Democratic Services SCRUTINY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 24 June 2015 ITEM 6Item 6 Report of the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Review Group May 2015 www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/scrutiny Membership: Councillor Paul Alexander (Chair) Councillors Geetha Morla and David Lewis Overview and Scrutiny Officer: Fran Bower (Tel: 01908 252177) (64)
Contents Page Introduction and Summary by the Chair 3 Membership and Scope of the Review 4 Officer Support / Witnesses Review Group Findings and Recommendations Background Information on CCTV 4 5 7 2 (65)
Introduction and Summary of the Group's work Previous work The CCTV Review Group was originally set up last year, with Councillors Brunning (Chair) and me and Councillor Khan. At its first meeting on 7 October 2013, the Review Group appointed Councillor Brunning as Chair. The Review Group met twice more and made a visit to the CCTV Command Suite in March 2014, but it was felt that further work needed to wait until the TVP review of CCTV across its region was complete. Current Review Group s work As the TVP review was now completed, although not yet made public, the Review Group was set up again in the 2014-2015 Council year, with me as Chair and Councillors Morla and Lewis, and met three times. We did not change the Terms of Reference. We made another useful visit to the CCTV Command Suite on 23 February for the benefit of the Councillors who had not seen it. The CCTV Team Leader explained how CCTV was operated by CCTV Technicians and gave us some examples of the savings it could offer. We were also shown two examples of footage to illustrate how it could help with a variety of community safety issues: one was of a lost child that had been located, and one was of assault perpetrators that had been caught and convicted. We were given a list of savings and activities in Milton Keynes and have also used a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats analysis of CCTV, captured from a number of sources. Both of these are attached as background information. On 13 March, the Group discussed procurement with the Head of Strategic Procurement, exploring what were likely to be the most cost-effective ways of procuring both the cameras and their maintenance and the monitoring. I would like to thank Councillors Morla and Lewis and all officers and witnesses who helped with the Review Group s work. Councillor Paul Alexander Chair of the CCTV Review Group May 2015 3 (66)
Membership and Scope of the Review The following councillors were nominated to serve on the Review Group: Councillor Paul Alexander (Chair) Councillor Geetha Morla Councillor David Lewis Terms of reference 1. To consider the options for the future usage of the CCTV equipment in Milton Keynes 2. To consider the option of commissioning a service to run the CCTV system 3. To consider the implications for community safety if the system is commissioned 4. To research the options for selling excess capability within the system to other local authorities, private businesses and other Council owned buildings 5. To consider the service delivery if Milton Keynes Council were to run the system inhouse Officer Support / Witnesses Officer support was provided by: Head of Community Safety: Colin Wilderspin Overview & Scrutiny Officer: Fran Bower Witnesses (Milton Keynes Council): Head of Strategic Procurement: Catharine Southern Witnesses (External): Partnership Inspector Kelly Gardner CCTV Command Suite and Visual Support Unit Supervisor Nick Brooke-Langham and Neighbourhood Partnerships and Tasking Sergeant Nicola Corani-Young all of Thames Valley Police. 4 (67)
Review Group Findings and Recommendations Before a procurement decision could be made, further analysis of the cost, risk and opportunities afforded by each option would need to be carried out, and so the Group has not attempted to recommend on details but to say what they felt the Council should do in general or strategic terms, as follows: 1. Should Milton Keynes Council, through the SaferMK Partnership, have CCTV at all? All Members of the Review Group agreed that CCTV was worth having and that the savings achieved demonstrated its benefit to the public purse. Quite apart from any human cost, the financial follow-on effects, had the little girl in the footage shown to the Review Group during its visit not been found, would have been immense for the Council in terms of social worker and other agency involvement. It was felt that getting rid of CCTV in Milton Keynes would be politically unpopular with all Groups and the public. If CCTV ceased, it would be unlikely TVP would increase police numbers to compensate. In that case, then, should it: 2. Keep ownership of CCTV? Yes; if it was not kept, the Partnership and Local Authority would lose the opportunity to make money on it, and might lose some control over it. 3. Share the opportunity with other local authorities, to mutual benefit? It was felt that this would be advantageous, if they were interested. If MK took on the CCTV of other Local Authorities (LAs), such as those in Buckinghamshire like Aylesbury (77 cameras) and High Wycombe (approximately 248 cameras), it would probably not take on the maintenance of the cameras, but just their monitoring. The income from charging them for this should be enough to make CCTV cost neutral within MK. Each LA would require a Service Level Agreement and this could ensure that sharing monitoring did not dilute the effectiveness of each area s CCTV, by specifying the fte to be dedicated to it. Much would depend on TVP plans, who are currently exploring options including a 1 hub model and how important LAs felt local knowledge of technicians to be. There would be need for some investment in technology to link the CCTV Command Suite and the LAs, although all LAs in Bucks were already linked. More hardware might be needed for the Suite. TVP was keen on exploring a county hub model. Other counties such as Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire might present opportunities, too. It would be relatively easy to increase the capacity of the CCTV Command Suite. There were more technicians on at weekends, but there was space for six, and the screens could each be sub-divided. The room is running under its intended capacity at present. 4. Outsource the service to a private company? Not many organisations would be likely to want to take on CCTV for commercial purposes, as there was not much money to be made from it. It was unlikely to be cheaper to outsource CCTV, as costs of running it were not currently very high for 5 (68)
MKC, at approx. 40,000 p.a. to maintain and run it. The equipment had been paid for mainly with a grant when set up. The Service Level Agreement would have to be very stringent and comprehensive to ensure that the service continued to provide the benefits needed and was not diluted by cost-cutting or other changes. 5. Set up an agency similar to MKSP to allow the Partnership to make a profit from CCTV? It was considered no more likely that MKSP would be able to make money from CCTV than a private company would. However, the potential for MKSP to run it should be explored, as less bureaucracy might be needed. 6. Let TVP take the equipment? TVP would probably not be interested in taking over the service, and if they did, they would probably charge the Council, as MKC to use CCTV for a multiple of reasons, and it benefits the economy of the city generally and encourages businesses and the night-time economy. 7. Pursue some other course? No other options were put forward. 6 (69)
Background Information on CCTV Introduction The Review Group has considered the following information on CCTV: 1. A SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis of CCTV, provided by the Chair and drawn from various sources; it should be noted that this is an analysis of general CCTV and not specific to the CCTV set up in Milton Keynes; 2. An assessment of the savings realised in Milton Keynes in 2014 by virtue of having a CCTV system and an analysis of activity. 1. SWOT Analysis Strengths: 1: CCTV can provide surveillance of specific areas of high risk & can be used to Identify criminal activities, or incidents in real time, or via recorded images. 1:2 CCTV can assist the Police in their evidence, as a vital tool, by capturing & copying images from the Digital Video Recording (DVR), which can be offered as evidence in a court of law. 1:3 CCTV systems can be used as a deterrent to criminals & to detect crime, if used in an overt, identifiable method. It can also be used to detect crime if not so obvious, if used in a Covert, not so visible method. 1:4 Pan Tilt Zoom (PTZ) cameras can be used to target specific areas & cover a wider range and distance, than fixed cameras. Restrictions of range & view can be limited by setting stops on the pan & tilt, to avoid conflict with residents, on invading their privacy. Fixed, static cameras can be targeted on specific areas. 1:5 The use of Standard camera housings, can demonstrate the exact areas which are targeted, these can deter offenders, as they are aware, they are under surveillance. Alternatively the use of Dome cameras, which can be in a fixed position, or as a PTZ, which do not identify what specific areas they are observing, can make offenders feel they are under observation, where they may not be, so increasing the deterrent. 1:6 It is important to plan the locations & types of the cameras, as this will improve the effectiveness of the system. 1:7 The correct selection of the right type & range of lighting is important. 7 (70)
Weakness: 2: A good CCTV system can be expensive to install & maintain. Only a well designed & well maintained system will be effective in crime detection. It is a requirement that a CCTV system should comply with Home Office guidance, in its design & installation. A poorly designed & maintained CCTV system will not offer value & would not be an effective tool in crime detection & prevention and could prevent captured data being accepted in a court of law, as evidence. 2:1 If lighting is inadequate, or the wrong type, then the images captured could be of poor value. 2:2 There are installation, running & capital costs:- a) System installation & maintenance. b) Operating costs, building control room, control room equipment, staff & power requirements. 2:3 The public has to be reassured that the CCTV system does not intrude on their own personal privacy, in their own residences. 2:4 If the camera fixing devices are not installed with adequate strength & stability, then this will impact on the effectiveness of the system to capture good quality images. Opportunities: 3: CCTV systems can be used as an effective tool to detect & deter crime 3:1 A well designed CCTV system can be used to enable control room staff to direct Police officers & emergency crews to an incident, to minimise the time in reaching the scene. 3:2 Instead of having to maintain a high level of police officers deployed at any one time, they can be directed to incidents as and when required, maximising resources. 3:3 A good CCTV system can be used as an effective tool to apprehend criminals. Threats: 4: System failures could reduce effectiveness of the CCTV system. 4:1 If system not designed correctly, then black spots, areas where there is a gap in coverage, could make the system ineffective. Additionally, natural surroundings such as trees can have an effect on the CCTV usage in certain areas. 4:2 In designing, or the operation of the CCTV system, then consideration must be given to prevent intrusion into the public s personal space, contravening their civil liberties. 8 (71)
4:3 The cost of installing, operating & maintaining the CCTV system should be considered, as to the overall benefit, value & effectiveness. 4:4 In addition to the cost of powering the system, back-up power should be installed using Uninterruptible Power Supplies (UPSs), to maintain the operation of the system at all times. CCTV Systems should comply with Home Office guidance & to ensure this, is it is advisable to consider the following:- a) System Design: It is important that the CCTV system is designed to meet all legislation & industry and government standards. It is important in the design to select the optimum location of Cameras, to establish a good coverage. b) Equipment: Select good quality equipment, which will provide a good effective CCTV system, with reduced maintenance costs. General Equipment list Camera housings, brackets & poles Cameras, mono, or colour, or mono/colour switching cameras Camera Lenses Lighting (white light or infra-red). Transmission systems Equipment Racks Receivers Digital Video Recorders Switchers Monitors Uninterruptable Power Supplies c) Installation: Important to select a good quality certificated installer contractor. d) Commissioning: When installation is complete, then the CCTV system should be commissioned, to establish that the system fully complies, and there should also be a walk test of the system to confirm effectiveness of the design. e) Control room staff: Select industry certificated staff & provide them with specific training for your system & equipment. f) Maintenance: Important to select a good quality certificated maintenance contractor & establish a comprehensive, efficient maintenance schedule. 9 (72)
2. CCTV Savings and Activity in 2014 MONTH Min. Saving Max. Saving CCTV-initiated arrests Jan 127,064 195,140 36 Feb 123,035 233,278 21 Mar 130,924 234,799 30 Apr 136,059 223,149 36 May 99,759 185,905 26 June 178,800 319,337 46 July 91,201 217,046 25 Aug 90,011 217,335 24 Sept 111,380 219,862 25 Oct 72,781 142,153 25 Nov 41,617 109,313 14 Dec 156,228 336,165 55 RUNNING TOTAL 1,358,859 2,633,482 363 Bold indicates increase on the 2013 figures Italic indicates a decrease on the 2013 figures Activity Total 2012 Activity Total 2013 Activity Total 2014 Early Intervention 95 176 198 Identify Offender 238 282 359 Direct Resources 326 478 853 Attendance Not 171 175 165 Required Statements 2026 686 980 Evidential Copies 853 1675 3804 Reviews 526 969 1460 Stills 1103 1039 1025 Incidents 1658 1959 2177 Advice 2178 4528 Jan - Apr May - Aug Sept- Dec Total Suspicious 171 110 168 449 Anti-Social 90 62 82 234 Criminal Damage 20 7 16 43 Drugs 6 14 12 32 Other Crime 70 79 64 213 Drunk in Charge 23 32 19 74 Theft 51 58 52 161 Assault 75 50 54 179 Public Order 71 67 112 250 Robbery 3 9 13 25 Wanted 13 24 30 67 Welfare 60 58 47 165 Missing Persons 86 78 34 198 10 (73)
Democratic Services Overview and Scrutiny Milton Keynes Council Civic Offices 1 Saxon Gate East Central Milton Keynes MK9 3EJ T 01908 25 E scrutiny@milton-keynes.gov.uk www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/scrutiny 11 (74)