Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating CCTV: Why the findings are inconsistent, inconclusive and ultimately irrelevant

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Crime Prevention and Community Safety Aims and scope

Abstract

CCTV is widely acknowledged to be ubiquitous in British urban areas. However, despite its proliferation, there remains no concrete and certifiable evidence to suggest that it is the panacea to the myriad problems it has been introduced to tackle. The expansion of CCTV has continued unperturbed by the tentative, contradictory, and even negative evaluation findings it has often produced. Despite the reservations about the quality and methodological soundness of studies by those involved in its evaluation, and the inconsistency of results that were considered to be competently and professionally conducted, consecutive governments have continued to celebrate its supposed effectiveness. This article critiques the evaluation doctrine that has dominated CCTV evaluations and outlines how it has resulted in an approach that overlooks the qualitative impact of CCTV, ignores the possibility that individuals other than offenders may be affected by the camera's gaze; and presumes that the only significant impact of CCTV (and thereby worthy of evaluating) is on crime rates. The approach that has historically been taken to evaluate CCTV is just as important and illuminating as the inconclusiveness of the evaluations themselves. This article will outline why the findings from these evaluations are inconsistent, inconclusive and ultimately irrelevant.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The proliferation of CCTV cameras is not exclusive to the United Kingdom. Regan notes that similar trends are observable ‘in all modern governments’ (1995, p. 129).

  2. Norris has suggested that China may have superseded the UK's proliferation of cameras (cited in Arnot, 2006), but it is widely accepted that the British citizens are one of, if not the most surveilled population in the world (Norris and Armstrong, 1999, p. 39; Parker, 2001, p. 65) with more CCTV cameras per person in the United Kingdom than any other country.

  3. This figure should be interpreted with caution. It was produced from a survey of the number of CCTV cameras in two busy south London streets. The researchers sampled 211 premises in the vicinity – banks, estate agents, pubs, shops and office blocks – and found that 41 per cent had CCTV systems, with an average of 4.1 cameras per system. This figure was extrapolated to estimate the numbers of cameras in London, and then the whole of England. Extrapolating findings in this way involves a large margin of error. The authors acknowledge that it is a guesstimate but one that they do not consider to be ‘unreasonable’ (McCahill and Norris, 2002).Clearly, this density of cameras is by no means uniform across London or across the country, as suburbs and rural areas will not have anywhere near the same level of CCTV coverage as the inner city.

  4. This dichotomy has become well recognised in criminology and social sciences. It has been encapsulated in an edition of the International Journal of Risk, Security and Crime Prevention which pitched the ‘the case for CCTV’ (Horne, 1996) against ‘the case against CCTV’ (Davies, 1996b).

  5. There have been numerous instances brought to light whereby the well being of individuals has been effected by the use of footage of themselves, often of a very sensitive nature. The infamous case of George Peck who was filmed having attempted to commit suicide by cutting his wrists with a knife, provides just one example. The footage of Mr Peck was used in a council publication in order to promote its CCTV system, the stills were released to two newspapers, and it was later broadcast on the local news and used in a national television programme. George Peck took his case to the European Court where having the European Court of Human Rights found that his rights under Articles 8 and 13 had been violated.

  6. The terminology of methodological approaches have become problematic. Throughout this article several terms are used to denote the ‘experimental’ approach to evaluation. This approach is characterised by the independent variable (that is, CCTV in this instance) being manipulated to measure the impact on the dependent variable (that is, crime rates in this instant). The experimental method is firmly routed in positivism.

  7. In 1974, Robert Martinson published an article titled ‘“What Works?” Questions and Answers about Prison Reform’ (Martinson, 1974). In it he summarised the results of a three-year project ‘Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment’ which reviewed the effectiveness of 231 offender rehabilitation programmes that had been evaluated during the prior 30 years. Based on his analysis of what was the most extensive offender treatment database that existed at that time, he concluded that ‘with few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism’ (1974, p. 25). Hence the notion that ‘nothing works’. For a comprehensive summary of the debate about whether rehabilitation ‘works’ and evidence that it sometimes does, see Cullen and Gendreau (2000).

  8. This can be found in Pawson and Tilley (1997) and Shadish et al (1991).

  9. Perhaps the strongest and unequivocal argument for the epistemological, methodological and ethical advantages of a constructivist inquiry paradigm for programme evaluation comes from Guba and Lincoln in the promotion of what they term ‘Fourth Generation Evaluation’ (1989).

  10. Whereas Scriven (1986) criticises evaluators for ‘defining evaluation as […] the provision of information to decision-makers’, the pragmatic evaluator, such as its seminal proponent Carol Weiss (1987) would contend that it is precisely this. In pragmatic evaluation, the political utility of evaluation research is the primary task. It is geared towards providing useful research that is acquiescent in the processes of policy making. Within this categorisation there are a number of divergent theorists, but they all gravitate towards utility as their locus of evaluation.

  11. Realism positions itself as a model of scientific explanation which avoids the traditional epistemological poles of positivism and relativism. Realism's key feature is its stress on the mechanics of explanation, and its attempt to show that the usage of such explanatory strategies can lead to a progressive body of scientific knowledge. The key components of realist evaluation are neatly provided by Pawson and Tilley (1997).

References

  • Armitage, R. (2002) To CCTV or not to CCTV: A review of current research into the effectiveness of CCTV systems in reducing crime. NACRO. Community Safety Practice Briefing.

  • Arnot,C. (20 June 2006) Clive Norris: Watching brief, http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/jun/20/highereducationprofile.academicexperts, accessed 19 April 2009.

  • Bennett, C. and Raab, C. (2007) The privacy paradigm. In: S.P. Hier and J. Greenberg (eds.) The Surveillance Studies Reader. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bigo, D. (2008) Security, exception, ban and surveillance. In: D. Lyon (ed.) Theorizing Surveillance: The Panopticon and Beyond. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloss, W. (2007) Escalating U.S. police surveillance after 9/11: An examination of causes and effects. Surveillance and Society, Part 1, 4 (3): 208–228, http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles4(3)/escalating.pdf, accessed 4 September 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. and Stanley, J. (1963) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Evaluations in Social Research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H. and Rossi, P.H. (1983) Evaluating with sense. Evaluation Review 7 (3): 283–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (1979) The punitive city: Notes on the dispersal of social control. Contemporary Crisis 3 (4): 339–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, R. (2004) Reclaiming the Streets: Surveillance, Social Control and the City. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979) Quasi Experimentation: Design and Analytical Issues for Field Settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. and Gendreau, P. (2000) Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. In: J. Horney, R. Peterson, D. Mackenzie, J. Martin and D. Rosenbaum (eds.) Criminal Justice 2000, Vol. 3. Policies, Processes and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice, pp. 109–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S. (1996a) Big Brother: Britain's Web of Surveillance and the New Technological Order. London: Pan Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies,S. (1996b) The case against: CCTV should not be introduced. International Journal of Risk, Security and Crime Prevention 4 (2): 149–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devon County Council. (no date) Public CCTV in Exeter, http://www.devon.gov.uk/cctvleaf.pdf, accessed 20 May 2009.

  • Ditton, J. (1998) Public support for town centre CCTV schemes: Myth or reality. In: C. Norris, J. Moran and G. Armstrong (eds.) Surveillance, Closed Circuit Television and Social Control. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ditton, J. (1999) CCTV and public space. Paper given at British Criminological Society meeting, Loughborough University.

  • Farrington, D.P. and Painter, K.A. (2003) How to evaluate the impact of CCTV on Crime. In: M. Gill (ed.) CCTV. Leicester, UK: Perpetuity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D.P. and Welsh, B.C. (2002) Effects of Improved Street Lighting on Crime: A Systematic Review. Home Office Research Study 251, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors251.pdf, accessed 10 August 2010.

  • Frith, M. (12 January 2004) How average Briton is captured on camera 300 times a day. The Independent [Internet], www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-average-briton-is-caught-on-camera-300-times-a-day-572781.html, accessed 20 May 2009.

  • Fussey, P. (2007) An interrupted transmission? Processes of CCTV implementation and the impact of human agency. Surveillance and Society 4 (3): 229–256, www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles4(3)/transmission.pdf, accessed 4 September 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fussey, P. (2008) Beyond liberty, beyond security: The politics of public surveillance. British Politics 3(1): 120–135, www.palgrave-journals.com/bp/journal/v3/n1/full/4200082a.html, accessed 6 May 2009.

  • Garland, D. (2001) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill, M. (2003) Introduction. In: M. Gill (ed.) CCTV. Leicester, UK: Perpetuity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill, M. and Spriggs, A. (2005) Assessing the Impact of CCTV, Home Office Research Study 292. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (1998) Towards the fifth utility? On the extension and normalisation of public CCTV. In: C. Norris, J. Moran and G. Armstrong (eds.) Surveillance, Closed Circuit Television and Social Control. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (2000) The fifth utility. Index on Censorship 29 (3): 45–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groombridge, N. (2008) Stars of CCTV? How the home office wasted millions – A radical ‘Treasury/Audit Commission’ view. Surveillance and Society 5 (1): 73–80, www.surveillance-and-society.org, accessed 25 August 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honess, T. and Charman, E. (1992) Closed Circuit Television in Public Places, Crime Prevention Unit Series Paper 35. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope, T. (2009) The illusion of control: A response to Professor Sherman. Criminology and Criminal Justice 9 (2): 125–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horne, C. (1996) The case for: CCTV should be introduced. International Journal of Risk, Security and Crime Prevention 1 (4): 317–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hough, M. (2010) Gold standard or fool's gold? The pursuit of certainty in experimental criminology. Criminology & Criminal Justice 10 (1): 11–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, B.C.M. (1998) The Politics of Crime Prevention. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, D. (2001a) Surveillance after September 11. Sociological Research Online 6 (3), http://www.socresonline.org.uk/6/3/lyon.html, accessed 27 June 2009.

  • Lyon, D. (2001b) Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, D. (2007) Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, R. (1974) What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest 10: 22–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCahill, M. (2002) The Surveillance Web: The Rise of Visual Surveillance in an English City. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCahill, M. and Norris, C. (2002) CCTV in London. Working Paper No. 6, Urban Eye Project, http://www.urbaneye.net/results/ue_wp6.pdf, accessed 27 June 2009.

  • Norris, C. and Armstrong, G. (1999) The Maximum Surveillance Society; The Rise of CCTV. Oxford, UK: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J. (2001) Total Surveillance: Investigating the Big Brother World of E-spies, Eavesdroppers and CCTV. London: Piatkus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1997) Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pease, K. (1997) Crime prevention. In: M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 2nd edn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Privacy International. (1997) CCTV: Frequently asked questions, http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-61925, accessed 20 May 2009.

  • Regan, P. (1995) Legislating Privacy: Technology, Social Values and Public Policy. Chapel Hill, NC and London: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, P.M. (1999) Privacy and democracy in cyberspace. Vanderbilt Law Review 52 (6): 1609–1613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M.S. (1980) The Logic of Evaluation. Inverness, CA: Edgepress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M.S. (1986) New frontiers of evaluation. Evaluation Practice 7: 7–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D. and Leviton, L.D. (1991) Foundations of Program Evaluation: Theories of Practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe Research Ltd. (March 2004) Public Attitudes to the Deployment of Surveillance Techniques in Public Places. Cheshire, UK: Information Commissioner's Office.

  • Sherman, L.W. (2009) Evidence and liberty: The promise of experimental criminology. Criminology & Criminal Justice 9 (1): 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short, E. and Ditton, J. (1995) Does CCTV effect crime? CCTV Today 2 (2): 10–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenson, K. (2001) The new politics of crime control. In: K. Stenson and R.R. Sullivan (eds.) Crime, Risk and Justice: The Politics of Crime Control in Liberal Democracies. Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing, pp. 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, E. (2010) I spy with my little eye: Exploring the use of CCTV and surveillance in schools. The Sociological Review 58 (3): 381–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilley, N. (2009) Sherman vs Sherman: Realism vs rhetoric. Criminology & Criminal Justice 9 (2): 135–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C.H. (1987) Evaluation, 2nd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, B.C. and Farrington, D.P. (2002) Crime Prevention Effects of Closed Circuit Television: A Systematic Review, Home Office Research Study 252. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, B.C. and Farrington, D.P. (2007) Closed-circuit television surveillance. In: B.C. Welsh and D.P. Farrington (eds.) Preventing Crime: What Works for Children, Offenders, Victims and Places. London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, B.C. and Farrington, D.P. (2008) Effects of Closed Circuit Television Surveillance on Crime. London: The Campbell Collaboration.

    Google Scholar 

  • YouGov/Daily Telegraph. (2006) Survey Report, http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/TEL060101024_4.pdf, accessed 28 August 2008.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aptus Research and Consultancy,

    Emmeline Taylor

Authors
  1. Emmeline Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Taylor, E. Evaluating CCTV: Why the findings are inconsistent, inconclusive and ultimately irrelevant. Crime Prev Community Saf 12, 209–232 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1057/cpcs.2010.13

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/cpcs.2010.13

Keywords

Search

Navigation