Do security cameras deter crime?

Published 22 February 2011

As federal agencies, cities, and local police departments spend more money on vast networks of closed circuit surveillance cameras, some critics are wondering whether these systems are an effective way to stop crime and a good use of resources; various studies on the efficacy of security cameras have been inconclusive; some studies have shown that cameras in Chicago and Baltimore have helped deter crime, while others have shown that cameras in Los Angeles and Britain have had no impact on crime; one critic points out that studies that show cameras are effective do not weigh benefits against spending more money on beat cops, probation programs, and other law enforcement options

As federal agencies, cities, and local police departments spend more money on vast networks of closed circuit surveillance cameras, some critics are wondering whether these systems are an effective way to stop crime and a good use of resources.

In a recent column, Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune questions the underlying assumption that installing cameras reduces crime by deterring potential wrong-doers and helping to apprehend those who do commit crimes.

Chicago has installed an estimated 10,000 security cameras and Mayor Richard M. Daley has expressed an interest in placing a camera on “on every street corner in Chicago.”

According to Chapman a study by the British government, which has widely deployed security cameras throughout the country, the cameras have had “no overall effect on crime.” Chapman also cites University of Southern California researchers who examined two neighborhoods in Los Angeles and “found no visible benefit from this sort of surveillance.”

Contradicting these studies, other researchers have found that cameras can actually help deter crime.

The preliminary findings of a study led by Nancy La Vigne, the director of the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute in Washington, show that cameras are a cost effective method to fight crime.

La Vigne and her team studied the effects of cameras deployed in Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C., and found that in some areas the cameras had resulted in “a significant decrease in total monthly crime numbers.” But in other areas, she found that the cameras had “no impact.”

In Chicago, La Vigne found that every dollar spent on cameras resulted in $4 of social benefits that include reduced crime, savings to police departments and the legal system, and minimized suffering to victims.

La Vigne found that security cameras were even more effective in deterring crime in Baltimore and the social benefits exceeded costs by 50 percent. She attributes this to the fact that in Baltimore cameras monitor the downtown area twenty-four hours a day. However, in close by Washington, D.C., she found that the cameras had no effect on crime.

La Vigne cautions observers about becoming too optimistic about her findings. She says, “I’m sure there are diminishing marginal returns,” suggesting that after a certain point each additional camera added will have a decreasing impact on crime.

She adds, “I’d expect very little impact on low-crime areas.”

Even with these positive results, Chapman questions whether cameras are an effective use of resources as money must be diverted from other law enforcement programs.

“Even in the studies that show cameras help, the question arises: compared to what? Any funds spent on this gadgetry cannot be spent on beat cops, probation officers, laboratory gear or jail cells,” he writes.

“The challenge for enthusiasts is to show the technology outperforms other options.”