need review
in the light of their operation and the LGIU model code.
Public perceptions of CCTV
- 55% of those interviewed in the
public perception survey believed crime had fallen
- violent attacks and robberies
worried respondents more than other types of crime
- about 90% of respondents said they
felt safe during the day. This fell to about half in the
evenings
- almost two-thirds who knew cameras
were present said they felt safer as a result
- 90% felt CCTV helps to catch
criminals. Two-thirds believed cameras deter crime and make the
public feel safer
The response of local businesses
- 33% of representatives of local
businesses felt there had been a reduction in crime
- those running local businesses felt
the presence of cameras should be more highly publicised
- half of them felt more secure at
work; half also thought customer confidence in the area had
increased
- local businesses were unwilling to
contribute to the cost of CCTV, believing this to be the role of
local and central government
The introduction of Closed Circuit
Television (CCTV) systems into public spaces has been both rapid and
widespread. Research by Bulos and Sarno (1994) for example showed
that 75% of schemes operating in 1994 were less than three years
old. This growth has been fuelled more recently by the Home Office
which has provided financial support believed to be in the region of
£50 million over a four-year period.
In Southwark, systems introduced into
public spaces were primarily intended to deter and police criminal
and anti-social behaviour within a framework of town centre
management. This was prompted by local policies emphasising the need
to reduce crime and fear of crime as part of the regeneration
process. The primary driving force behind CCTV in Southwark, as in
many other localities, has been the local authority, who in
partnership with the police, local businesses and sections of the
community have contributed significantly to the implementation and
operation of systems (Bulos and Sarno, 1996:4).
This report presents the results of an
evaluation of systems in the Elephant and Castle, Peckham,
Camberwell and East Street. The evaluation focuses in particular on:
- the schemes’ impact on levels of
recorded crime
- effect on fear of crime and
consequent behaviour
- operational and management
structures
- influence upon local businesses
- technical performance.
Methodology
The research covered in this report
was conducted between June 1998 and May 1999. A range of information
was collected: statistics of recorded crime and disorder; data from
system logbooks and repair invoices; interviews with the police and
CCTV operators; a survey of town centre users; and a survey of local
businesses in each of the four sites. This enabled us to measure
(with some limitations):
- impact of CCTV on crime, including
any displacement effects
- influence of CCTV on the fear of
crime and on consequent town centre use
- management and operation of the
systems, including codes of practice
- scheme cost-effectiveness
- effect of the scheme on local
businesses.
Crime and Disorder Data
Recorded crime and disorder statistics
were collected with the aid of the Crime Recording Information
System (CRIS) and Control and Despatch Management Information System
(CADMIS). CRIS was introduced in Southwark in February 1996 and
holds crime allegation data. Information on public disorder was
collected from CADMIS. Southwark Council and the three police
divisions use a software package, Omnidata, which enables CRIS and
CADMIS address data to be "cleaned" and geo-coded to a high degree
of accuracy [1].
This enables relatively straightforward data collection for specific
areas and consequent crime mapping. Data was collected for three
principal types of area for each scheme:
- target areas (those within the
field of vision of CCTV cameras);
- buffer zones (surrounding beat
areas) to measure displacement and diffusion of benefits;
and
- comparison areas to provide some
benchmark information on trends, to help address the question of
cause and effect.
Target areas were defined as areas
under direct surveillance within 200 metres of each camera. At this
distance on "full zoom" an adult’s image fills approximately a third
of the video monitor. We established the boundaries of each target
area using this "third of monitor" rule of thumb, panning each
camera through its full field of vision. Buffer zones were based on
police beats surrounding the target localities. Data provided for
these zones exclude figures from target areas. Comparison areas
consist of Southwark Metropolitan Police Force sectors[2],
divisions and the borough as a whole. In collecting data from
target, buffer and comparison areas we believe this approach should
overcome any variations which might occur in reporting and
recording. Table 1.1 below defines buffer and comparison areas for
each site[3].
Maps of each scheme and surrounding areas are in Appendix
D.
Table 1.1 - Definitions of target,
buffer and comparison areas for each site scheme
Scheme |
Buffer Zone
(excludes figures from
target area) |
Comparison
Sectors (excludes figures
from target area)
|
Comparison
Divisions |
Elephant
and Castle |
Walworth Division
beats 1, 4 Southwark Division beats 3, 7 |
Newington and
Borough |
Walworth (MS) and
Southwark (MD) |
Peckham |
Peckham Division
beats 1, 2 and 4 |
Peckham
|
Peckham (MM)
|
Camberwell |
Walworth Division
beats 11, 13 and 15 |
Camberwell
|
Walworth
(MS) |
East
Street |
Walworth Division
beats 3, 5 |
Newington
|
Walworth
(MS) |
Recorded offences[4]
falling within these areas were collected on a monthly basis from
February 1996 to January 1999.[5]
Crimes unlikely to be affected by CCTV such as deception, handling
stolen goods and malicious phone calls, were excluded. We have also
left out drug offences. This is because we feel that policing
activity, particularly stop and search, is directly linked with
rises in recorded drug crime. For the borough as a whole drug
offences rose by 43% between the year ending January 1997 and twelve
months to January 1999. This is likely to be the result of more
intensive policing of drugs to meet targets rather than a huge
increase in drug use across the borough. The main categories of
crime data collected included:
- Non residential burglary (EB,
ED)[6]
- Residential burglary (EA,
EC)
- Criminal damage (CY, BF)
- Theft from vehicle (VE)
- Criminal damage to vehicle
(VD)
- Vehicle interference (VF)
- Theft of motor vehicle (VA,
VG)
- Robbery (CE)
- Theft from the person (CG)
- Serious assault (CA, CB, CC)
- Section 4 Public Order (BE)
- Assault-ABH (BG)
- Sexual assaults (CR, CS, CT,
CU)
- Shoplifting (BB)
- Cycle thefts and other thefts (BA,
BD)
- Other assaults - common assault and
assault on a police officer (BH, BK)
- Racial incidents (BR).
These crimes constitute about 80% of
the total number of offences recorded in Southwark in the period
April 96 – March 98. Throughout the report we have aggregated these
categories into six main groups as follows:
Burglary: Residential burglary; Aggravated residential
burglary; Non-residential burglary; Aggravated non-residential
burglary
All Vehicle Crime: Theft from motor vehicle; Theft of motor
vehicle;Taking conveyance; Arson to motor vehicle; criminal
damage to motor vehicle; vehicle interference
Street Crime: Robbery; Theft from the person
Sex/Violence: Rape; Indecent assaults (male and female);
Indecent exposure; Section 18 assault; Section 20 assault; Murder;
ABH; Common assault; Assault on police officer; Section 4 – public
order offences
Theft: Theft of pedal cycle; Shoplifting; Theft –
other
Vandalism: Criminal damage (over £5000); Criminal damage
(under £5000)
Table 1.2 sets out the pre- and
post-installation periods. In the case of the Elephant and Castle
(implemented January 1997) this enabled the year prior to and two
years following installation to be measured. For the Camberwell and
East Street we examined the two years prior to installation and one
year following. However, in Peckham CCTV was installed about 4
months prior to CRIS going live in Southwark. This caused a
considerable problem in collecting crime data for the ‘before’
period and four months following installation. A limited amount of
information on street crime and burglaries for the pre- and
post-installation period is available for those areas under direct
camera surveillance. We also have, through the Crime Management Unit
in Peckham, assembled further data enabling limited examination of
the changes for the town centre beat areas. Adequate data is
available to examine the months of August and September for the two
years preceding and following implementation. Although beats do not
correspond directly with target areas (being much larger) was the
only feasible method available.
Table 1.2 - Installation dates for
systems and periods examined
|
Month CCTV
installed |
Year
-2
Pre-CCTV
|
Year
-1
Pre-CCTV
|
Year 1
Post-CCTV
|
Year 2
Post-CCTV
|
Year
3
Post-CCTV
|
Peckham ( street crime and
burglary) |
Oct 95
|
|
Oct 94–Sep 95 |
Oct 95–Sep
96 |
Oct 96–Sep
97 |
|
Peckham ( Town Centre beats
data) |
Oct 95
|
Aug 94-Sep
94 |
Aug 95–Sep 95 |
Aug 96–Sep
96 |
Aug 97–Sep
97 |
--
|
Peckham
(CRIS data) |
Oct 95
|
-- |
-- |
Feb 96 – Jan
97 |
Feb 97 – Jan
98 |
Feb 98 –Jan
99 |
Elephant
and Castle |
Jan 97
|
-- |
Feb 96 –Jan
97 |
Feb 97 – Jan
98 |
Feb 98 – Jan
99 |
--
|
Camberwell |
Jan 98
|
Feb 96 – Jan
97 |
Feb 97-Jan
98 |
Feb 98 – Jan
99 |
-- |
--
|
East
Street |
Jan 98
|
Feb 96 – Jan
97 |
Feb 97–Jan
98 |
Feb 98 – Jan
99 |
-- |
--
|
Public Perception
Surveys
A quota sample of two hundred
individuals was interviewed in each site using a structured
questionnaire.[7]
Quotas were set to reflect the age, sex and ethnic
background of residents in all wards covering each target area based
on data from the 1991 Census. The questionnaire took about five
minutes to complete, asking questions on respondents’:
- knowledge of the scheme
- whether he/she believe it was
effective
- how cameras affected the way he/she
felt about and used the area
The surveys were undertaken on
different days of the week and times to reflect the different
patterns of use at each site. The lack of precise baseline
data for the period prior to the introduction of cameras meant a
modest snapshot view of opinions was the only realistic approach.
People were asked to comment retrospectively on changes to the
area.
Interviews with CCTV staff and the
police
Interviews used a structured
questionnaire comprising a mix of qualitative and quantitative
questions. Data from the interviews were coupled with observational
work and the interrogation of documentary materials to construct a
picture of the management, work practices and technical performance
of systems. CCTV operators were questioned on their experience of
using the system; operational matters including tape management;
control room procedures and management; problems with the system and
possible improvements; perceived impact of the system on crime; and
the codes of practice. We interviewed three operators at each
control room, and eight police officers, including home beat
officers, crime prevention officers and sector inspectors. We sought
to establish how they believed the system was being used and for
what purpose; changes in policing tactics; relations with control
room staff; quality of evidence produced; and the codes of
practice.
Business Survey
A small-scale postal survey was
carried out of local businesses in each of the four sites. A random
selection of 150 premises was drawn from lists of local businesses
provided by the council. The questionnaires were designed to collect
views on: crime and safety in the area and the impact cameras have
made; perceived impact of cameras on businesses; and future funding
arrangements of CCTV systems. Each questionnaire was sent out with a
covering letter explaining the purpose of the research and a
business reply envelope. To boost the response rate questionnaires
returned within 5 weeks were entered in a prize draw for
£50.
The initial response rate from the
postal survey was poor: of 600 questionnaires only 46 were returned.
Given this it was decided in agreement with Southwark Council that
the sample would be boosted by door-stepping local businesses.
Fieldworkers undertaking the public perception surveys called on
every second business in each of the four areas. The minimum quota
for each site was 30 completed questionnaires. Market stalls in East
Street and the Elephant were included. In total 134 questionnaires
were completed: 44 in Camberwell; 34 in East Street; 31 in Peckham
and 25 in Elephant and Castle.
Logbooks and repair
invoices
Data was extracted from CCTV repair
logbooks for four months from June to September 1998. This was to
verify information from interviews on: evidence gathered from the
system; its use by the police; and equipment reliability. The
following were analysed:
- number of tapes viewed by the
police and the outcome
- number of times the police took
control of the cameras and for what duration
- number of equipment
failures.
Problems of measurement and
causality
In evaluations of this sort there are
few reliable measures of crime and anti-social behaviour. Accurate
measurement of actual levels of crime can only be done at very great
expense through complex crime surveys.[8]
Recorded offences, which are used in this report, only form a
proportion of the total crime because many crimes go unreported and
unrecorded.[9]
Small changes in reporting or recording practice can lead to changes
independently of the underlying crime rate. However, we have no
reason to believe these varied within the borough and thus the
results are unlikely to be seriously affected by such
changes.
Even assuming that crime and disorder
statistics faithfully reflect the underlying trends, there are
problems in identifying what has caused the change. Levels of
recorded crime change over time. During the period being examined,
recorded crime was falling across the borough (see below). It is
difficult to distinguish the impact of the four CCTV schemes from
other contributory factors of which there are many. The two most
important include the regeneration of Peckham town centre and the
"five estates" area and the Met-wide Operation Eagle Eye. Both may
have independently affected crime rates.
The Peckham Partnership secured a £60
million grant from the Single Regeneration Budget programme over
seven years to regenerate the town centre and five estates just to
the north of the High Street. The strategic objectives include:
- bringing jobs to the five estates
residents and prosperity to Peckham
- providing young people with basic
and flexible skills
- transforming the five estates into
a desirable residential area
- making Peckham an area where people
feel safe
- giving Peckham a vibrant and viable
town centre
- improving physical and mental
health
- providing safe and convenient
access for people.
This initiative has involved a number
of changes to the layout of the town centre. As a result of these
changes cameras have been moved and new areas are now under camera
surveillance. The demolition and rebuilding of the Sumner Estate and
construction of a new Health and Leisure Centre in the Canal Head
locality has resulted in new residential roads, one of which,
Jocelyn Street, is now under camera surveillance.
Operation Eagle Eye was a response to
the increasing concern over the rise in street robberies in the
early 1990s.The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) established a
steering group in 1993 to prepare a strategy for tackling street
robbery and launched Eagle Eye two years later in October 1995. It
covered 25 divisions with high robbery rates, including Peckham and
Walworth. The aim of the operation was to improve performance
against street robberies and increase the detection rate to 15%
during 1995/96. This was to be done working in partnership with the
local community showing high levels of ethical standards and care
for the victims. Across all Eagle Eye divisions there was a 5% drop
in robberies during the first year of operation.
The main solution to these problems of
measurement and causal attribution is to make a detailed comparative
examination of trends in target areas, buffer areas and comparison
areas. If the target area shows a greater reduction than buffer or
comparison areas, and if the net reduction in the target and buffer
area is greater than in the comparison area, this provides evidence
of impact. Any changes in recording or reporting are likely to have
affected all areas equally.
The remainder of this report presents
the detail of the findings. Chapter 2 presents findings relating to
control room operation, repairs, visits by the police and interviews
with CCTV staff and the police. Chapter 3 considers public
perceptions and views of local business communities. Chapter 4 sets
out our analysis of the impact of the four systems on crime and
disorder. The final chapter presents an overview of the results and
discusses their implications.
CHAPTER 2 - THE
SCHEMES
Several factors
determine the extent to which CCTV can impact on crime. The
‘micro-geography’ of the area is likely to interact with the design
of the system, its general visibility and the extent of coverage to
achieve greater or lesser effect. Furthermore, the situation in
which CCTV is placed may affect how and whether it ‘works’. Ditton
et al (1999) note that CCTV may ‘work’ better in a small town where
local police and residents know faces than a large city where this
is less likely to be the case. The way in which the system is
implemented may be of equal importance. The deployment of signs,
publicity advertising the system’s introduction, and strategically
placed reports of the system’s success could - depending on handling
- have a powerful deterrent effect in their own right, at least in
the short term (Tilley 1993).
To be effective the
systems themselves should be visible as Tilley notes
(1993:332)
‘To gain maximum effect
the CCTV must be overt. Thieves and vandals do not want to be
caught, so make sure they know you have an effective system in
operation.’
Equally, Brown (1995:vi)
identifies the nature of layout and degree of camera coverage as
significant factors that may impact on levels of crime. He draws
attention to the Newcastle system as being highly effective
because:
‘ ... the layout of the
town centre is simple and the degree of camera coverage is
high’.
The success of CCTV in
reducing crime in car parks provides a clear example of the
significance of location, type of crime and design. Maximum impact
seems to result when the following factors coexist:
- defined spaces with a clearly
specified use
- low levels of activity
- narrow range of activities
- a layout which makes for maximum
camera coverage
- a form of crime which is often
opportunistic
- easy access by enforcement
agencies.
This chapter considers how far the
four schemes covered in this report exhibited these factors. It
discusses how and why the different schemes were established; who
was involved; what the schemes looked like; and examines the views
of those involved with the schemes.
Background to the
schemes
The Elephant and Castle
The area is dominated by a large
shopping centre surrounded by a network of arterial roads
inter-linked by roundabouts. Access to the shopping centre on foot
is primarily through a system of complicated subways, which prior to
the installation of cameras had achieved some notoriety as robbery
hotspots. What the area lacks in charm it makes up for in transport
links with an underground and railway station and innumerable bus
stops. Main roads leading away from the Elephant are lined with a
mix of commercial premises and public sector housing. Large
employers in the area include South Bank University, the London
College of Printing and the Department of Health.
In 1993 a community safety committee
composed of representatives from the council, police and local
businesses was set up to examine ways of reducing crime and the fear
of crime in the Elephant and Castle. Police operations had been
successful in reducing crime in the area, but senior officers
regarded these as expensive and only a short-term solution.
Committee members believed that a 24-hour surveillance system was
the most effective means of dealing with the area’s
problems.
In January 1997 thirty-four cameras
were introduced into the Elephant and Castle covering the subways,
bus stops and streets surrounding the shopping centre. A map of the
area can be found at Appendix D. The system, along with fifteen
cameras in the shopping centre, is monitored from inside the
shopping centre and linked to Walworth Police Station. Six external
and twelve internal cameras can pan-tilt-and-zoom (PTZ). The capital
cost for the scheme was £310,000. Two-thirds of the total cost were
provided by the Home Office and Southwark Council. Running costs for
the scheme are shared between UK Land Limited, who operate the
shopping centre, and the Council. The main aims of the scheme are
to:
- reduce opportunist street and
subway crime
- eliminate drug trafficking in the
area
- increase confidence amongst members
of the public using the area after dark.
Peckham
Closed Circuit Television was
introduced into Peckham Town Centre in October 1995. During the
early 1990s the town centre had shown clear signs of decline, with a
number of major chain stores including Marks and Spencer and British
Home Stores closing. In the years leading up to the introduction of
the scheme, the area had become a hotspot in the borough for street
robberies and drug dealing. Police statistics for 1994 indicated
that in the High Street and Rye Lane alone 310 robberies were
reported - 16% of the borough’s total for that year. The system was
designed to address these problems, with the following main aims:
- deter and prevent crime,
particularly street robbery and drug dealing
- reduce the fear of crime and
provide reassurance to the public
- assist the police to intervene in
the commission of crimes
- provide prosecution evidence in the
event of crimes
- reduce the incidence of vandalism,
graffiti and other criminal damage
- prevent and provide a response to
racial harassment
- facilitate traffic
management.
The on-street system, which comprises
fourteen pan-tilt-and-zoom cameras, was added to the pre-existing 27
static cameras in the Cerise Road car park. Developed on a
partnership basis between the council, police, local traders and the
community, the system was installed as part of a wider regeneration
strategy. The local authority met the bulk of the £366,000 capital
cost of the scheme. Cameras were primarily located at junctions
along Rye Lane and the High Street giving coverage of a number of
adjacent side roads. A map of the target area can be found at
Appendix D. Both schemes are monitored 24 hours from a control room
at the Cerise Road car park. The main town system is linked to
Peckham Police Station.
The area under camera surveillance is
primarily commercial, dominated by a mixture of small local
businesses and a number of larger high street retail chains
primarily located in the Aylesham Shopping Centre. Dwellings along
the High Street and Rye Lane constitute a small number of flats
above shops. Adjacent roads, however, particularly south of Peckham
Rye Rail Station (i.e. Choumert Road and Blenheim Grove) are more
residential with a high proportion of terraced and semi-detached
housing. The High Street forms a main arterial route (A2) into
Central London from the east. Rye Lane is a significant thoroughfare
for public transport to and from the south of the
borough.
Camberwell
Following a successful bid by a
council-led partnership to the Home Office, cameras were introduced
into Camberwell town centre in January 1998. Prior to the
introduction of CCTV, Camberwell had suffered from high levels of
street crime. Between September 1995 and August 1996 police recorded
368 robberies in Camberwell – 85% of which happened in the
three-town centre beat areas. As in the Elephant and Castle,
short-term initiatives were undertaken by the police to combat
robberies during peak times including Christmas, Easter and the
summer holidays. Whilst this had the effect of reducing crime over
the short-term it was generally regarded as an inefficient use of
police resources. In the light of this a partnership was established
to examine ways of implementing a CCTV system. The main aims of the
system are to:
- reduce street crime
- identify shoplifters and robbers
operating in the area
- increase the viability and
confidence of small independent traders
- safeguard all members of the public
and consequently reduce the fear of crime
- provide a system comparable to that
in Peckham
- supplement police resources.
Camberwell’s system consists of 17
pan-tilt-and-zoom cameras. The scheme was designed to cover the main
arterial routes running through the commercial heart of Camberwell
including Denmark Hill, Camberwell Church Street and Camberwell New
Road. These main roads are commercial in nature consisting primarily
of small locally owned shops and restaurants. Residential side roads
including Bessemer Road, De Crespigny Road and Grove Lane are also
well covered. The system is reckoned to include 17 roads, in total
covering 250 commercial premises and 5,000 square metres of
pedestrian routes. A detailed map of the target area can be
found in Appendix D. The scheme cost £307,000 to implement and is
monitored from the Peckham control room at Cerise Road. An
additional monitor is located at Walworth Police
Station.
East Street
East Street is the site of one of
London’s oldest surviving street markets. The market site runs off
the Walworth Road half a mile south of the Elephant and Castle. In
recent years, the area, which consists of a mix of commercial and
residential premises, has been in decline and suffered from
increasing levels of crime.
A partnership initiative between the
council, police and local traders was established with the goal of
regenerating the area. The East Street system started operation in
January 1998. The scheme, consisting of 11 pan-tilt-and-zoom and 1
fixed camera, was intentionally located in the market area to:
- deter and detect crime
- reduce the fear of crime
- provide evidential quality footage
of incidents and perpetrators
- restore confidence in the area as a
viable commercial location.
The area under surveillance extends a
third of a mile to the east of Walworth Road and covers 8 adjacent
streets and a number of local free car parks which in recent years
have been hotspots for car crime. A detailed map of the area is
located in Appendix D. Set up at a cost of £168,000 the scheme is
monitored from the Cerise Road control room and linked up to
Walworth police station. The costs of the system were primarily met
through local traders and the Home Office.
Scheme
Operation
This section provides an overview of
the operation of each scheme based on data collected from control
rooms, interviews with police and CCTV controllers and direct
observation. The schemes operate in different ways, reflecting
variations in the way each scheme is funded, operated and owned.
Each control room in Southwark has
adopted a common CCTV code of practice. This code is designed to
govern the management of the council’s control rooms and facilities.
The code covers:
- installation of CCTV (i.e.
consultation and privacy)
- tape management (i.e. loading
,access, use, reuse, storage, and cataloguing)
- maintenance of an incident
book
- procedures for the police
- control room management including
access, transfer of monitoring, special contingencies, and
communications
- monitoring and review of the code
of practice.
As part of control room monitoring an
independent panel of 10 people from the local community has been
established. Nominated by the Police Community Consultative Group,
the panel are authorised to undertake spot checks to ensure systems
are operating in accordance with the code of practice. Later in this
section we shall compare the code to the Local Government
Information Unit’s model code.
Scheme operation at the Elephant and
Castle control room
Burns, a private security company,
operate the Elephant and Castle camera system. Managed by UK Land
Limited and funded in association with the council this system is
monitored from the Elephant and Castle shopping centre. The control
room is multi-functional acting as both a monitoring site and a
reception area for delivery vehicles to the shopping centre. Two
members of staff operate cameras during each shift. An additional
member of staff deals solely with delivery vehicles. Operators work
twelve-hour shifts.
During the period June to September
1998 the police made 161 visits to the Elephant control room. This
figure is inflated due to the Lawrence Enquiry. Sixty-eight tapes
were taken for examination during this period (31 between June
29th and July 9th for the Enquiry): 59 by the
Walworth Division; 6 by Customs and Excise; and 3 by the Southwark
Division.
Table 2.1 Tapes taken by police from
the Elephant control room (6/98-9/98)
Month (1998)
|
Number
seized |
June |
21
|
July |
29
|
August
|
7 |
September
|
11
|
TOTAL
|
68
|
There is no record of how often police
viewed tapes at the control room. Control room staff often view
tapes where an incident has occurred in the shopping centre on
behalf of police officers to save police time in finding the
relevant tapes and then reviewing them[10].
It is worth emphasising several
features of the Elephant and Castle system which were absent from
the other three:
- There are many sources of
information on the ground particularly within the shopping centre.
These include: centre security guards; shop security and staff;
and members of the public who can report incidents to security
staff or the shopping centre information booth. As one CCTV
controller noted, ‘Often we get a call off the guards on the
shop floor that someone looks suspicious – so we watch them.’
- The police have established an
‘Operation Watch’ scheme in the Elephant and Castle. This consists
of a picture file of 10 individuals held at the control room who
are believed to be committing offences in the area. The file is
updated quarterly by the intelligence unit at Walworth Police
Station. Whenever an individual in the file is seen in the
Elephant details of their clothing and movements are recorded and
passed on to the police. Also the control room is visited
regularly by the local home beat officer. Intelligence information
and feedback is passed between the officer and control room staff.
One officer suggested, ‘Over the last year I have tried to make
the control room here part of our police station because there are
so many benefits and we have such a close working
relationship.’ This appears to have fostered a proactive
relationship between staff and the police.
- A number of controllers have worked
as security guards in the shopping centre for many years. The
three controllers interviewed had 15 years’ experience of working
in the shopping centre between them. They are therefore well
placed to recognise individuals who may have committed crime in
the area in the recent past. This was noted by two of the CCTV
controllers, one of whom maintained, ‘Over the last three years
I have got to know the area - know the people. I know the criminal
ones. I spot them and watch them.’
- The layout of the area and number
of cameras installed (in and around the shopping centre) makes for
very good camera coverage. The subways are the main routes for
pedestrians moving in and around the Elephant and Castle and are
extremely well covered. The possibility of getting good quality
close-ups of possible suspects is high. Although obstacles
including buses, trees, market stall and advertising hoardings are
a problem, the viewing of pedestrian routes in all other sites is
more limited.
- Operators regularly track
individuals who are seen to be acting suspiciously or are known to
the police and operators as repeat offenders. When successful,
this process can pre-empt incidents and enable rapid and
appropriate responses. What makes this type of system efficient is
that controllers have direct contact with shopping centre security
staff facilitating quick and direct action when suspicious
behaviour is detected or an incident spotted.
Despite the relative success of the
system in preventing and detecting crime a number of bad practices
and discrepancies in logbooks were noted during the course of the
research. Whilst we do not believe that it would be constructive to
highlight particular instances observed by the research team current
structures need review and possible amendment Particular examples of
practice at odds with the code are:
- viewing tapes without the presence
of the police officers
- lack of a logbook showing when
police viewed tapes
- tapes not always being signed out
by police officers.
To ensure adherence to the code of
practice this control room would benefit from tighter management and
regular and extensive spot checks. We believe that there are
possible civil liberties implications over maintaining police photos
of known and possible offenders at a control room outside of a
police station. Recommendations relating to control room
practices are set out at the end of this report.
Scheme Operation at Cerise Road
control room
The Peckham, Camberwell and East
Street systems are all operated from a single control room in Cerise
Road, Peckham.[11]
Managed by the council and operated by Bolens Security, the Peckham,
Camberwell and East Street systems were established primarily to
deter and reduce crime. As with the Elephant scheme cameras are
monitored for 24 hours a day. Three controllers, working twelve-hour
shifts are on duty at any one time.[12]
Although detection and apprehension
are key aims of the system, local police officers involved in
establishing the Peckham scheme suggest: ‘It was put in to reduce
and deter rather than to arrest. If it had been done to do that, I
think it would be a failure.’
Evidence gathered to date seems to
support this statement. Operators catch few incidents on camera.
Between June and September 1998 the police viewed tapes 59 times. On
18 occasions incidents were recorded on the tapes. Only 8 original
tapes were taken during that period. More recently between January
and April 1999 forty-one tapes were taken. Nevertheless, as one
controller maintained ‘the chances of viewing an incident on
camera are extremely rare.’ When arrests occur this is usually
subsequent to the incident where pre-set camera has recorded up an
offence. Probable explanations for this are discussed below in more
detail.
Operators spend much of their time
scanning target areas looking for suspicious behaviour and
incidents. This is their main means of gathering information and
evidence. Although relations between the controllers and police
appear to be good there is scope for further co-operation. Little
direct intelligence information appears to be passed to operators
from the police. Compounding this, direct radio links between
security staff in the Aylesham Centre and CCTV operators are used
infrequently. [13]
The police frequently take control of
the system, particularly in the evening. In the four-month period
from June to September 1998 the police took control of the cameras
on 181 occasions, amounting to a total of 200 hours of control.
Incidents reported to the CAD room at Peckham Police Station from
the public or officers on the ground regularly lead to police use of
the system.
CCTV controller and
police interviews
Training
Although all controllers interviewed
had some general training as security guards, none had had any
intensive formal training either in operating CCTV systems or in the
principles of crime prevention through surveillance. Inevitably they
had acquired experience on the job; and they had their own views
about offenders’ methods of operation and on what constituted
suspicious behaviour. One controller said, ‘Nobody has told us
what to look for. You just pick up on things. Like I said I have
been working here for 8 years. So you know some of the locals. You
get the new faces - sometimes you just get characters that just look
dodgy. They’ve got a big bag on them and they don’t look like
they’re going shopping’ Another saw suspicious behaviour as one
person closely following another or an individual hanging out in an
area for a long time but not doing anything in particular. A third
controller maintained, ‘All thieves don’t work the same. Some of
them will walk straight into the shop and come straight back out
again. Others will hang around looking left and right and make sure
there is no security around and then walk in.’
Although police officers were
confident about the abilities of controllers, they felt that they
might benefit from some training from the police about the way
offenders operated and things to look for. The police have already
in some instances given training to controllers on witness
statements and court hearings.
Control room practices
Controllers were all well versed about
operating procedures set down in the code of practice. Procedures
for tape use, storage and cataloguing were all well covered.
Knowledge on what to do during an incident was acceptable as was
security at the monitoring centres. At Cerise Road the incident book
was well maintained - as was the log for police viewing and taking
tapes. At the Elephant no records of tapes viewed by officers
on-site was kept. Controllers generally accepted that a monitoring
panel was a good idea, and all acknowledged the need for codes of
practice. For example:
‘… so that people are following the
rules and not doing things they shouldn’t be doing.’
‘ ... it’s a set of rules to be
followed. We have to know procedures of what to do.’
Repairs
Controllers at the Elephant and Castle
generally felt equipment was reliable. Between June and September
1998, the company responsible for maintaining equipment, Orbis, made
twelve visits to the Elephant control room to undertake nine
repairs, the majority of which were to fix cameras. At the Cerise
Road controllers were happy with the Peckham system. There were
however a number of concerns over the Camberwell and East Street
systems. Complaints included frequent equipment failures and poor
quality images in areas of low lighting. Basic testing of the
Camberwell system highlighted some of these problems. When tested
two of the cameras were not operational. One controller felt
‘there hasn’t been a day when those systems have been working to
their full potential.’ Thirty-seven faults were reported between
June and September.[14]
There were 59 visits to undertake maintenance work. The most
frequent call outs were for camera faults (20). The warranty on the
Camberwell and East Street system has been extended. This is because
the systems are operating at a level some way short of what is
required.
Controllers in the Elephant felt
non-rotation or focussing of cameras (particularly after heavy rain)
and the loss of pictures were the most common faults. At Cerise Road
the main complaint was about fibre-optic links failing. There were
some complaints from controllers at Cerise Road about the
capabilities of cameras in East Street. One controller claimed the
cameras were ‘Very, very slow. They’re very poor. But that’s what
the traders wanted, that’s what they paid for.’ Equipment
testing (in the presence of a researcher) showed this to be the case
when compared with other systems. Generally speaking controllers
felt repairs were undertaken quickly and effectively – usually
within 48 hours. Some instances were however noted by both the
police and controllers where cameras were out of operation for weeks
at a time.
Quality of images produced and
detections
Controllers also felt that the systems
provided good quality pictures that were of evidential quality.
There was a general recognition that the quality of images was
reduced when it was very sunny, windy or raining heavily. The police
were less positive about the capability of the systems. One officer
stated, ‘ If cameras are monitoring an incident and focused on a
suspect then the clarity is good – but straight recording [i.e.
camera in pre-set position on time lapse] is poor quality.’
Two other officers felt that the quality of images produced in the
evening in Camberwell was not as good as it could be. Officers
interviewed in all sites noted that systems had not met their
potential in terms of crime detection. ‘I would like to see the
cameras moving about a lot more. If they are stationary they lose
their effect.’
Crime reduction and
displacement
Controllers and police officers
thought that the introduction of cameras had reduced recorded crime.
Street crime (in particular robberies) was reckoned to be affected
the most. Nevertheless, it was also felt that crime had been
displaced. One controller believed, ‘If you’re a regular thief or
shoplifter you’re not going to give up your job. Obviously you ain’t
going to come into this area – so you’re going to go somewhere
else.’ In the Camberwell target area police officers said they
had noticed functional displacement of thefts from the person from
on street (particularly bus stops) into cafes and pubs. Similarly in
Peckham officers commented that drug dealing had been shifted either
indoors or into side streets. The police have reacted to this by
mounting special operations to deal with these shifting crime
patterns.
System effectiveness
Both controllers and officers at all
sites - but particularly in Peckham - noted that the system could be
used more effectively. Officers believed that they were in part to
blame for the systems being unsuccessful in detecting crime. They
recognised they could be doing more to help the system work for
them. Three officers felt that the systems might benefit from
controllers getting police training and greater access to
intelligence information. Furthermore, the usefulness of a business
and operations watch schemes similar to those running in the
Elephant were understood. Police also felt the controllers could
ring through to the CAD room more often when the saw something
suspicious. Officers at both sites believed that getting controllers
more involved in active policing, would make their jobs more
interesting, thus leading to the more effective use of the system.
Whilst such activities might improve
effectiveness of system operation and are consistent with the
recommendations of previous research certain they conflict with the
Southwark codes of practice. The code maintains: ‘Whilst engaged
in normal surveillance, operators will not linger on members of the
public engaged in legal but personal or intimate pastimes.’
Clearly there are quite difficult civil liberties issues here
which would need to be incorporated in any discussion about improved
efficiency of the system.
Codes of
practice
Issues around the code of practice and
adherence to them have been discussed earlier in this chapter. This
section will assess the codes against the Local Government
Information Unit’s model code as set out in ‘A Watching Brief’
(LGIU 1996).
The Southwark Code
‘A Watching Brief’ sets out a recommended model code. This is
intended as a template from which system owners can construct their
own code taking into account local circumstances. The first step in
evaluating the Southwark code was to match it against the sections
recommended in the model code. The Southwark code of practice
appears to be still in draft form. No date is given for its
introduction. The document itself has not been signed although
organisational entities are specified. It is not clear to whom any
enquiries about the code should be made.
The comparison with the model code
shows that some matters have been dealt with in some detail,
particularly those which relate to detailed day-to-day operational
matters and procedures. Others have not. For example, it focuses in
detail on the needs of the criminal justice system, but fails to
address questions of accountability and information quality (See
Table 2.2). Furthermore, it fails to specify that it is used to
achieve those objectives originally set for the system which go
beyond a narrow interpretation of crime prevention.
Table 2.2 Analysis of Southwark Code
of Practice against the LGIU Model Code
Model Code |
Southwark
Code
a = yes x =
no |
Comments |
Purpose
Statement
Data Protection
Implications
Responsibilities of the Owner
Partnership
Management of System
Installation
Change
Accountability
Public Information
Residential Areas
Assessment of the
Scheme
Staff
Complaints
Breaches of code
Control and operation of
cameras
Access and security of
monitors
Tapes and recorded
materials
Dealing with
incidents
Police contact and use
|
a
x
x
a
a
a
a
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
a
a
a
x
a |
The
objectives for the system and limitations on use are clearly
stated. There is an implied hierarchy of use.
Sets out the conditions and
control of police and other access and use.
Code review annually (17) but
not a procedure for system change.
Not details under specific head.
Although now being undertaken
Set out in procedural
guide |
CHAPTER 3 - VIEWS OF THE
LOCAL COMMUNITY
Whilst there was some variation in the
reasons the four CCTV systems in Southwark were installed, it is
clear that all the schemes were implemented mainly to reduce the
fear of crime and to deter offending. This chapter will examine the
results of the public and business surveys undertaken in each site
in relation to the first of these objectives whilst considering
whether respondents knew about CCTV schemes and how they viewed
them. Opinions were also sought from local businesses on their
expectations of CCTV; how schemes might be funded in the future and
whether they believed cameras had any impact on aspects of their
business. The numbers of interviews carried out at each site are
shown in Table 3.1. Views from both sets of surveys have been
compiled under the following headings:
- awareness of schemes
- fears
- expectations
- scheme effectiveness
Table 3.1 Number of interviews
undertaken in each site
|
Public
Perception |
Business
|
Elephant
and Castle |
224 |
25
|
Peckham |
227 |
31
|
Camberwell |
200 |
44
|
East
Street |
200 |
34
|
Awareness of
schemes
Across the four sites 67% of
respondents in the public perception survey said that they were
aware of cameras in operation. Awareness was highest in the Elephant
and Castle (74%) and Camberwell (73%) and lowest in Peckham (54%).
Ninety-five percent of all representatives from local businesses
were aware of cameras. Again awareness was highest in the Elephant
and Castle and Camberwell. This could reflect several things:
- The greater salience of the cameras
(especially in subways in the Elephant and Castle, where they are
obvious)
- Better signage
- Respondents in Peckham may have
included a higher proportion of infrequent visitors.[15]
The public were aware of schemes (80%
or 548) largely because they had actually seen cameras. A further
11% (75) said they had become aware of the cameras after seeing
signage. The most frequently cited areas where cameras were believed
to be operating included streets (56% or 321), shopping centres
(27%) and shops (24%). In the Elephant and Castle the most frequent
answer was the subways (71%).
Fears
Violent attacks and street robbery
worried respondents more than any other type of crime. This tallies
with views across Southwark, where residents considered muggings and
violent crimes to be the main problem affecting neighbourhoods in
the borough (MORI Southwark Residents Survey, 1998).
Table 3.2 - Crimes which most worried
respondents (n = 606)
Crime Type |
Number of
responses |
% of
responses |
Violent
Attack |
310 |
51%
|
Robbery/Mugging |
140 |
23%
|
Theft
of/from vehicle |
78 |
13%
|
Theft
from bag/pickpocketing |
34 |
6%
|
Drug
dealing/use |
20 |
3%
|
Both men and women were most worried
about violent attacks. Females worried more about thefts from the
person – 8% compared with 4% (i.e. pickpocketing/bag snatches).
Males worried significantly more than females about drug dealing and
use (6% compared with 1%). Respondents in the Elephant and Castle
were much more inclined to be worried about street robberies (46%)
compared with Camberwell (6%). Thefts of and from vehicles caused
more concern amongst those interviewed in Peckham and East Street
(about 16% of responses in each site). There was little variation by
age or ethnicity. Perhaps not surprisingly, however, a greater than
average proportion (93% compared with a sample average of 80%) of
over 65s were most worried about violent attacks, robberies and
thefts from the person.
There were large differences between
how the public rated sites in terms of safety during the day and in
the evening. During the day 87% of respondents suggested they felt
very or quite safe. Twenty-one percent said they felt very safe.
More respondents in East Street suggested they felt very safe (48%
against 20% across all sites). Nine out of ten 16-24 year olds felt
safe compared to only eight in ten over 65s. There were few gender
differences. In the evenings these feelings of safety reduced. Less
than half, on the other hand, said they felt safe after dark. Only
55% of those who felt safe during the day said they did so after
dark. Feelings of insecurity were greatest in the Elephant and
Castle. Sixty-four percent said they felt either ‘not too safe’ or
‘not safe at all’ – Only a third said they did not feel safe in
Camberwell in the evening. Females were more likely to feel unsafe
than males in the evening (55% against 47%).
There were notable differences between
how representatives of businesses rated sites in terms of safety and
the perceptions of the general public. The business community was
less inclined than the public to feel safe both during the day and
evenings. During the day only seven in ten (96) respondents said
they felt safe - 7% (7) of whom maintained they felt very safe.
Although East Street had the highest number of members of the public
who felt safe – only a quarter of businesses representatives felt
safe during the day.
At night feeling of safety dropped
significantly to four in ten (55) respondents from businesses
(compared with five in ten of the public). Most worrying of all is
that 32 respondent said they felt ‘not safe at all’. East Street
again fared the worst with seven in ten from business community (24)
maintaining they did not feel safe.
Expectations of
CCTV
Members of the business community were
asked about their expectations of CCTV. A quarter (32) had no clear
expectations. Ten did not answer the question. The remaining 92
respondents gave 159 responses. These were classified into 5
separate categories: 77 felt it would reduce or deter crime; 24
believed they would feel more safe/secure; 12 felt it might lead to
an increase in customer trade; and 8 thought it would apprehend
criminals. Fifteen offered a range of other responses, for example:
system successes would be highly publicised; more cameras would be
installed; the cameras should be fully operational and monitored 24
hours a day; and businesses would receive more information on the
impact of the cameras on crime.
Respondents were then asked if CCTV
had lived up to their expectations. Fifty-one believed it had; 27
said it had not and 21 were unsure. Two-in-five (30/77) of those who
expected a reduction in crime stated their expectations had been
met. Close to two-thirds (15/24) who believed the area would be more
safe/secure felt this was the case.
Scheme
effectiveness
Impact on crime and
offenders
Both the public and business community
were asked about scheme effectiveness. Fifty-five percent of those
questioned in the public perception survey felt the presence of
cameras had reduced levels of crime; of whom nearly a third believed
it had reduced crime significantly. Eleven percent said it had no
impact. A third did not know.
Levels of belief in scheme
effectiveness were highest in the Elephant and Castle where 66%
believed the system had reduced crime. This compares with 36% for
East Street (71) and 55% for Peckham. Across these two sites about
40% of respondents did not know. Younger respondents were generally
a little more sceptical about the effectiveness of CCTV. Roughly
half of 16-24 year olds felt CCTV had any impact on crime.
Forty-five to fifty-four year olds were most positive with 62%
feeling the introduction of cameras had reduced crime.
Two thirds of business respondents
felt that the introduction of cameras coincided with a fall in
crime. Only 14 however believed the reduction had been significant.
Fourteen suggested there had been no change and two felt crime
levels had increased. Responses varied significantly by site. In
East Street 14 of 34 respondents felt there had been a reduction
compared with 20 out of 25 in the Elephant and Castle.
Crimes which individuals in the street
survey worried about most were also viewed as the most likely to be
those impacted upon by CCTV. Violence against the person (286),
thefts from the person (238) and street robbery (229) were the three
most cited responses. Respondents overwhelmingly felt CCTV helps
catch criminals; two-thirds also believed the cameras deter
offenders from committing crime and makes the public feel safer. The
idea that CCTV attracts more people to an area was viewed more
sceptically - less half of respondents believed it did
so.
Table 3.3 – Public Perception and
Business Surveys
Positive perceptions of the
effectiveness of CCTV
|
%
agree
(Public)
|
% agree
(Businesses)
|
CCTV
helps apprehend criminals |
91% |
82%
|
CCTV
deters criminals from committing crimes |
66% |
53%
|
CCTV
makes the public feel safer |
66% |
71%
|
CCTV
attracts more people to use this area |
45% |
49%
|
Total
number of respondents |
851 |
133
|
Similarly representatives of local
businesses also felt CCTV helps catch criminals and makes the public
feel safer. Only 53% felt in deterred offenders from committing
crime – this was thirteen percent lower than in the public
perception survey (66%). Slightly less than half felt it would
attract more people to use the area. Traders’ views of which crimes
were most common in each site were significantly different from the
survey of the public. Whilst violent attack was the most common
answer in the public perception survey (48%) theft from the person
was the most shared response amongst traders. Street robbery was
second – eliciting a response from just under half the
sample.
Table 3.4 – Business Survey - Which
crimes happen most often? (n = 131)
|
% of
respondents |
Theft
from person (bag/pickpocketing) |
64%
|
Street
robbery |
46%
|
Theft
of/from vehicle |
44%
|
Drug
dealing/use |
44%
|
Vandalism/graffiti |
37%
|
Violent
attack on a person |
31%
|
Changes in feeling of
safety
Perceived reductions in crime fed
through into greater feelings of safety. Sixty-three percent of the
public who were aware of cameras said they felt safer as a result.
About a quarter claimed they felt no different. There was
significant variation by site, as Figure 3.1 shows.
![](CCTV%20in%20Southwark%20Town%20Centres%20Final%20Report_files/bar1.html)
Figure 3.1 – How awareness of CCTV
cameras reduces fear of crime: survey of general public (n =
635)
Fifty-three percent of respondents in
East Street said they felt safer compared with 69% in Camberwell.
Half of all 16-24 year olds said they felt safer, which was the
lowest of all age groupings; 80% of 35-44s felt safer, which was the
highest. Two-thirds of females felt safer compared with 59% of
males. Those who did not know there were cameras present were asked
if they are likely to feel safer in the future. Sixty-six percent
believed they would feel safer.
Six in ten business respondents also
felt safer as a result of cameras being installed. Fifty-three said
they felt no different and three said they felt less secure as a
result. Feelings of safety differed with location. East Street again
scored poorly against the other sites with only 13 of 34 individuals
mentioning they felt safer. In Peckham the figure was 15 of 31.
Conversely in the Elephant and Castle 20 out of 25 said they felt
safer.
Feelings about the area
Around half said the introduction of
cameras had made them feel a little or much more positive about the
area. A third felt it had made no difference. Again this varied with
site. In East Street and Camberwell 41% believed it had made a
positive difference compared with 64% in the Elephant and Castle.
There was little variation between genders. Only 40% of 16-24 year
olds felt more positive. Reasons given for feeling safer included:
greater feelings of security; the activities of people are being
watched over; the cameras gave confidence to shoppers; and less
crime.
As with the surveys of the general
public, about half of business respondents said they felt more
positive about the area. Seven in ten surveyed in the Elephant and
Castle maintained they felt more positive. This compared with 14 out
of 31 in East Street.
Respondents were asked how they
thought the introduction of CCTV had directly affected aspects of
their business. About a third believed it had reduced levels of
shoplifting and burglaries. Forty-seven percent (62) suggested they
felt more secure at work as a result – and about a third said their
feeling of security had increased going to and from work. Almost
half (63) also felt that customer confidence had increased in the
area.
Table 3.5 - Effect of CCTV on aspects
of your business (n = 132)
|
Increased
|
About the
same |
Decreased
|
Unsure
|
Levels
of shoplifting |
9 |
39 |
48 |
36
|
Burglaries |
7 |
29 |
38 |
58
|
Feelings
of security at work |
62 |
45 |
13 |
12
|
Feeling
of security on your way to work |
46 |
58 |
10 |
18
|
Customer
confidence in the area |
63 |
29 |
15 |
26
|
Amount
of insurance paid |
9 |
39 |
13 |
69
|
Volume
of trade |
46 |
46 |
14 |
28
|
Funding of schemes
Figure 3.2 indicates that generally –
and not surprisingly - business respondents favoured local authority
and central government funding CCTV systems in the future. Twelve
said businesses should contribute – but all of these looked to do
this on a partnership basis primarily with local authority
involvement. Respondents in Camberwell were most in favour of local
authority funding (32/41) and least in favour of businesses
contributing to systems (1/41). Some traders went as far to say that
all shops should have CCTV and that central government should make a
contribution to this.
Figure 3.2 - Who should fund CCTV in
the future? (n = 134)
![bar2.gif (3687 bytes)](CCTV%20in%20Southwark%20Town%20Centres%20Final%20Report_files/bar2.html)
There were a large number of
additional comments offered by respondents. The main themes flowing
from these remarks included: the need for increased public awareness
and promotion of CCTV; feedback from the council/police about the
effectiveness of the schemes; more cameras being needed; and
improved camera reliability and use of the cameras by operators. In
East Street there were a number of negative comments about the
system, such as:
‘Some member s of the public seem to
think they are a waste of time in view of the amount of
pickpocketing that goes on and some doubt the cameras are even
working.’
‘Crime still occurs – such as
pickpocketing’
The comments about pickpocketing fit
in quite well with recorded crime figures, which show an increase in
thefts from the person. Despite feeling a little safer one comment
from a shopkeeper in Peckham was particularly disturbing:
‘I have had a business in Peckham for
the past 11 years. The fear of crime is so intense that I cannot
even spend one single day away without caring something is going to
happen – especially when gangs of youths walk in … I have
experienced hundreds of problems from shoplifting to violence and
suffered mental trauma for the past 11
years.’
Other comments of interest include:
‘I think CCTV is a good idea, but also
it would be a good idea to update local businesses on its effect.
And to have a local police officer to keep in touch with the
area.’
‘There should be more notices to
remind the criminals that CCTV is in operation’
‘More publicity should be given about
its existence’
‘I think there should be local
consultation, as there was with the installation, to enable feedback
to improve the service.’
‘I do think it’s a good idea, but am
aware that it moves more crime to the fringes where the cameras are
not present.’
‘The system has been in operation for
over six months. No figures seem to have been published to convince
all parties concerned of their overall
success.’
CHAPTER 4. IMPACT OF CCTV
ON RECORDED CRIME AND DISORDER
This chapter examines the impact of
CCTV on recorded crime in each of the four relevant sites. It starts
with overview of crime and disorder in Southwark. It then offers an
overall assessment of impact of CCTV on crime. Finally it provides a
site-by-site analysis as follows:
- target area
- overall change in crime
- notable changes in crimes which
we expected to be affected by CCTV
- interesting changes in other
crimes
- buffer and comparison areas
- overall changes in crime
- notable changes in crime
- overview of findings in each
site
- changes in disorder calls to the
police (Camberwell and East Street only)
For both buffer zones and comparative
sectors we have excluded crimes which took place within the target
area. We have not done this for police divisions or the
borough as a whole. Analysis of disorder calls to the police for the
year prior to and following installation are found at the end of the
sections on Camberwell and East Street. It should be noted that each
system was installed at a different time. Therefore we have focused
on varying ‘before’ and ‘after’ periods which span different
years.[16]
Overview of crime and
disorder in Southwark
Recorded crime in Southwark is
decreasing. In the year ending March 1998 it was 9% lower than the
previous year. Some of this fall may in part reflect changes in
reporting and recording, but the underlying trend is almost
certainly downwards.
Figure 4.1 - Breakdown of
crime in Southwark April 97 – March 98 (n =
38,976)
![](CCTV%20in%20Southwark%20Town%20Centres%20Final%20Report_files/pie1.html)
Figure 4.2 - Breakdown of
disorder calls to the police in Southwark April 97 – March 98 (n =
34,441)
![](CCTV%20in%20Southwark%20Town%20Centres%20Final%20Report_files/pie2.html)
The reduction in Southwark to the year
ending March 1998 was slightly larger than the fall for the
Metropolitan Police Force Area (down 8%) and considerably greater
than for England and Wales (down 4%).
Disorder calls, about half of which
are accounted for by disturbances, increased by 1%[17].
This marks a slowdown in disorder calls to the police which had been
rising at a substantial rate in the early 1990s (Audit Commission,
1995). Seven out of ten of the
38, 976 crimes recorded in the twelve
months ending March 1998 were against property. An additional 17%
were violent offences and 7% involved drugs. Figure 4.2 provides
more details.
Table 4.1 - Crime types selected for
this study for the Borough of Southwark
|
Feb 96 – Jan
97 |
Feb 97 – Jan
98 |
Feb 98 – Jan
99 |
Change 98/99 over
96/97 |
% Change 98/99 over
96/97 |
Burglary |
6,439
|
5,782
|
5,855
|
- 584
|
- 9%
|
Vehicle
Crime |
10,423
|
9,507
|
8,584
|
- 1,839
|
- 18%
|
Street
Crime |
2,577
|
2,475
|
2,190
|
- 387
|
- 15%
|
Sex/Violence |
5,036
|
4,750
|
4,525
|
- 511
|
- 10%
|
Other
thefts |
4,768
|
5,291
|
5,664
|
896 |
+ 19%
|
Criminal
Damage |
3,557
|
3,159
|
2,659
|
- 898
|
- 25%
|
Total |
32,800
|
30,964
|
29,477
|
- 3,323
|
- 10%
|
Over the entire period covered by the
evaluation (Feb 96 – Jan 99), reductions in crime for the borough as
a whole have again been significant (see Table 4.1). The largest
reductions were in vehicle crime (down 1,839) and vandalism (down
898). Thefts in particular shoplifting increased markedly (up
896).
Impact of CCTV on crime
– overall assessment
In our experience and
that of other independent evaluators (Short and Ditton 1995; Brown
1995; Squires and Measor 1996) certain crimes are more likely to be
deterred by CCTV than others. A previous study in Sutton (Bulos and
Sarno 1995) found burglaries and criminal damage decreased by 47%
and 42% respectively in the year following installation. Skinns
(1996) similarly found in a study of Doncaster that burglaries and
incidents of criminal damage fell by 25% and 32%, respectively.
Conversely, previous studies have shown that other crimes,
particularly violent offences, appear to be less affected by
CCTV.Brown (1995:vi) writes
‘... the effect on
personal crime is less clear. In large Metropolitan areas, the
cameras have had very little effect on overall levels of assaults
and wounding.’
Squires and Measor
(1995:2) similarly conclude,
‘... the underlying
figures, for the first six months of 1995 show little change (3.5%
increase) and the incidents of recorded violence and disorder seem
[as above] to be on the increase (up 24%).’
The results from the
current study show that street crime, in particular robberies, which
were cited as a major problem in all sites, decreased significantly.
A high proportion of those interviewed in the public perception
survey supported the view that CCTV was likely to impact upon street
crime. Forty-seven percent (238) believed thefts from the person
would be affected. Slightly less (45%) cited robberies as likely to
be impacted upon.
Other crimes most likely
to be affected include: burglaries, criminal damage, and vehicle
crimes. When aggregated these crimes fell from 1,613 during the
period Feb 96- Jan 97 to 1,208 in the year Feb 98 – Jan 99. This
amounts to a fall of 25%.[18]
Crimes of violence have decreased across all four sites. There was a
7% reduction between the periods Feb 96 – Jan 97 and Feb 98 - Jan
99. This reduction is predictably lower than the average fall across
all crimes over the same period (down 10%). On a positive note ABH
decreased by 31% (down 87) but serious assaults were in the main
unchanged (46 against 47).
The reason why CCTV has
less effect on violent offences has been largely unexamined.
However, they are distinguished by characteristics of the specific
nature of the circumstances, location, social context and mutually
reinforcing expectations of group behaviour. Town centres have long
been locations for social networking such as group outings to a
public house or a teenage gathering in or around a fast food
restaurant. A study of six police force areas indicated that one in
five crimes of violence might be described as ‘street brawls’. One
in eight were ‘pub brawls’ (Davidoff and Dowds, 1989). These types
of social gathering often involve the consumption of alcohol. This
can result in peer pressure, particularly amongst males, to engage
in raucous behaviour, which escalates or provokes violent behaviour.
Gatherings of the latter kind can be perceived as threatening to
passers-by and can become the focus of behaviour which preys on ‘out
of group’ members. In any case these types of gatherings are likely
to be boisterous and driven by social expectation. Participants are
therefore arguably less likely to respond to CCTV. In some cases
behaviour may actually be directed towards attracting attention, and
the arrival of the police might be part of the desired outcome. Far
from being discouraged by the presence of CCTV, provocative and
violent behaviour may, under some circumstances, actually be
fuelled. In other cases the most likely impact of CCTV may be to
shift these activities into side streets, or alternative non-CCTV
locations.
Impact on
recorded crime in the Elephant and Castle
This section examines changes in
recorded crime in the year before and two years following
installation (Feb 96 – Jan 99). The target area includes the whole
of the shopping centre and those areas under camera surveillance in
the surrounding locality. The area covered by recently installed
cameras in Elephant Road have not been included as part of the
target area. This is because they were installed in late 1998,
almost at the end of the ‘after’ period
Recorded crime in the Elephant and
Castle target area decreased in the ‘after’ period compared to Year
-1 pre-CCTV. Figure 4.3 clearly shows the introduction of cameras
coincided with sharp reductions in offences just before and
following installation. It fell by 11% in the year following
installation (491 against 436) – and was 17% lower in the following
year (408). The most significant falls were in robberies (down by
67), thefts from the person (down by 28) and non-residential
burglaries (down by 11).[19]
Crimes we believed less likely to be affected, assaults and public
order offences, fell from 66 to 41 in the year following
installation – but increased to 77 in the subsequent year. This is
in line with other independent evaluations, which suggest that CCTV
has had little or no impact on crimes of violence over the longer
term.
Figure 4.3 - Monthly recorded crime
figures for the Elephant and Castle target area (Feb 96 – Jan
99)
![](CCTV%20in%20Southwark%20Town%20Centres%20Final%20Report_files/scttr1.html)
![](CCTV%20in%20Southwark%20Town%20Centres%20Final%20Report_files/bar3.html)
Figure 4.4 - Changes in recorded
crime in the Elephant and Castle target area (2/96 -
1/99)
In the year following installation
recorded crime in the buffer zone fell (on Year -1 pre-CCTV levels)
from 2,090 to 1,803. The following year it fell to 1,745, a decrease
of 17% on pre-CCTV levels. Substantial decreases were recorded in
thefts from vehicles (-111), criminal damage (–80), thefts of
vehicles (-58) and robberies (-46). Changes in the comparison
sectors were mixed. There was a fall in recorded offences in the
Newington Sector (down 15%) but a small increase in the Borough
Sector (up 3%). Recorded offences were down by 2% in the Southwark
Division. For the Walworth Division and borough as a whole crime was
down by 13% and 10% on Year -1 pre-CCTV levels. Table 4.2 summarises
these findings.
Table 4.2 - Comparative changes in
recorded crime – the Elephant and Castle
|
Year
-1 pre-CCTV (2/96-1/97)
|
Year
1 post-CCTV (2/97–1/98)
|
Change Yr. 1 post on Yr. –1
pre |
%
Change |
Year
2 post-CCTV (2/98-1/99)
|
Change Yr. 2 post on Yr. –1
pre |
%
Change |
Target
Area[20] |
491 |
436 |
-55 |
-11% |
408 |
-83 |
-17%
|
Buffer
Zone |
2,090
|
1,803
|
-287 |
-14% |
1,745
|
-345 |
-17%
|
Comparison Sector
(Newington)[21]
|
4,814
|
4,636
|
-178 |
-4% |
4,083
|
-731 |
-15%
|
Comparison Sector
(Borough)[22]
|
3,588
|
3,663
|
+75 |
2% |
3,690
|
+102 |
+3%
|
Comparison Division (all
Southwark) |
11,366
|
11,085
|
-281 |
-2% |
11,090
|
-276 |
-2%
|
Comparison Division (all
Walworth) |
9,686
|
8,957
|
-729 |
-8% |
8,415
|
-1,271
|
-13%
|
Borough
as whole (all) |
32,800
|
30,964
|
-1,836
|
-6% |
29,477
|
-3,323
|
-10%
|
Recorded crime in the target area has
fallen. However, levels of crime in the buffer zone and in the
Newington Comparison Sector also experienced large reductions
(15-17%). Given these notable falls it is difficult to unpick
whether this is evidence of positive effect – with a diffusion of
benefits from the target area to the buffer zone, or simply part of
an overall downward trend within this area. The fall in robberies is
especially encouraging, and suggests that CCTV had an impact on the
crime which prompted the introduction of the system. At this stage
it would be premature to claim conclusive results,
however.
Impact on
recorded crime in Peckham
As emphasised in the methodology
section we have been unable to collect CRIS data for the year prior
implementation. This means a full ‘before’ – ‘after’ analysis is not
possible for Peckham. However, some police data have been made
available. Allegations of street crime (robberies and thefts from
the person) and burglaries committed within the view of the
cameras have been collected for the before and after period.
Crimes, which occurred out of the field of vision of cameras were
excluded. The statistics collected for this exercise are unlikely to
correspond directly with those covering the Peckham target area
mapped out by the research team. [23]
The Crime Management Unit in Peckham has also provided some ‘before’
and ‘after’ data. This is for the months of August and September in
the two years prior and following camera installation. These are
aggregate data for the town centre beat areas.
![](CCTV%20in%20Southwark%20Town%20Centres%20Final%20Report_files/scttr2.html)
Figure 4.5 - Changes
in Street Crime in Peckham (October 94 - September
97)
Street crime decreased sharply in the
two years post-installation compared with the year prior to the
introduction of cameras. In the twelve months following installation
it fell by 61% (290 to 114 crimes) on the year prior to
implementation.
Year 2 showed a much smaller fall of
six crimes (114 to 108) on Year 1. Similarly there were falls in
burglaries with entry points in view of the cameras. Between May and
September 1995 there were 50 burglaries in view of the cameras. This
fell to 30 in 1996 and 11 in 1997 for the same time
periods.
Perhaps the best ‘before-after’
analysis we can provide is for the town centre beats. However,
changes in the police computer software and operators mean the only
reliable analysis we can provide is for the months of August and
September, 1994-97. The period August/September 1994 and 1995 refer
to the ‘before’ period. August/September 1996 and 1997 are the
post-installation period.
![key1.gif (1190 bytes)](CCTV%20in%20Southwark%20Town%20Centres%20Final%20Report_files/key1.html)
![](CCTV%20in%20Southwark%20Town%20Centres%20Final%20Report_files/bar4.html)
Figure 4.6 Changes in recorded crime
in the Peckham beat buffer zone (Aug/Sep 94 and Aug/Sep 95 against
Aug/Sep 96 and Aug/Sep 97).
Recorded crime fell from 1904 in the
‘before’ period to 1583 for the ‘after’ period or 17%. The largest
reduction was in street crime which fell from 397 to 130 offences.
There were also reductions in vehicle crime, burglaries and other
thefts. Although burglaries decreased by 5% there was a marked
increase in non-residential burglaries (up by 71%). Residential
burglaries fell by about a quarter. Similarly there were notable
changes in different types of violent offences. Serious assaults
decreased by half (down form 35 to 18) – but ABH increased by the
same percentage (up from 81 to 122).
The only additional statistical
analysis we can offer for Peckham is of trends in the target area,
buffer zone and comparison area for the three-year period ‘after’
implementation. The data cover the period February 1996 (three
months after the system went live) to January 1999.
Whether one might expect CCTV to have
a progressive impact over time is arguable. On the one hand, the
novelty – and initial publicity – of the scheme might result in an
immediate but unsustained impact after implementation. On the other
hand, if systems were used to good effect, one might expect
offenders to respond progressively to the cameras’ presence. The
evidence is somewhat supportive of the former viewpoint.
Recorded crime in the target area
decreased from 1,103 for the period February 96 to January 97 to
1,001 in the following year, a fall of 9%. The largest decreases
were in non-residential burglaries (down 59), theft from the person
(down 26) and incidents of criminal damage (down 21). Street crime
[24]
decreased by 20 offences. This however, hides an increase of 6
street robberies. In the following year (98/99) recorded crime
increased by 68 to 1069. Shoplifting (which we believed unlikely to
be affected) increased for a second year rising by 43% to 337.
Residential burglaries and other assaults also increased. Robberies
dropped by 38 to 60 in total. Thefts of motor vehicles and ABH also
had notable falls (see Appendix A for details).
Figure 4.7 - Recorded crime in the
Peckham target area (Feb 96 – Jan 99)
![](CCTV%20in%20Southwark%20Town%20Centres%20Final%20Report_files/scttr3.html)
In the two years following
installation recorded crime in the buffer zone (beat areas1, 2 and 4
excluding the target area) fell from 3,564 to 3,469.
Non-residential burglaries experienced the greatest decline (down
82) closelyfollowed by thefts of motor vehicles (down 75).
There is some evidence to suggest that robberies have been
geographically displaced to this area – increasing by 49 or 27%. In
the following year there was a steeper decrease of 13% to 3,024. The
largest reductions were in: criminal damage (down 138), ABH (down
102), criminal damage to motor vehicle (down 86) and robberies (down
42).
Table 4.3 - Comparative changes in
recorded crime - Peckham
|
Year 1
post-CCTV
(2/96–1/ 97)
|
Year 2 post-CCTV
(2/ 97–1/
98) |
Change Yr. 1 post
on Yr. 2 post |
% Change
|
Year 3 post-CCTV
(2/98 –
1/99) |
Change Yr. 3 post
on Yr. 1 post |
% Change
|
Target
Area |
1,103
|
1,001
|
-102 |
-9% |
1,069
|
-34 |
-3%
|
Buffer
Area |
3,564
|
3,469
|
-95 |
-3% |
3,024
|
-540 |
-15%
|
Comparison Sector (Peckham) |
5,732
|
5,421
|
-311 |
-5% |
5,300
|
-432 |
-8%
|
Comparison Division (all
Peckham) |
11,748
|
10,922
|
-826 |
-7% |
9,972
|
-1,776
|
-15%
|
Borough
as whole (all) |
32,800
|
30,964
|
-1,836
|
-6% |
29,477
|
-3,323
|
-10%
|
Levels of crime also fell in all the
comparison areas. Over the three-year ‘after’ period decreases in
the comparison areas have been greater than the target
area.[25]
This suggests it is unlikely that CCTV is having a continuing and
progressive effect on crime in this area. However, we would need
more data from the ‘before’ period to be sure.
Impact on recorded
crime and disorder in Camberwell
This section will examine changes in
recorded crime over a three-year period in Camberwell (two years
prior and one year following installation). The specific period
under examination runs from February 1996 to January 1999. The
target area in Camberwell primarily covers the town centre,
particularly Camberwell Church Street and Denmark Hill (see Appendix
D for full details).
Recorded crime has fallen in the
Camberwell CCTV target area – both before and after the installation
of CCTV. In the year before the system went live, there were falls
in vehicle crime (-46), sex and violence offences (-30) and street
crime (-25). However, notable increases in shoplifting (+48) meant
the overall crime figure was only 4% lower in post-CCTV year 1 than
the previous year (Feb 96 – Jan 97).
Figure 4.8 - Recorded Crime in the
Camberwell target area (Feb 96-Jan 99)
![](CCTV%20in%20Southwark%20Town%20Centres%20Final%20Report_files/scttr5.html)
Following installation a steeper drop
of 12% was recorded (Yr. 1 compared with Yr. -2). Reductions in
vehicle crime (down by 28) and street crime (down by 34) continued,
albeit at a lower level in number terms than the previous year (down
101 compared with down 79). Burglaries, in particular those against
non-residential premises (down by 11) also fell by 19. In examining
specific crimes the single largest fall was in robberies, which
decreased by 22. Surprisingly sex and violence offences decreased
(down by 17) for a second year running. There were increases in
bicycle and other thefts (up by 12) as well as serious assaults (up
by 3). A fuller breakdown of year-on-year changes for specific
crimes is set out in Appendix A.
Figure 4.9 - Changes in recorded crime
in the Camberwell target area (Feb 96 – Jan
99)
![](CCTV%20in%20Southwark%20Town%20Centres%20Final%20Report_files/bar5.html)
Table 4.4 - Comparative changes in
recorded crime -Camberwell
|
Year
-2
pre-CCTV
(2/96-1/97) |
Year -1
pre-CCTV
(2/97–1/98)
|
Change Yr. 1
pre on Yr. 2 pre |
%
Change |
Year 1
post-CCTV
(2/98-1/99)
|
Change Yr. 1
post on Yr. –1 pre |
%
Change |
Target
Area |
933 |
892 |
-41 |
-4% |
789 |
-103 |
-12%
|
Buffer
Zone |
1,354
|
1,136
|
-218 |
-16% |
1,210
|
+74 |
+7%
|
Comparison Sector (Camberwell) |
4,177
|
3,653
|
-524 |
-13% |
3,755
|
+102 |
+3%
|
Comparison Division (all
Walworth) |
9,686
|
8,957
|
-729 |
-8% |
8415 |
-542 |
-6%
|
Borough
as whole (all) |
32,800
|
30,964
|
-1,836
|
-6% |
29,477
|
-1,487
|
-5%
|
During the pre-installation period
crime in the buffer zone decreased from 1,354 to 1,136
[26].
However, this fall was followed by an increase from 1,136 to 1,210
(or up 7%) in the year post-installation. There were increases in
cases of criminal damage to motor vehicles (+25), ABH (+25) and
section 4 public order offences (+9). The most worrying increase,
however, was in burglaries, which went up by 39% from 228 to 316.
Residential burglaries rose from 187 to 262 (29%). Nevertheless,
there were also notable falls in street crime (-48)[27],
criminal damage (-19) and serious assaults (-5) - (See Appendix B
for more detailed figures).
Recorded crime in the Camberwell
Sector rose by 3% (3653 to 3755). There were substantial rises in
burglaries (+79 or +10%), thefts of motor vehicles (+70 or +24%) and
ABH (+52 or +25%). Figures for the Walworth Division and borough
decreased by 6% and 5%, respectively.
Clearly recorded crime in the target
area decreased quite significantly in the year following CCTV
installation (-12%). Promising falls in street crime, vehicle crime
and violent crime were recorded although these had already been
decreasing significantly prior to the introduction of cameras.
However, it is probable that these falls have been at the expense of
the surrounding buffer areas where crime has increased by up to 7%.
Most disconcerting of all is that crimes, which were falling in the
target area have increased significantly in the beat and
sector buffer zones. Burglaries and violent crime in the buffer
zone, for example, increased by 39% and 26%, respectively.
Disorder Calls to the police in
Camberwell
In Camberwell disorder calls to the
police increased from 815 to 846, or 4%. The most significant
increase was in abandoned phone calls to the police, which increased
by 28% from 208 to 266. Disturbances in public places (the largest
single category) increased slightly from 414 to 419. There were
notable falls in disturbances in licensed premises (down by 15) and
civil disputes (down by 16).
In the year following installation
disorder calls in the buffer zone increased at three times
the rate of the target area. In number terms there was an
increase of 162 calls, or 14% (1331). As in the target area
the biggest rise was in abandoned phone calls which increased
from 353 to 507. The biggest decrease was in noise nuisance calls,
which fell from 74 to 29. Civil disputes and domestic incidents fell
by 8 and 9 calls respectively. Overall, disorder calls increased by
4% in the Camberwell Sector – but were unchanged in the Division as
a whole. In Southwark there was a 1% increase in
calls.
Impact on recorded
crime and disorder in East Street
Cameras were introduced into East
Street in January 1998. We have therefore examined the three-year
period February 1996 to January 1999 – or two years prior to
installation and one year following. The system covers a large tract
of East Street running from the Walworth Road to Elsted Street, thus
covering the majority of the outdoor market area. As with other CCTV
schemes introduced into Southwark, cameras have been placed at
junctions allowing some coverage of adjacent roads. Particularly
important is the camera at the top end of East Street, which allows
surveillance of the Walworth Road from Browning to Merrow
Road.
Figure 4.10 - Recorded crime in the
East Street target area (Feb 96 – Jan 99)
![](CCTV%20in%20Southwark%20Town%20Centres%20Final%20Report_files/scttr6.html)
Recorded crime in the target area
increased by 3% (up from 780 to 801) in the year prior to CCTV
installation (Yr. -2 pre-CCTV compared with Yr. -1 pre-CCTV). Figure
4.10 (below) indicates that the majority of this rise was in vehicle
crime (up 23). In the subsequent year, however, the overall figure
fell to 717, a reduction of 10% on the previous year. There were
notable decreases in vehicle crime (down 44) and criminal damage
(down by 23). Street crime rose sharply from 156 to 190 – but this
overall figure conceals significant variations by crime type.
Robberies almost halved (down from 50 to 26) but theft from the
person increased from 106 to 164. This shift might represent
functional displacement from one crime type to another. Thefts from
the person may have increased as it is a subtler and less obvious
criminal act and therefore is more likely to go unnoticed by CCTV
camera operators. Violent and sexual crimes were largely unchanged
(111 to 109) – but worryingly there was an increase in more serious
offences including ABH (up from 36 to 43) and serious assaults (up
from 11 to 16). Other thefts, which include shoplifting,
unexpectedly fell by 42 offences. (See Appendix A for more detailed
analysis of changes).
Figure 4.11 - Changes in recorded
crime in the East Street target area (Feb 96 – Jan 99)
![](CCTV%20in%20Southwark%20Town%20Centres%20Final%20Report_files/bar6.html)
Table 4.5 - Comparative changes in
recorded crime - East Street
|
Year -2
Pre-CCTV
(2/96- 1/97) |
Year -1
pre-CCTV (2/97–1/98) |
Change Yr.
-1 pre on Yr. -2 pre |
%
Change |
Year 1
Post-CCTV
2/98-1/99 |
Change Yr. 1
post on Yr. –1 pre |
%
Change |
Target
Area |
780 |
801 |
+21 |
+3% |
717 |
-84 |
-10%
|
Buffer
Zone |
1,073
|
1,058
|
-15 |
-1% |
830 |
-228 |
-22%
|
Comparison Sector
(Newington) |
4,394
|
4,159
|
-235 |
-5% |
3,671
|
-488 |
-12%
|
Comparison Division (all
Walworth) |
9,686
|
8,957
|
-729 |
-8% |
8415 |
-542 |
-6%
|
Borough
as whole (all) |
32,800
|
30,964
|
-1,836
|
-6% |
29,477
|
-1,487
|
-5%
|
In the year preceding installation
there was little change in recorded crime in the buffer zone (beats
3 and 5 in the Newington Sector excluding the target area).
Following the introduction of cameras, however, recorded offences
fell from 1,058 to 830, or 22%. This reduction is significantly
greater than the target area. Large falls were recorded in
thefts from motor vehicles (down 77), shoplifting (down 42), common
assaults and assaults on police officers (down 37) and criminal
damage (down 35). One notable exception was a significant rise in
thefts of motor vehicles, which increased by 32 to 104. Levels of
crime in the Comparison Sector (Newington) fell by 12% or 488
offences. This is mainly as a result of sharp decreases in thefts
from motor vehicles (down 184), robberies (down 120), shoplifting
(down 81) and theft of motor vehicles (down 81). Figures for the
Walworth Division and borough fell by between 56% and 5%.
Following the introduction of CCTV,
recorded crime in the target area decreased by 10%. This is however
much lower than the buffer zone where there was a 22%
decrease. We cannot fully explain this pattern. We can say however
that we do not believe reductions in recorded crime within the
buffer zone and comparison sector are the direct result of a
diffusion of benefits from the East Street system. Nevertheless,
vehicle crime and other thefts – particularly shoplifting have
fallen markedly. The increase in serious violent offences is
worrying and we have no immediate explanations for this. We have no
reason to believe there has been any geographical displacement from
the target area to the buffer zone. However, it is possible that
functional displacement within the target area has occurred – thus
accounting for the decrease in robberies and increase in thefts from
the person.
Disorder calls to the police in the
East Street area
There was a fall in disorder calls in
the East Street target area. The overall decrease was 9% or
90 calls. There were decreases in all disorder categories. In number
terms the largest falls were in disturbances in public places (down
18), disturbance in private premises (down 17) and domestic
incidents (down 15). In the buffer zone the decrease equated to 10
incidents, or about 1%. The steepest decreases were in noise
nuisance and domestic incident calls (each down by 19). Figures for
the Newington Sector and Walworth Divison were largely unchanged.
Disorder calls for the borough as a whole increased
1%.
Cost
effectiveness
As has become clear, it is complicated
to unravel precisely what impact the four CCTV schemes have had on
recorded crime. This is partly because we lack full data on one
site; but even where we have adequate data, trends in target areas,
buffer zones and comparison sectors do not tell a clear story. It
seems very likely that the schemes have impacted on street robbery;
it is less clear that they have done so on other categories of
street crime, and other forms of crime. Whatever the impact on
recorded crime, we must be even more circumspect about the
effects on unreported and unrecorded crime. Some of the crimes
likely to be affected by CCTV go largely unreported to the
police.
Whatever the complexities in
establishing impact, assessing the systems’ cost effectiveness
is relatively straightforward, provided that one starts with a
reliable estimate of crimes prevented. One can calculate annual
costs by charging a notional annual interest on capital costs and
summing this figure with running costs. The cost per crime
prevented is calculated simply by dividing the annual cost
estimate by the number of crimes prevented.
Capital costs for the four systems
were:
- Camberwell£307,000
- East Street£168,000
- Peckham£366,000
- Elephant and Castle£310,000
Summing these and setting an annual
cost at 10% of the total yields a figure of £115,000 per year. The
annual running costs for the two control rooms is around £165,000.
Thus the total annual costs are in the region of
£280,000.
How cost effective is this
expenditure? It depends entirely on the number of crimes prevented,
and on other related benefits. If one assumed that 70 recorded crime
were prevented annually per site, the cost per recorded crime
prevented would be £1,000. It is also important to make some
assumptions about unrecorded crime. If 50% of crimes prevented reach
police statistics, the cost per crime prevented would fall to £500.
It is equally important to take account of the benefit of reduced
fear, though it is hard to see how this could be included in any
cost effectiveness analysis.
In assessing whether this expenditure
is good value for money, one needs to assess the cost of preventing
crime by other means. Cost effectiveness analysis in criminal
justice is in its infancy, and we know of no relevant work. One can
obviously offer some indicative figures. For example, if one
attributed have the police budget in Southwark to crime reduction in
its broadest sense, there is roughly £2,000 spent per recorded
crime. What we don’t know is the marginal costs per crime prevented.
Again, one can estimate the costs of reducing crime through
incapacitation by imprisonment: if seven recorded crimes are
prevented for each complete year of imprisonment, the cost per crime
prevented is around £4,000.
We have presented these figures simply
to illustrate the likely costs per crime prevented through CCTV and
alternative strategies. We cannot pretend that our estimate of
crimes prevented is anything more than an informed guess. However,
the exercise suggests that investing in CCTV could easily make
sense, especially when other benefits besides crime prevention are
included in the calculus.
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of
findings
Across all sites crime deterrence (in
particular street crime) and a reduction in the fear of crime
featured consistently in the primary aims of each system. In the
case of the Elephant and Castle, Camberwell and East Street there
were reductions in some recorded offences[28],
particularly robbery. Street crime in both the Elephant and Castle
and Camberwell showed falls of 23% in the year following
installation. East Street, however, recorded a 22% increase in
overall street crime. In all sites between 53% and 69% of the public
believed they felt safer now that the cameras have been installed.
Nevertheless, in spite of increased feelings of safety across all
sites less than half of respondents maintained they felt safe after
dark.
Overall results from this evaluation
point to reductions in recorded crime in the order of 10% to 12% in
the year following the introduction of cameras[29].
Whilst these reductions are impressive they must be taken in the
context of falling levels of recorded crime across the borough. In
the year ending January 1999 recorded offences in Southwark were 5%
lower than the previous twelve months. Also, with the exception of
Camberwell, reductions in the buffer zones (police beats surrounding
the target areas) have been equal to or greater than those areas
under direct camera surveillance. Changes in recorded crime in the
comparison areas were mixed. There were increases in the number of
offences in the Borough and Camberwell Sectors (up 2% and 3%
respectively) in years following installation. The Southwark and
Walworth Divisions however recorded falls of between 2% and 8%.
Trying to unpick and make sense of these figures is difficult.
Although falls in the target areas have outstripped those of
comparison areas – buffer zones have generally performed equally as
well as target areas. Our view is that with the exception of
Camberwell it is difficult to directly attribute reductions in crime
within the target areas unequivocally to the introduction of CCTV.
This is primarily because of the equally substantial reductions
across buffer zones. It is more likely to be part of a general
downward trend in crime within which CCTV has played a minor role.
Detections through the use of CCTV
have been relatively low except for the Elephant and Castle. Between
June and September 1998 only eight tapes were taken for examination
by police from the Cerise Road control room (which monitors the
Camberwell, Peckham and East Street systems). Staff at the Cerise
Road control room scan Peckham, Camberwell and East Street with the
cameras - but in what might be described as a blind fashion. They
receive little or no intelligence information on who to look out for
and have no formal training on what to look for – i.e. what
constitutes suspicious behaviour. As a direct consequence very few
incidents ever come to the attention of controllers. When an
incident is caught on camera, we believe it is usually an unmanned
camera and thus not zoomed in to capture good clear evidence.
In contrast, police removed 68 tapes
from the control room in the Elephant and Castle – although about
half of these were taken during or just after the Stephen Lawrence
enquiry. Nevertheless even when tapes seized for the enquiry are
excluded an appreciably greater number of tapes were removed from
the Elephant control room (37 against 8). We believe the relative
success of the Elephant and Castle Scheme in deterring and detecting
crime can be attributed to the introduction or presence of other
measures. These include: regular information exchanges between home
beat officers and control room staff; ‘Operation Watch’ picture file
established; security patrols in the shopping centre; and local
businesses linked up to the control room. Despite the success of the
Elephant scheme in terms of crime reduction and detection there is a
need for the scheme to be systematically reviewed in the light of
the codes of practice and civil liberties issues. (See good practice
lessons and control room management recommendations)
Our findings support the need for the
introduction of closed circuit television as part of a package of
measures. Success is simply not a matter of installing reliable
hardware. Of particular importance is the need for staff training in
what to look for and sources of information to alert controllers of
suspicious behaviour or particular incidents. The introduction of
‘town centre wardens’ may help to fill the dearth/void of
information flowing to CCTV controllers. This coupled with regular
information sharing with the police is likely to not only make the
job of controllers more interesting but also more productive in
terms of detections. There is also scope for changing shift and
break patterns. Although we understand that shifts patterns at the
control room are standard across the security industry we feel they
are too long and breaks too short.
Good Practice
Lessons
Cerise Road control room
- Formal police training for
controllers on what to look for and not to look for
- Greater levels of co-operation
between control room staff, police and shop security by
establishing a Business Watch scheme in Peckham and
Camberwell
- More frequent visits by home beat
officers to the Cerise Road control room to share information (as
happens at the Elephant)
- An Operation Watch picture
file established at Cerise Road provided other recommendations on
control room practices are implemented
- Improved two-way communication
between control rooms and CAD rooms. A hotline established between
Cerise Road and the CAD room at Peckham
- Continued use of police covert
cameras in conjunction with main systems where applicable
Elephant and Castle control
room
- The Elephant and Castle scheme
straddles boundaries of two police divisions. There is scope for
greater levels of co-operation between relevant home beat officers
in the two divisions. We believe that home beat officers from both
beats could benefit from greater levels of contact with one
another and shared knowledge
- Increased use of the Elephant and
Castle system by the Southwark Division – more visits by relevant
beat officers and the sharing of information with
controllers
All sites
- The presence of all systems to be
more highly publicised. This could be done through improved
signage, more shop window posters, and successful detections
highlighted in local newspapers
- The police given information on the
role of CCTV controllers
Continuing
Evaluation
Time periods examined in this
evaluation have been short. For example we have only assessed
changes in recorded crime over a one-year ‘after’ period in
Camberwell and East Street. To examine whether CCTV is having a
progressive effect data needs to be continually collected and
procedures put in place for longer term monitoring. We would
recommend that:
- The police keep formal records of
detections and convictions resulting from use of cameras -
successes should be publicised where possible in the local
press
- Questions about CCTV should be
inserted into the MORI poll of Southwark residents
- Continued annual monitoring of
recorded crime in the target, buffer and comparison areas
- Continual review of the code of
practice and monitoring of its implementation
- Dissemination of results to local
residents and businesses
Control Room
Management
In the light of the possible
implementation of picture files at Cerise Road we believe there is a
need for tighter control room management at both sites. This is to
ensure strict adherence to the Southwark code of practice.
- Limited access to controllers to
view tapes on their own
- Strict controls on who is allowed
to produce stills and under what circumstances
- A system of recording and
accounting for still photographs
- Controls to ensure video tapes are
signed out by police officers. Logbooks should be checked against
tapes being stored to ensure this has occurred
- Regular management spot
checks
- Some repairs seem to be taking
longer than one would expect. Camera 4 in Peckham to be sorted out
as soon as possible. Borough technicians/or outside body to review
system regularly
- A review of the code of
practice
- Training in respect of code of
practice ‘good practice’
REFERENCES
Brown, B. (1995) CCTV
in Town Centres: Three Case Studies, Home Office Police Research
Group, Crime Detection and Prevention Series, Paper 68.
HMSO
Bulos, M and Sarno, C
(1994) Closed Circuit Television and Local Authority Initiatives:
The First National Survey, School of Land Management and Urban
Policy, Research Monograph. RM1/1994, South Bank University,
London.
Bulos, M ed. (1995)
Towards a Safer Sutton? Impact of Closed Circuit Television on
Sutton Town Centre, London Borough of Sutton.
Bulos, M. and Sarno, C.
(1996) Codes of Practice and Public Closed Circuit Television
Systems, Local Government Information Unit. London.
Davidoff, L. and Dowds,
L (1989) Recent trends in violence against the person in England
and Wales, Home Office Research and Planning Unit, Research
Bulletin, No. 27, HMSO
Ditton, J. et al (1999)
The effect of closed circuit television on recorded crime rates
and public concern about crime in Glasgow, Scottish Office
Central Research Unit: Edinburgh
Local Government
Information Unit (1996) A Watching Brief, Local Government
Information Unit. LGIU: London.
Short, E. and Ditton, J
(1995) Does CCTV Affect Crime, CCTV Today 2/2:
10-20.
Short, E. and Ditton, J
(1995) Does closed circuit television prevent crime? An
evaluation of the use of CCTV surveillance cameras in Airdrie town
centre, Central Research Unit, The Scottish Office: Edinburgh:
HMSO
Skinns, D (1997)
Annual report of the Safety in Doncaster evaluation project,
October 1995-September 1995, Doncaster Council & South
Yorkshire Police in Partnership.
Squires, P and Measor, L
(1996) Closed Circuit Television Surveillance and Crime
Prevention in Brighton Half-Yearly Report. Brighton Health and
Social Policy Research Centre, University of Brighton: Brighton: U
of B.
Tilley, N (1993) Understanding Car
Parks, Crime and CCTV: Evaluation Lessons from Safer Cities,
Home Office Police Research Group, Crime Prevention Unit Series,
Paper 42, London: HMSO.
Footnotes
- To maintain anonymity
Omnidata substitutes postcode centroid grid references for the
address grid reference.
- Data for police
sectors excludes crimes which occurred in the target
area
- Table 1.1 does not
include the borough as a whole, though we also present
borough-wide trends.
- Recorded crimes based
on allegations of offences.
- Note of caution – It
is likely that in the changeover period to CRIS (February and
March 1996) it is probable that there was some under-recording of
crime figures
- CRIS codes in
brackets
- Including the pilot
survey 851 interviews were completed. 227 in Peckham; 224 in the
Elephant
- "Before-and-after"
crime surveys could be conducted, but samples would have to be
very large indeed – and thus very costly – to be sensitive to
small falls in rare crimes.
- For example, the 1996
British Crime Survey Statistical Bulletin (Mirrlees-Black et al.,
1998) estimated that there were seven times as many offences of
vandalism and eight times as many robberies and thefts from
persons as were actually recorded by the police.
- Viewing of tapes from
cameras outside the shopping centre contravenes the code of
practice.
- Southwark Council
contributed to 90% of the capital and 75% of running costs of the
scheme.
- The police do ask
operators to focus cameras on certain addresses or areas for
operations but do not give details.
- Controllers noted
that radio links are being used more frequently. They however felt
shop security staff needed more training in using the radios to
relay information.
- It should be noted
that the Cerise Road control room monitors three systems and is
therefore more likely to have a larger number of faults reported.
Furthermore, systems in Camberwell and East Street had been
operational for less than 6 months and were thus were still likely
to be suffering from ‘teething difficulties’.
- 56% lived outside of
Peckham and 38% used the area once a week or less.
- The reader should
refer to Table 1.1 in the Methods section to be clear about these
issues.
- Public order
instances – i.e. disturbance in public place or disturbance in
licensed premises
- Aggregated across
the 4 target areas
- Feb 96 – Jan 97
compared with Feb 98 – Jan 99
- The target area in
the Elephant and Castle straddles the boundaries of the Walworth
and Southwark Divisions.
- Excludes all
recorded offences which occurred in the shopping centre. It also
includes half of crimes which happened on-street in the target
area.
- Excludes half of
crimes which occurred on-street in the target area.
- Allegation statistics
were examined on a case-by-case basis, and a decision made as to
whether they fell within the area under camera surveillance or
not.
- Street crime
comprises thefts from the person and robberies in open public
space.
- One must remember
that we are not comparing the ‘before’ and ‘after’ installation
periods. These figures relate specifically to the after period
only.
- Year 1 pre-CCTV
compared with Year 2 pre-CCTV
- Robbery down from 113
to 78 and theft from the person reduced from 34 to 21.
- We cannot say
anything about changes in recorded crime in Peckham as we have
incomplete pre-installation data.
- The Elephant and
Castle scheme showed a progressive affect. Recorded crime fell
from 491 offences in the year prior to installation to 436 in Yr.
1 post installation to 408 in Yr. 2 post- installation.
|