Fighting Crime From Above?

Adrian G. Uribarri from the Chi*Town Daily News reports:

A $23 million proposal to place more than 3,000 cameras around public-housing developments has alarmed privacy advocates and raised questions over the effectiveness of surveillance systems.

Under the plan, the Chicago Housing Authority would install the cameras near 16,000 apartments in the city, about three quarters of the authority's properties, and it would update surveillance systems installed earlier at public housing for seniors. Officials say the program would improve safety and security around residents' homes.

Already, more than 2,000 cameras in the city link to an emergency command center, making Chicago's residents some of the most closely watched in the world. Mayor Richard M. Daley has said that if Chicago wins the 2016 Olympic bid, he would like a camera on every street corner of the city.

"There isn't really any sort of public dialogue, ever, about how much is enough or what's effective," says Ed Yohnka, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. "There's no real, definitive evidence that any of this is effective. There are just pronouncements that it is."

Yohnka and other civil-liberties advocates have acknowledged that people should not expect privacy in public places, but he questioned the extent of formal talks between officials and residents, and called the number of cameras in the authority's plan "extraordinary."

It is not yet clear how 3,198 new cameras at the authority would operate, or where officials would place them. Officials selected Siemens Building Technologies Inc. as the proposed contractor after a competitive bid process in April.

Chicago has a lot of public surveillance equipment.  They have street surveillance cameras, gunshot detection systems, and red light cameras.  They also have a manned command center where officers are staffed 24/7 . Richard M Daley, Mayor of Chicago went so far as to claim:

This new equipment has proven to be a strong deterrent.  Through a combination of good police work, new technology like Operation Disruption, and community involvement, we can continue to make our children and neighborhoods safer.

The crime chart at City Data paints a bit of a different picture. Since 2004, murders, robberies & burglaries have remained steady while the other categories were in slight decline. The overall crime in Chicago has been in decline for ten years and this pre-existing trend needs to be accounted for before claims are made that the surveillance system is effective.  It's also hard to measure any crime reduction effectiveness campaign when there are multiple initiatives being undertaken at the same time like "Operation Disruption" and "community involvement".

While I agree CCTV systems for public housing are a good idea because public housing sometimes has higher-than-average crime rates.  However, it's my belief that these systems will merely displace the crime to areas outside of the reach of the cameras.  The Chicago Housing Authority should put a framework in place to measure any displacement or diffusion of benefits phenomenon so they can report back to the citizens just how effective the system really is.  The citizens of Chicago don't need another politician claiming success without backing up the claim with evidence.  The Mayor should work with local universities who can assist building a framework for an effectiveness study.

The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) made the following claim in late 2006:

"NYCHA has experienced historic reductions in crime which is consistent with crime reductions across the City," said Vice Chairman Andrews. "Under the CCTV surveillance program since 2002, crime has been reduced by an additional 9.5% in NYCHA developments. The addition of CCTV systems at NYCHA's will continue to reinforce the downward trend in crime. At Gowanus Houses the number of crime incidents between 2002 and 2005 decreased by 28% and here at Wyckoff Gardens by 46%."

While I'm not disagreeing the potential is there to reduce crime in public housing, these claims can only be considered claims.  Spending $23 million in tax dollars in an attempt to "reduce crime" (or to win an Olympic bid?!) without engaging crime academics is simply a bad idea.