Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 39

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 38
38 agencies in their states. Although ACE, a case study agency, Again using a five-point scale, agencies were given a list is part of the San Francisco Bay Area Tier I, it competes of the most common purposes of a video surveillance sys- for funds in that group ($19,873,038 in FY 2010) with much tem and asked to rate from most effective to least effective larger, higher profile agencies in the Bay Area's Regional whether they believed this goal was met on their system. Transit Security Working Group. All other case study agen- Table 11 indicates the number of times an agency listed a cies are designated as Tier II. reason as most effective and the number of times it was rated as least effective. Funding issues explored by this synthesis centered on purchase. The synthesis did not pursue costs and issues pertaining to the operation or maintenance of surveillance TABLE 11 cameras, including the related costs of hardware or software MOST/LEAST EFFECTIVE USE OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE that are required to maintain the surveillance system in an Reason Most Effective Least Effective operational state. These costs are considerable and insuf- Crime Prevention/ 7 2 ficient maintenance of an existing surveillance system can Vandalism contribute to negative publicity about an agency and may Fare Collection/Dispute 4 4 influence how claims of loss or injury are adjudicated either Mediation by internal claims officers or by courts. Technical studies of Other Complaint 7 0 the actual operations of surveillance systems by rail agen- Resolution cies might assist them in determining whether their initial Accident Investigation 11 0 purchases are being supported internally by policies and Employee Monitoring 0 0 procedures that maintain the equipment properly. These Other 1 1 studies might also consider how internal decisions impact the effectiveness of the video surveillance system and the transit system overall. The perceived effectiveness of a video surveillance sys- tem can depend on a number of administrative issues beyond purchase, installation, and maintenance of the equipment PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS OF VIDEO itself. Transit systems need to address many operational SURVEILLANCE issues when considering upgrading an existing surveillance system or installing a new one. Survey respondents provided Decisions about where to install cameras are influenced by information on how a number of these are addressed, includ- an agency's goals, available funding, and, sometimes, con- ing policies on monitoring, recording, and archiving images, cerns of the political entity to which the agency is linked. and whether patrons and/or employees are notified of the Intertwined in each or all of these decisions is the perceived presence of video surveillance technology. effectiveness of the surveillance network. Although effec- tiveness might be difficult to define in the context of these overlapping but possibly contradictory goals, agencies were MONITORING VIDEO CAMERAS--WHEN AND BY WHOM asked to indicate how effective their surveillance systems were in achieving a number of goals. The two major reasons As the number of cameras increases, questions have arisen for employing video surveillance monitoring of locations as to whether they will be monitored in real time (some- were for crime/vandalism prevention and accident investi- one watching the cameras as things are happening) or gation. Respondents could select as many or as few of the will be viewed after the fact (looking at images after an choices that pertained to their agency (Table 10) incident occurred). A related decision is who will monitor the cameras and for what hours whoever is assigned will TABLE 10 view them. REASONS FOR EMPLOYING VIDEO SURVEILLANCE The times that video cameras are monitored differed Reason No. considerably. Twenty-two agencies indicated their cameras Crime/Vandalism Prevention 39 were monitored at all times (24 hours a day, 7 days a week), Fare Collection View/Dispute Mediation 20 and six reported that cameras were never monitored. Eight Other Complaint Resolution 32 responded that cameras were viewed only during hours of Accident Investigation 39 transit operations, while 11 indicated they used a configura- tion that was not easily summarized but met their agencies' Employee Monitoring 18 needs (Table 12). Other 10