Fighting Crime From Above?

A blog about surveillance cameras in public and private spaces

Fighting Crime From Above? header image 3

Recommendations For Cities

Recommendations for cities

  1. Engage crime academics from local universities before the installation of any surveillance systems.
  2. As an alternative to installing a pricey publicly managed camera system, pass an ordinance that requires many or all of your local businesses to install cameras both on the inside and outside of their premises.  Many cities in California are currently doing this.
  3. Report on effectiveness of both the public and private sectors surveillance camera evidence.  Provide raw numbers to show how many pictures come from each sector and how they are subsequently used in the following reporting structure:

1) Apprehensions:

Caught and apprehended in the act? (Real Time – Assumes there is a 24 hour command center)

  • Was the perpetrator caught in the act by an operator monitoring a camera?
  • Were officers deployed and was the criminal apprehended? This metric will directly report on efficacy of the CCTV system and how effective the command center operator attentiveness is.

Apprehended later based upon video or images?

  • Was the perpetrator apprehended and a conviction secured based upon images captured?
  • Were these images distributed through media channels such as posters, flyers, a website, or local television coverage? A follow-up to this metric would be how soon the perpetrator was captured after the incident.
  • Were the images gathered by the public sector police monitored CCTV system, or from the  private sector? This data field will assist in measuring the overall community CCTV initiative as well as directly be able to compare public vs. private effectiveness.
  • Images were captured, but the perpetrator is still “at large”. (i.e. most wanted pictures).

2) Convictions:

  • When there is photographic evidence from the CCTV system, does the perpetrator change their plea?
  • When a perpetrator is confronted with video evidence, do they change their plea?
  • Are more guilty pleas secured this speeding up the subsequent legal process?

3) Accuracy of Examination:

  • Do the photographic images hold the key to the cause of the incident?
  • Are the photographic images of sufficient quality to be used as evidence?

4) Technology Effectiveness for Operator Attentiveness:

  • Was the incident caught by a video analytics alert, a human watching the camera, or did a bystander or victim report it? This metric can be used to report on how the incident was reported and then can be cross-referenced to apprehension data for effectiveness analysis.
  • Which technologies are used successfully in providing event alerts to the systems operator thereby increasing his or her attentiveness? i.e. Analytics software for pattern recognitions or crowd behaviors, hardware like night vision cameras, thermal imaging, gun shot detection,  motion detection, or a credit card transaction.
  • Technology combinations – i.e. “talking cameras”. This will provide metrics on technologies that have been combined in an attempt to alert, apprehend, prosecute, or diffuse a situation.
  • How much time did it take to search the streams of video in order to find the correct images?  This metric can be used to determine the time/salary cost involved finding the images needed

5) Context (setting in which the system was installed)

  • Streets and sidewalks
  • Public parks
  • Schools
  • Highways
  • Libraries
  • Private property (privately owned surveillace cameras)
  • Public Housing
  • Prisons

Last updated 8/03/09