SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - Cameras in The City have little effect in deterring crime on violent street corners, according to a new study.

Seventy-four cameras have been installed in some of the San Francisco’s most dangerous neighborhoods as city officials battle with an increasing homicide rate that was just two short of hitting triple digits last year.

Homicides within 250 feet of the cameras were eradicated. However, homicides in areas from 250 feet to 500 feet increased.

“It shows that if people are going to commit a crime they can just go around the corner from a camera to do it,” police Commissioner Joseph Alioto-Veronese said. “This system will only work if we plan on having a camera every 100 feet, which is just not realistic.”

The study, conducted by UC Berkeley and paid for by The City, showed a 22 percent decrease in property crimes within 100 feet of the cameras, but the only other nominal drop — homicides within 250 feet falling from seven cases to zero — was offset by an increase in homicides, from two to nine, in areas 250 feet to 500 feet from the cameras.

Other violent crimes studied, including assault, robbery and forcible sex offenses, showed little variation when comparing rates before and after the installation of the cameras.

“When violent crimes are lumped together, evidence shows that the cameras had little overall effect,” the report stated of the $900,000 surveillance program, which has been in place for 2½ years.

The surveillance study examined 59,706 incidents occurring within 1,000 feet of 68 crime cameras in San Francisco. The cameras were bunched in 19 locations. The study, which compared average daily crime trends from periods before and after the installation of the cameras, was a preliminary report, with more data expected to follow in the coming months.

The results did not sway the resolve of Mayor Gavin Newsom, who has advocated for 25 new cameras — at the cost of $200,000 — to join the current fleet.

“Our commitment to crime cameras is unwavering, and we remain dedicated to expanding this program,” mayoral spokesman Nathan Ballard said.

Alioto-Veronese said funding should go into improving the quality of the existing cameras so they can more clearly capture images within their range — a tool that would be effective for prosecuting criminals in court.

In 2006, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution requiring police to give updates on crime statistics gathered from the cameras. The report was the first detailed analysis released.

wreisman@examiner.com

In brief

» Cameras: 68

» Locations: 19

» Neighborhoods: Mission, Excelsior, Western Addition, Tenderloin, Lower Haight

» Crimes studied: Larceny, burglary, motor-vehicle theft, homicide, assault, robbery, forcible sex offenses

» Biggest decrease: Larcenies within 200 feet of camera (from .031 cases a day to .023)

» Biggest increase: Assaults 200 to 400 feet from camera (from .018 cases a day to .024)

Source: UC Berkeley study

Comments from Examiner Readers

7:20 PM MST on Tue., Apr. 1, 2008 re: "City�s crime cameras shortsighted"

In the know said:
The use of cameras is not only dependent on location, but the people using the system, the quality and reliability of the device storing the images, as well as the maintenance of the system. This system has been in operation reliably or several years and it is maintained. The news that doesn't get out, because it's not contriversial, is that in fact the system DOES work. It's caught criminals in the act of non-violent and violent crimes, child abductions etc. and reduced the man-effort to find and prosecute criminals. So don't assume you know everything and that the ACLU knows what the heck they are talking about. As usual, they simply stand on their "no big brother" pedestal spouting out the mouth.. that's all they do! Light reduces crime.. sure does, but EVERYTHING else counts too. there is no one solution. So get with it people. It's not a waste of money unless the people controlling the system don't use it and the Pittsburg PD are steadfast in it's usefulness.

3 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

5:40 AM MST on Thu., Mar. 27, 2008 re: "City�s crime cameras shortsighted"

Jon said:
Without wishing to state the obvious, there may be a very good reason why the existing surveillance cameras have not performed as required. It would be unwise to simply assume that the system has been correctly designed, installed and operated, when this news report clearly suggests otherwise.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:21 AM MST on Fri., Mar. 21, 2008 re: "City�s crime cameras shortsighted"

Examiner Reader said:
Security cameras have not managed to STOP anything they've been installed for along the way. They didn't stop IRA bombings in London, they didn't stop the bombings at the Madrid train station. They haven't stopped robberies in convenience stores or gas stations. People still dash across national/international boarders and use execssive speed or run red lights on the roads, to name a few things. You name it and the cameras didn't STOP it. An argument might be made for their ability to LIMIT such actions.

0 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:23 AM MST on Fri., Mar. 21, 2008 re: "City�s crime cameras shortsighted"

logicbomb said:
So the police are against the cameras, and the civil liberty groups are against the cameras, and the criminals keep on committing crimes despite the cameras. Discontinuing this program, according to its status quo, is a no-brainer.

0 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:37 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 5, 2007 re: "Cities pursue cameras to stop crime, but results are mixed"

Examiner Reader said:
Cameras can't catch criminals, cameras can't stop a crime in progress, and cameras don't deter criminals who know they will not be convicted, not earn a long sentence or not be eligible for the death penalty. The only solution to crime is to eliminate violent criminals swiftly and permanently, preferably via execution, but life sentences are okay provided they stay in prison until the die.

62 agree | 276 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:37 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 5, 2007 re: "Cities pursue cameras to stop crime, but results are mixed"

Smile! said:
As of today, 213 people have been murdered in Baltimore. We have many cameras. Want safety? Get out of the city--whatever city you're in.

317 agree | 63 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:34 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 20, 2007 re: "Crime cameras remain a dicey issue in S.F."

Gretchen said:
I find the headline for this article: "Crime cameras remain a dicey issue in SF" very intriguing. As a resident in the Mission district I attend monthly community meetings at the Police Dept and almost every meeting someone brings up a request for more cameras in more locations. The police department repeatedly tells us it can't be done due to the trial period, the cost, the process, yadda, yadda, yadda. So here's the question: If the public wants the cameras, and the only complaints about "civil liberties" are from a couple members of the Board of Supes, why is the use of cameras portrayed as a "dicey issue"? Isn't it more of a "Progressives prevent crime abatement by protecting civil liberties of crooks" issue? We read articles and comments about "police not doing their job" but we never seem to read articles about "Supes putting up roadblocks to police doing their job." Please tell McGoldrick that he doesn't speak for the citizens of the Mission district - we want cameras

139 agree | 134 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate