Paul Cozens, David Hillier and Gwyn Prescott of the Division of Built Environment, at the University of Glamorgan (www.glam.ac.uk) investigate whether CCTV polices the young and protects the elderly.
Background
<br><br>
In 1997, the government spent £12.6m on crime prevention measures with CCTV representing 67pc (£8.5 million) of this expenditure. Estimates suggest that the Home Office has spent about £21 million of public funds on CCTV, with some 300,000 cameras now being installed annually. Such statistics testify to the government’s commitment and perceived pay-offs of this technology as a crime prevention strategy. Crucially, of the government’s £400m Crime Reduction Programme, £150 million has been earmarked for CCTV schemes and over a third of these 180 bids were for residential areas targeting social housing estates and acknowledged urban ‘hot spots’ with high rates of recorded crime. Indeed, Foreshaw (Housing Today, Issue 168) has noted that "the latest trend is to fit them [cameras] in housing estates as part of the modern war against anti-social behaviour". The apparent displacement of crime from CCTV-protected town and city centres is one suggested reason for this response. CCTV is therefore widely considered to be a more than useful tool by the public and politicians in the battle against crime in our inner cities and town centres, and most recently, on Britain’s housing estates.
<br><br>
CCTV advantages
<br><br>
There are numerous advantages in utilising CCTV for those designing or managing housing estates. Firstly, CCTV can assist in reducing the opportunities for offending by increasing the potential for criminals and crimes to be observed and reported / apprehended. It can send a clear message that territory within a housing estate is owned and controlled and that certain types of behaviour are will attract a programmed response. CCTV can also deter criminals and disruptive groups from intimidating the wider public and reduce organised crime such as pickpocketing gangs and drug dealers. The conviction of offenders through the use of CCTV footage is an obvious potential pay-off and the provision of a greater sense of commercial security and public sense of safety are potentially wider societal benefits.
<br><br>
The Study
<br><br>
This study investigates whether or not young adults and the elderly are affected by such technology and the extent to which CCTV is perceived to be a crime-reduction strategy in relation to a range of traditional British housing designs. Five types of housing (high-rise and low-rise flats and terraced, semi-detached and detached houses) were investigated. Two versions of each design were selected (where possible), where one was well-maintained (version ‘A’) and the other was poorly-maintained (version ‘B’) in order to capture the vital perceptual dimension of design. In summary, houses (detached, semi-detached and terraced) were associated with lower levels of crime and fear of crime than low-rise and high-rise flats, which were regarded in somewhat negative terms. The well-maintained versions (A) of each design were also considered to be less prone to crime and fear-inducing than the poorly-maintained version (B).
<br><br>
The Deterrent Value
<br><br>
The young adults were asked to indicate whether they perceived that the installation of CCTV would be effective in reducing crime and nuisance in the immediate vicinity of each design. Figure 1 reveals that there is some broad agreement concerning the overall perceived effectiveness of CCTV across all designs in reducing crime and nuisance, with a total score of 520/1000, (52pc) believing this to be the case across all ten designs. In terms of particular designs, however, CCTV was perceived to be a particularly effective response in ‘Low-rise/walk-up Flats B’ (100pc), ‘Low-rise walk-up Flats A’ (80pc) and ‘High-rise Flats A’ (70pc). It was perceived to be less effective in the semi-detached and detached properties ‘ where significantly, the respondents perceived less crime to occur.
<br><br>
Civil liberties
<br><br>
At interview, this group raised the issue of civil liberties and many commented that they would feel ‘uncomfortable’ at the prospect of CCTV monitoring where they lived. However, this was somewhat tempered by the resignation that if they not acting in a criminal or anti-social manner ‘ they would have nothing to worry about.
<br><br>
Young Adults’ Perspective
<br><br>
Housing Type, percentage of young adults’ stating CCTV would deter crime
Low-Rise Flats B: 100
Low-Rise Flats A: 80
High-Rise Flats A: 70
Terraced A: 50
Terraced B: 50
High-Rise Flats B: 50
Detached A: 40
Detached B: 30
Semi-Detached A: 30
Semi-Detached B: 20
Total: 520/1000
<br><br>
Elderly’s Perspective
<br><br>
The elderly respondents were also asked to indicate whether they thought that the installation of CCTV would be effective in reducing crime and nuisance in the immediate vicinity of each design. As significant number (79pc) perceived CCTV as being a particularly effective tool for potentially reducing crime and nuisance for all ten designs.
<br><br>
Housing Type, percentage of the elderly stating CCTV would deter crime
Low-rise flats A: 100
Terraced A: 100
Low-rise flats B: 90
Terraced B: 90
Semi-detached B: 90
Semi-detached A: 80
Detached A: 80
Detached B: 60
High-rise flats A: 50
High-rise flats B: 50
Total: 790/1000
<br><br>
This illustrates the percentage of the elderly who considered CCTV to be successful in reducing crime and nuisance in relation to each of the ten housing designs. In terms of particular designs, however, CCTV was perceived to be a most useful approach for tackling crime and nuisance in the ‘Low-rise flats A’ and ‘Terraced housing A’ (100pc) and ‘Low-rise flats B’ and ‘Terraced Housing B’ (90pc). At interview, the elderly discussed the performance of CCTV at length and were clearly impressed by its potential for reassurance and perceived crime reduction qualities. This group did not raise any issues whatsoever concerning civil liberties or privacy.
<br><br>
Across all designs
<br><br>
For both groups, the state of repair of the houses did not appear to influence their perceptions in terms of the deterrent value of CCTV for each design type. Overall, the perceived effectiveness of CCTV across all designs was 52pc for young adults and 79pc for elderly, and both groups clearly regard it as an effective crime reduction strategy to adopt. The significant difference between the two groups might, perhaps, suggest that people ‘warm’ to CCTV technology and other such measures with increasing age.
<br><br>
Conclusions, implications
<br><br>
These findings suggest that when considering CCTV as a technological solution to creating and maintaining safer residential environments, several important policy issues need to be considered:
<br><br>
– markedly contrasted user groups perceive CCTV’s effectiveness as a deterrent to crime and nuisance differently and civil liberties concerns may become less of an issue with increasing age. The placement of CCTV cameras may therefore be most successful when acknowledging local demographics and perhaps including a survey of residents. The perceptions of other user groups may provide interesting avenues for further investigation.
<br><br>
– the participation of the community in the design, placement and operation of CCTV on housing estates is vital to both create and maintain confidence in the system and ensure that the community continues to actively police itself.
<br><br>
– the perceptions of local residents are vital since the specific geographical locations that the community perceive to be prone to crime may differ from ‘hot spots’ identified by official crime statistics. Such ‘unprotected’ areas would therefore receive CCTV coverage when they might otherwise not have attracted formal surveillance and remained ‘unsafe’, under-used and problematic. CCTV appears to reduce both the fear of crime and the actuality of crime for the two groups in this study. This suggests that this technology is perceived by both the young adults and the elderly respondents to be a highly useful deterrent to crime and nuisance. Such technology, however, cannot singularly replace the vital self-policing role of ‘eyes on the street’ of a responsible community. The active participation of the community in the management of CCTV can only strengthen its effectiveness and help to allay any civil liberties concerns. Furthermore representative community participation appears necessary both in identifying the specific geographical location for the cameras and in the continued monitoring and surveillance of the local environment by the local community in its crucial and continuing role of self-policing.
