Last month, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) released a report examining the District of Columbia’s video surveillance system. The report concludes that since the District expanded its video camera system into residential neighborhoods in August of 2006, those neighborhoods have seen a drop in some types of crime. But, what is remarkable – and admirable – about this report is not the statistics it includes nor the conclusions it reaches, but the fact that such a thorough examination was done at all. Although important questions remain to be answered, the MPD should be applauded for undertaking such a detailed study, and for asking many of the right questions.
Increasingly since September 11th, communities across the country have rushed to install video surveillance systems with little evidence that such technologies are effective in combating crime. So it is encouraging that the District has sought to compile crime statistics for areas within the cameras’ view and compare them to District crime levels as a whole, as well as to the experience in the surveilled areas prior to installation of the cameras. According to the MPD report, violent crime dropped 19% in areas within 250 feet of the District’s 48 cameras that were installed in 2006, compared to a 1% increase in violent crime District-wide. Property crimes only rose 2% in 2007 in areas where cameras were installed, while the year immediately prior to the deployment of cameras these areas had seen a 25% increase. These are indeed positive signs that the city’s video surveillance system may be a useful supplement to more traditional crime-fighting methods.
The level of transparency in the report is commendable. The report lists the locations – by city block – of all eighteen “homeland security” cameras that are installed to observe public buildings and spaces in the downtown area. It also identifies the intersections at which each of the seventy-three cameras in the “neighborhood-based” camera system has been installed. Further, MPD outlines the procedures they follow in operating the system, including safeguards to protect privacy rights. For example, the report notes that the cameras are not equipped with certain technologies that may be more intrusive of privacy rights – such as “audio overhear” capabilities or biometric technologies such as facial recognition.
However, this report is only the first step on the right path. As the report’s authors recognize, this is an “initial evaluation.” MPD must continue to study the system’s effectiveness, and many important questions remain to be asked and answered. First, since the cameras are obvious to passersby, to what extent are the cameras simply displacing crime to neighborhoods outside the cameras’ view? Further, the D.C. Police report fails to address the overall cost effectiveness of the city’s video surveillance program. The report documents that it has cost $3.8 million to purchase, install and operate the District’s cameras, and that ongoing maintenance costs an additional $600,000 each year. Put another way, the total cost of operating the system for five years is the same as employing more than 115 full-time beat officers for that same period. During the eighteen months covered by the report, 144 images from the video surveillance system were retained as evidence supporting criminal investigations or potential civil liability claims. Only four of these images included actual footage of serious violent crimes in action.
D.C. Police must examine whether there are better ways to spend this $4 million. While the report calls the cameras a “force multiplier,” it seems unlikely that a stationary camera can even come close to supplanting additional badges on the street. Further, some studies have indicated that simple, cheap solutions such as improved street lighting can reduce some types of crime as much or more than video cameras can.
Finally, MPD must continue to monitor the impact that a permanent video surveillance program has on the privacy rights of District residents. The bipartisan Constitution Project’s report, Guidelines for Public Video Surveillance, urges that surveillance systems be carefully designed to serve a specific law enforcement purpose, and to minimize the impact on residents’ privacy rights and protected First Amendment freedoms. The MPD’s recent report is only the first step toward this end. The city must continue to assess whether the system’s effect on crime truly outweighs both its financial costs and its effect on civil liberties.
In short, the overall effectiveness of this system has not yet been proven to justify its permanent presence on the streets of D.C. Responsible, limited use of video surveillance can effectively supplement traditional law enforcement practices. But the D.C. Council and MPD must keep as close an eye on the use and effectiveness of the camera as the cameras do on District neighborhoods. Before approving any initiative to install more cameras above our city streets, or to make existing ones permanent, our elected officials should ask themselves whether the cameras have simply displaced embedded crime to other areas, how many cameras are needed in which neighborhoods, and what price – in terms of time, money, and individual privacy – we are willing to pay to be watched.