In my last article for SMT Online/Info4Security I reviewed CCTV’s role in the counter-terror agenda. After the recent bout of civil unrest in London and other UK cities, is it now time to address urban space CCTV and its wider remit?
Looking at how you might establish and operate a successful urban space CCTV scheme and justify the expense at a time of economic austerity is certainly a subject worth investigating.
Urban space CCTV is currently under threat not solely due to the economic climate but also from proposed Government legislation. Any additional legislation will inevitably lead to more cash outlay at a time when everyone is looking for cost savings.
That said, all bona fide CCTV end users and professional surveillance system integrators and installers are firmly behind the need for further legislation, simply because it’s crucial to retaining the public’s confidence and positive endorsement of surveillance.
Most of the UK’s urban CCTV systems are financed and operated by public bodies. It’s not a statuary duty but a discretionary service, so clearly it’s an area where budgets are under intense scrutiny.
Our own experience shows that a number of public sector clients have to make tough financial choices in these austere times and, without doubt, CCTV budgets have been slashed. Many local authorities have opted out of preventative maintenance provision, instead relying solely on reactive response to faults.
On occasion even these are prioritised, with many cameras simply being decommissioned as there’s no money available to carry out repairs.
In some cases, faulty cameras are being replaced by those relocated from areas deemed to be less important for coverage.
Cuts being made in Control Rooms
Cuts are also being felt in CCTV Control Rooms, with operator numbers or monitoring hours being reduced. In some extreme cases systems are not being monitored at all, with the CCTV in place relegated to an evidence gathering role.
This is all happening at a time when police forces face financial cuts in their respective budgets, resulting in fewer civilian support staff and – as has been so highly publicised in the media – less officers on the streets. In turn, this severely limits the police’s ability to provide the levels of service to which the public has become accustomed.
It’s worth reinforcing the fact that the public is firmly behind public space surveillance. In an independent public opinion survey on the use and value of CCTV in public areas commissioned by the CCTV User Group and undertaken by TNS Research International, that support is shown to be overwhelming…
- 90% of the public support public space CCTV run by local authorities
- 82% believe CCTV saves money by reducing police and court time
- 80% feel that public area CCTV does not infringe on their privacy
- 76% consider there’s either the right amount or too few public area cameras
- 71% believe public space CCTV makes them feel safer and reduces crime
- 70% are against the removal of CCTV cameras by public bodies to meet Government budget cuts
- 63% believe that crime and disorder would increase if CCTV were to be removed in their area
- 61% are against any reduction in the monitoring hours of CCTV by local authorities even considering the current economic climate
- 70% are in favour of the continuing use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)
Likewise, Parliament has also endorsed the value of CCTV and its contribution in the identification and prosecution of rioters during the recent spate of rioting, looting, arson and vandalism across some of England’s major cities.
Now more than ever before, it’s time to leverage the maximum use and value from our urban CCTV schemes, not only as a means of painting a visual picture of events or incidents and gathering evidence for post-incident investigation and analysis but also to enable the police to better manage and deploy their resources more efficiently. Put simply, they need real-time intelligence on situations as they unfold.
Is surveillance really the panacea for all ills?
CCTV as we know it has been around for about 20 years. It gained prominence and much support in the early 1990s and was seen by many as the panacea to solve all criminal ills. It also gained much public support, mainly due to some high profile results.
Unfortunately, these systems were often poorly planned and designed as the stakeholders involved had little experience to call upon when implementing them in the real world.
Subsequently, organisations including the Home Office and the CCTV User Group have addressed some of the failings, improving the design of CCTV systems by producing Operational Requirement (OR) documents which set out what the system were/are expected to achieve and by improving the training of operators and their use of the systems.
Is it now time, though, for public sector bodies to revisit their urban surveillance schemes? It can be argued that they need to go back to basics and learn lessons from the experiences gained since the early days of urban surveillance deployment.
The world is a changed place. Events have created a need for more sophisticated surveillance systems energised by an increasing public demand for safer environments.
The opening of borders and the shrinking world, low cost travel and rapid communications have all created new security risks. International terrorism has become a real and present danger. Home-grown activists have proven to pose real threats to our safety and security.
These factors – along with rising levels of anti-social behaviour and violent crime – make security and accountability of paramount importance.
As the effects of the recession take hold and life becomes harder still, experience tells us the risk of crime is likely to increase with stealing becoming a more attractive option for those who want to ‘get rich quick’ without working for such a privilege.
Systems must meet stated objectives
To ensure value for money and swifter return on investment, its imperative that CCTV end users spend their available funding on a system which fully meets their objectives. If it’s not fit for purpose it isn’t going to provide a wise investment (which is pretty much essential in today’s austere climate).
Clearly, the key to success lies in the planning, and I’m not just talking about system design and technology when I state that.
To be truly effective, urban surveillance needs to form part of a response infrastructure. It’s important to remember that the ultimate end user is rarely the system operator or procurers – this responsibility is vested with the police service and the criminal justice system.
Self-evidently, there’s a requirement to develop close relationships with other community safety initiatives and a need for a multiple partnership approach to surveillance operations.
Public bodies need to re-engage with all system stakeholders – the police and emergency services, council departments, retailers, Chambers of Commerce, transport operators, educational establishments and community safety groups, etc – to facilitate multi-agency co-operation in developing operational procedures and response plans mitigating the effects of disruptive incidents.
They also need to engage more fully with their technology integrator – building up a stronger partnership rather than viewing them simply as a supplier. This would result in the provision of technology-driven solutions rather than simply ‘CCTV systems’.
Evidence-based design and development
Ideally, the design and development of the surveillance (CCTV) system needs to be evidence-based and involving problem solving approaches. This should be supported by effective and robust monitoring and evaluation arrangements to facilitate performance assessment and improvement.
It’s fundamental to know what’s to be observed and what level of detailed information is required (and, most importantly, why?) This is where that all-important Operational Requirement comes in.
However, before that we need to look at some fundamental pre-planning: using a systematic approach to maximise the guarantee of implementing a successful scheme and quantifying its ongoing success (which is all-important when budgets are being scrutinised).
First, you need to have a methodical approach to system design and implementation. You need to question and answer all relevant and pertinent issues relating to the implementation of a CCTV scheme. Remember that CCTV is simply a tool for doing a job, and always have to the forefront of your mind the importance of evidence-based design.
Personally, I find one of the best ways to develop a successful scheme is to make a SNAP decision.
SNAP is a good acronym for a ‘four-step’ test methodology developed to aid system implementation and based on four key areas which need to be carefully addressed: sustainability, necessity, accountability and proportionality.
Sustainability
Sustainability is paramount to the implementation and long term operational success of any CCTV project. You need to ask:
- are capital funds required and available to implement any proposed surveillance scheme?
- are the operational costs – inclusive of streamed revenue funding for management, supervision and monitoring staff – realistic, and is funding for ongoing maintenance and post-warranty service/repairs available?
- is the project partnership funded?
Necessity
CCTV’s undoubtedly a valuable tool as an aid in the ‘operational management’ of urban spaces. However, it’s not a panacea to cure all ills as some might have you believe.
With this in mind, you need to clearly identify the problem to be addressed and the all-important OR: what are we looking to achieve with CCTV, for example? Is it to identify potential drug dealers hanging around the local school?
Evaluate measures which can be taken as an alternative solution to – or in conjunction with – CCTV. An option to increase patrols by the local community police or school personnel or prevent children from leaving school during breaks could provide alternative solutions.
Analyse crime statistics to corroborate a crime problem and support the need for CCTV. Obtain support from other parties (such as the police or ShopWatch, etc. Elicit support within the surrounding community and ewxplore links with other initiatives (eg urban regeneration projects, Radio-Link schemes, etc)
Accountability
Accountability should cover the legal implications of introducing CCTV. Public area surveillance is undergoing ever more legislative scrutiny, in turn placing increased responsibility on the system owner to take full accountability for the operation and use of the system.
As such, the following issues need to be addressed:
- produce a detailed OR document which identifies what, where, when, by whom and in particular the why of a CCTV system
- what processes/controls are being deployed in the monitoring, recording and processing of the CCTV images?
- does the monitoring facility have suitable infrastructure and operate to a definitive Code of Practice which meets Best Practice and complies with legislation such as the Data Protection Act?
Proportionality
Question how appropriate CCTV is as a solution to a given problem with the following points considered in due course:
- having looked at necessity, is CCTV appropriate given both the location and environment and the problem to be addressed?
- have other solutions been investigated and discounted?
- is the number and quality of cameras sufficient and reasonable?
- how will images be transmitted (fibre, LAN/WAN, etc)?
- what are the logistical implications, here will power be derived, what civil work is needed and is the lighting suitable (or will additional lighting or IR lamps be required)?
- have local planning regulations been addressed?
SNAP: the framework and structured assessment
SNAP provides a framework and a structured assessment process for the application of CCTV by overlaying onto a matrix and allocating a weighting score to each category such that the effectiveness and suitability can be ascertained.
In other words, is there a crime problem/reason for installing CCTV, what impact will such an installation have, will it create a better environment and would an alternative solution be more beneficial?
Assuming you have made a positive SNAP-type decision and completed your OR, it’s time to hand over to the technical specialist who’s job it is to translate the OR requirements into a suitable and appropriate system: in short, a tool to do the job.
This means selecting the optimum camera location, correct camera type(s), most appropriate lenses, associated hardware, best transmission medium and the control, process and recording equipment. These individual devices are often sourced from a diverse selection of manufacturers and suppliers and thus require very skilful amalgamation to produce a quality end result.
Given the legacy CCTV situation in the UK you may already have carried out an OR: whether you have or not, it’s vital that you revisit it. Things will almost certainly have changed since any original OR was completed.
You need to know that your system is still meeting your objectives and that your objectives are still current and valid. After all, both risk and technology have changed significantly in recent years.
If you are lucky enough to have a proactive CCTV installer/integrator on board they’ll have endeavoured to keep you up-to-date with technological advances and Best Practice.
Performance assessment: critical to success
As with any product or service, operational control is paramount for a consistent outcome: CCTV operation is no different.
Once this definitive starting line is established it can form the basis for development of performance and assessment management of the CCTV scheme which is critical to ongoing success.
If you don’t measure performance, how can you hope to justify and prove a system is fit for purpose and quantify accountability (and, importantly, justify the cost of the service)?
Any organisation using CCTV should have a performance management system that captures the performance activities of the CCTV.
The CCTV User Group is conducting a survey into both the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of public space CCTV, and has recently circulated a questionnaire asking a number of pertinent questions (such as number of incidents, number of CCTV reviews and number of arrests, etc).
It would be a good place for CCTV end users to start in justifying the expenditure and funding of this under-valued discretionary service that’s provided for the benefit of all law-abiding citizens.
Peter Houlis is managing director of 2020 Vision Systems