The full report was published by the Scottish Office Central Research Unit on July 7th 1999. Copies can be obtained by sending a cheque for £5, made payable to the Stationery Office, to: The Stationery Office Bookshop, 71 Lothian Road, Edinburgh, EH3 9AZ.

The Executive Summary, which follows here, is taken from the full report.

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

Although the effect of CCTV on crime has been researched in closed locations (shops, buses, car parks, and so on) the level of investment in open-street CCTV has not been matched by an appropriate amount of professional independent evaluation (1.1).

Glasgow raised public and private sector funding for a 32-camera open-street CCTV scheme, which became operational in November 1994 (1.2).

The Scottish Office commissioned the Scottish Centre for Criminology (which had conducted an evaluation of the CCTV scheme in Airdrie as the first part of the project reported here) to evaluate the Glasgow scheme, specifically concentrating on the public acceptability of CCTV there, changes in recorded crime rates, and how those who watched the camera monitors developed and used the necessary skills (1.3).

2. Public acceptability

A 3,000 person street contacted public survey was conducted in three equally sized sweeps - one before camera installation, and two afterwards (2.1).

Analysis indicated that the respondents were a representative sample of those who use Glasgow's streets at most times of the day (2.2).

In each sweep, a third of the sample was interviewed in the area that would be (and later was) in view of the cameras. Those interviewed in this CCTV area - the centre of the city - were cautious about visiting it, and this did not improve after camera installation. However, the proportions thinking that they were likely to be victimised there fell slightly over time (2.3).

Two-thirds of the sample did not mind being watched by CCTV cameras in the street. An overwhelming majority thought that the police and the courts should be able to view the tapes: far fewer thought anybody else should. A third expressed some or other civil libertarian reservations (2.4).

Independently, most thought that CCTV cameras would be effective in preventing crime, catching those responsible, and making others feel safer. Three-quarters felt that the cameras would be more effective than police at detecting crime; two-thirds thought the police patrolling, rather than the cameras watching, would make people feel safer; and opinion was equally divided as to whether cameras watching or police patrolling would be best at preventing crime (2.5).

Awareness of the presence of the cameras in the CCTV area was limited. Only about a third were aware of them three months after they were installed. This grew to about two-fifths after fifteen months, the increase mainly reflecting an increase in female awareness (2.6).

Other surveys have indicated greater levels of acceptability. However, when comparison is restricted to those conducted by independent professionals, the finding reported here of two-thirds in favour is very similar to results obtained elsewhere (2.7).

3. Recorded crime

All crime and offences recorded in the CCTV area (and in surrounding and other areas) for two years before camera installation and one year afterwards were abstracted from police records, and computerised at the Scottish Centre for Criminology. The number resulting in a detection was noted (3.1).

Overall, recorded crime fell by 3,156, but following statistical refinement for underlying trends, it rose slightly after the cameras were installed, and the proportion resulting in a detection fell somewhat. However, in some categories of offending (serious and petty assault, vandalism, breach of the peace, and motor vehicle offences) recorded crimes and offences fell slightly. Detections increased for crimes of dishonesty, and for motor vehicle offences, but fell in other categories (3.2).

4. Developing monitor watching skills

Data independently provided by the scheme's management shows great variance in the time of day and month of year at which incidents are spotted; and significant variations in type of crime or offence monitored. Both operators and cameras also varied significantly in their ability to spot incidents. Whilst perhaps unexpected, this is relatively simply explained (4.2).

Camera monitors (who are civilian) adopt police categories of suspicion when viewing the screens. They focus on young men, those running, those emerging from night clubs, and those who appear to contradict the image of Glasgow desired by those who funded the scheme (4.3).

The regulations governing use of the cameras and monitors are sometimes ambiguous about who - civilian monitors or police - should be in control of the scheme at particular times. Competing - and sometimes contradictory - goals for the scheme make this inevitable (4.4).

5. Conclusion

At one level, CCTV schemes attempt the impossible: to transform the "city" into something it cannot be - viz, an oasis of complete safety. This fosters the idea that CCTV will achieve several goals, even if they are contradictory in principle. Yet, evidence of "success" usually relates to one goal at the expense of others (5.1).

Open-street CCTV is both new, and saddled with too many, often conflicting, goals. A limited and realistic set of goals is more appropriate (5.2).

CCTV "works": yet differently in Glasgow than in Airdrie. In both, it permitted the speedy identification of unfolding incidents which could have led to loss of life. In Airdrie, it seemed to reduce crime without apparently displacing it elsewhere. In Glasgow, it instead permitted highly cost-effective investigation of some serious crimes committed on the streets. Nothing is - realistically - an unqualified success, but Glasgow's CCTV scheme has certainly been a qualified one (5.3).

To return to Crime Prevention publications, and from there to elsewhere, use the BACK button to the top left of the tool bar.