City leaders, law enforcement authorities, equipment manufacturers and systems integrators gathered May 10 to 11 for the first annual Secured Cities conference in Atlanta. The conference provided attendees with an opportunity to learn about some of the biggest challenges and best practices associated with implementing citywide surveillance systems. A second Secured Cities conference is scheduled to take place Nov. 10 to 11 in Baltimore, Md.
“Our goal is to encourage the adoption of the right technology, the right practices and the correct policies so that all of our nation’s cities become more livable so that our cities become our sources of pride and strength as a nation,” says Geoffrey Kohl, editor-in-chief and associate publisher of SecurityInfoWatch.com and IPSecurityWatch.com.
Defining a strategy
Sgt. Patrick O’Donnell, program manager for the Chicago Police Department’s POD (police observation device) initiative discussed how the city manages its robust surveillance network called Operation Virtual Shield. Through the Chicago Office of Emergency Communications (OEMC), the system ties together more than 17,000 cameras from a variety of city agencies and private entities.
According to O’Donnell, outgoing Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has been the driving force behind the camera project and getting all the agencies involved to understand the importance of tying disparate surveillance systems into a joint platform that can be shared by everyone.
“It’s been the mayor who has everyone on one page,” he explains.
Because the Chicago surveillance network includes disparate systems from across the city, O’Donnell said they manage the multitude of cameras using a map-based interface, which makes the system more user-friendly and allows operators to view and control cameras via a mouse click.
The OEMC has also setup specific user groups to control who is allowed to see specific cameras, as well as who can control certain camera functionality such as pan/tilt/zoom features. They can also control who has authority to archive video.
Though the city has been successful in tying these systems together, O’Donnell admits that using technology solutions from a variety of vendors would not be optimal choice for cities looking to install a new network.
“If Chicago was to start over from scratch … you would probably want to do a citywide solution from one vendor,” he said.
Among some of the next steps for the city’s camera system, according to O’Donnell, includes looking into improving the cameras themselves with high-definition models, increased local storage and increased transmission bandwidth and reliability. Chicago is also examining how video analytics can be used to enhance the system and what additional benefits license plate recognition solutions can provide. There are also plans to install three long range cameras along the city’s lakefront along with 150 traditional security cameras.
“We think that these cameras will definitely provide increased security,” O’Donnell says.
While the public safety benefits of having cameras are numerous, they have little value if they’re not monitored properly. “The cameras are a tool and they are only as good as the people using them,” he explains.
Lessons learned
A good example of the kind of positive impact video surveillance can have on a city can be found in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., which installed a 260-camera network a little more than a year ago. In fact, the city has more cameras per capita than any other town in the U.S.
According to J.J. Murphy, principal for Goals Consulting and former city manager of Wilkes-Barre, the city took a turn for the worse about five years ago when it reduced its police force from 108 officers down to 63. In the wake of these police cuts, Murphy said that no one wanted to come to the downtown area at night because it was perceived not to be safe.
“When police moved out, criminals moved in,” he says. “We were having big city problems in a small town.”
To help make the area safer, Wilkes-Barre decided to deploy a network of both wireless and wired cameras throughout the city. The city also hired 24 new police officers and installed lighting where needed.
According to Murphy, within the first year of the camera system being installed 26 new businesses have moved into the area, bringing with them nearly $700,000 in new tax revenue. He says the city has also saved $60,000 in repairs to its playgrounds, which were plagued by vandals prior to the installation of the cameras.
“Public-private partnerships are driving this movement: Cities can’t foot the bill," Kohl says. Adding that they are turning to private industry and commercial organizations to help fund these projects, and even accessing the public-facing cameras that some of these organizations have in place.
Another lesson the city learned with the installation, Murphy adds, was to develop a strong community education program and to keep statistics on improvements that can be attributed to cameras.
Impact on crime
An obvious return-on-investment measuring stick for any municipal surveillance network is its impact on crime. However, crime figures can sometimes be deceiving. As people begin to realize that their actions are being monitored, the deterrent effect of cameras comes into play.
Atlanta Police Chief George Turner, who delivered the keynote address at the conference, says he wants to establish a camera network that’s similar in size and scope with some of larger municipal surveillance systems in the country.
To accomplish this, he says that the city has to install the necessary infrastructure to support a robust network. “We’ve got to build that initial skeleton so we can put some meat on the bones.”
Turner said that cameras have proven to be an effective tool in helping to deter and solve crimes and that the relationships the city has already established with partners in the private sector will help increase the size of network.
According to David Wardell, director of operations and public safety for the Atlanta Downtown Improvement District, the downtown Atlanta area has seen a 34 percent reduction in crime during the first three years of its camera program. Despite the impact that cameras have had on crime statistics in the city, Wardell said that the perception people have about cameras can be just as powerful.
“Perception is what we deal with everyday,” he says. “Crime is going to go places that don’t have cameras. Developers are going to the places that do.”
As part of the conference, attendees took a tour of the future home of Atlanta’s Video Integration Center (VIC), which is co-located with the city’s state-of-art 911 call center. The initial phase of Atlanta’s video project, dubbed Operation Shield, is expected to be up and running in June and will include between 400 and 500 cameras that cover the city’s downtown and midtown areas. Eventually, Turner said he envisioned that the VIC would monitor between 2,000 and 5,000 cameras.
The Dallas surveillance system, which consists of about 140 cameras, has contributed significantly to crime reduction efforts in the city.
According to Deputy Chief Brian Harvey of the Dallas Police Department, between 2004 and 2010, the downtown Dallas area saw a 41 percent reduction in crime.
“Folks are no longer scared to come out to have dinner or have a drink,” says Martin Cramer, vice president of public safety for Downtown Dallas, Inc.
