The business case for remote monitoring can be applied to any site with valuable assets that need protecting out of hours – a head office building, a car dealership for example. Schools are another prime example, with the security industry increasingly looking to grasp the opportunities in this market that IP video/remote monitoring affords.
Ultimately, the main benefit is to protect the schools’ infrastructure, people, and assets, and counter petty crimes such as opportunistic theft or vandalism as well as more serious incidents such as arson. But the right implementation needs to be built on a solid business case in order to deliver effective security.
According to official statistics, every week in the UK there are:
- 2100 arson attacks;
- two deaths from fire-related incidents;
- 55 people injured in fire-related incidents; and
- 20 schools damaged or destroyed by arson.
Of the culprits, young people (i.e. 10 to 17-year-olds) represent 40% of those prosecuted or cautioned for arson offences, and the direct cost of arson is put at around GB pound 40million. Crime figures in London schools between 2000 and 2004, quoted by the London Grid for Learning, further illustrate the depth of the school security issue. During the period, there were 7500 burglaries at schools and 7300 reports of criminal damage, with the average incident said to be costing GB pound 15,000. And, in a specific area of London, Havering and Newham, school-related crimes were averaging more than one a day. Such figures gain even greater significance when you consider that they only cover those incidents that were reported in and around London. Just think what the numbers could be if you add the unreported incidents, and those that occur elsewhere in the country?
Soft targets
The problem, in part, is that schools are typically ‘soft’ targets. This is further compounded – at least regarding burglaries – by the British government’s recent investment in educational establishments, and an increase in computers, projectors, electronic whiteboards and general ICT technology, which are very desirable items to steal.
There are several ways of addressing security in schools, or indeed any remote site. These range from having a guard drive up in a van once a night, to burglar alarms and access panels, to using cameras as a deterrent (even if no footage is recorded); from onsite guards and/or police roaming the site with CCTV back-up, to remote monitoring of the site. Any one of these approaches could be appropriate – it completely depends on the location, threat or perceived risk involved in protecting the school and its perimeter.
But there is another more preventative approach, involving the use of advanced forms of external motion detection. If a security breach can activate an alarm and trigger images to be delivered direct to the screen of a remote monitoring operator, then he or she can track that person and take the pre-emptive measures required to stop an incident from happening. The physical deployment will involve an installer carrying out the usual surveys and placement of cameras. Audio equipment could be fitted close to the cameras. Often, the solution will take advantage of the school’s existing network and bandwidth capacity to provide round-the-clock video-over-IP coverage. But, most importantly, all this should come together with motion detection.
In schools, IP CCTV helps, at an external level, to protect perimeters, safeguard the public and reduce incidents of vandalism. Internally, it helps with asset management (stock and equipment loss), physical threats (staff attacks, playground control etc) and general pupil safety. Remote video monitoring can also integrate with other alarms, such as door-entry and intruder devices, provide rapid and effective response in an emergency situation, aid identification and subsequent prosecution of individuals, and provide detailed ancillary management information of use to the school.
Accurate video motion detection eliminates nuisance false alarms by using the raw picture image rather than a grid of blocks over a digital image. It can also pick up movement over a wide field of view, like a field or car park environment, and operate effectively at night. The technology can also mask out areas and is unaffected by wobbling poles or adverse weather conditions, which are the common sources of false alarms.
Schools should already have the necessary bandwidth delivered into their buildings, via both leased lines and broadband. The CCTV solution makes use of this existing bandwidth for out-of-hours surveillance and alarm management, while high-quality video images are compressed to minimise bandwidth usage. The concept of distributed recording means that no video is transferred over the links until requested by the control room or an alarm activation. An operator can then view cameras that are in alarm, via a single button press. Dynamic image sizing can be used to reduce the amount of data conveyed for a given image display size, while recorded data is stored at high quality.
With traditional monitoring systems, the detection of incidents and the appropriate response is very much a function of the RVRC operative. But with motion detection alarm monitoring, triggered events can be allocated a pre-determined response for the area in which the event is detected. It can be configured, for example, to send alarms to video walls, to dial out and send a voice/SMS message to fixed or mobile phones, or to transmit a pre-recorded voice alert to the camera position. The end result is an advanced management software interface displaying site and building layouts, internal and external camera layouts, keyholder information linked to the site database, special access arrangements, and full management reporting and receipt of alarms.
Fast payback
But before deciding upon any one solution as being ‘expensive’, perhaps it is worth considering how much you could stand to lose. What is the cost, for example, of losing expensive ICT technology, such as digital cameras or printers. One classroom alone may have upwards of GB pound 20,000 of kit.
Think also of the cost of vandalism and graffiti. Broken window pains need fixing, and spray paint doesn’t wash off by itself. An annual ‘clear-up’ of even sundry vandalism could top GB pound 15,000. At a more serious level, consider the cost incurred through arson, which averages something in the order of GB pound 25,000 a time. And there are also the ‘hidden’ costs of having to close a school while the building undergoes repair.
Perhaps a more positive approach is to think what you might save by having a smart alarm monitoring solution. In the UK, confirmed alarms compliant with BS8418 will receive priority treatment from the police. Reduced insurance premiums should be the result, and even a 10% cut here could mean a saving of many thousands of pounds, which could be invested into the school’s infrastructure and assets. And then there is probably the greatest cost saving of all – the cost to a school’s reputation and its ability to provide a safe environment in which the children can be taught and the staff can work. The costs of using a remote monitoring solution based on video motion detection will vary, but typically, allow for a payback in months, rather than years.