Public Space CCTV, as opposed to Private (shops, garages etc) is generally ineffective at reducing crime, or bringing offenders to justice.

There have been numerous studies over the last 15 years, adopting an evidence based approach, that have demonstrated that,

Private CCTV can prevent premeditated property crime, e.g. stealing from shops, burglary of premisses in which CCTV is installed.

Public CCTV is not effective at stopping or preventing violent crimes. Although the CCTV systems may help at deploying police officers quickly to these violent crimes sites, (assuming for small towns like Drayton there are any police available to deploy.)the offenders may avoid the security cameras, since the security cameras are mounted in public zones, where violent crimes rarely take place.

In addition, when alcohol is involved, the offenders don’t consider the consequences of their actions, making the CCTV systems ineffective as a deterrent amongst the intoxicated offenders. Again for Drayton the police are looking for operators between 8 pm and 3 am, the times at which most incidents will be drink related.

Only need to think how effective Speed Cameras are at reducing speeding.

What Public CCTV is effective at is reducing the public fear of crime. However numerous studies have indicated that,

First, If the presence of Public CCTV is Public Knowledge (which is necessary to reduce the fear of crimes, offenders or those involved in anti social behaviour simply move to another part of town.

Secondly, a comparison of Crime Rates, before and after the installation of CCTV demonstrates for a short period after switch on, there is a marginal reduction in recorded incidents. Later recorded crime rates are back to pre CCTV levels.

There is a further issue when CCTV manned by volunteers, . Who manages the volunteers? I would have more concern about snooping neighbours, than I ever would about CCTV making a town safer.

Finally, this is ineffective policing on the cheap. Police presence is able to be reduced, Volunteers undertake what the police should be doing, and it is all dressed up as crime reduction.

If anyone wishes to read the studies, they include,

• UK Home Office CCTV Review 2002: The second most frequently cited report in the CCTV study literature.
• UK Parliament CCTV Summary 2002:
• Department of Justice Guide to Video Surveillance 2006:
• Study for Los Angeles CCTV Use 2008:
• New York City Apartments Effectiveness Study 2008: Examines the use of CCTV in a 120 building complex in 2005; limited to no evidence supporting benefits of surveillance
• Dozen US CCTV Case Studies circa 1999:
• Harvard CCTV Case Study 2007:
• Temple CCTV Philadelphia Case Study 2008:
• Baltimore CCTV Review 2007:
• ACLU Review of Surveillance Cameras 2008: Reviews numerous studies and contends that meta-analysis demonstrates that surveillance cameras offer no benefits.
• Washington DC CCTV Article 2008:
• San Francisco Bay Area CCTV Review 2007:
• Survey and Summary of CCTV Studies by EPIC 2002: Civil liberties research center provides an overview of issues involved and a review of findings and statistics available.
• Glascow CCTV Study 1999: Demonstrates CCTV cameras had no impact on reducing crime or solving cases.
Guardian London CCTV Review 2008: Reports that only 3% of street crimes are solved with CCTV.

Report abuse