Program Profile: Camera Use to Prevent Crime in Commuter Parking Facilities (Washington, D.C.)

A crime prevention strategy designed to reduce crime in Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority parking facilities through the introduction of digital cameras at the exits of the parking facilities to capture images of patrons’ license plates as they exited the facility. The program is rated as No Effects. Crime rates (including car-related, property, and violent crimes) remained at pre-camera levels in parking facilities.

A No Effects rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s) and may result in a negative outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Program Goals/ Program Components

Nearly half of all serious crime that occurs on the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) rail transit system occurs in its parking facilities (La Vigne and Lowry 2011). Car crimes in WMATA parking facilities were roughly split between stolen cars and thefts from cars. As a result, the Metro Transit Police (MTP) collaborated with researchers from the Urban Institute to develop a crime prevention strategy to combat crime in parking facilities through the use of digital cameras. The overall goal was to prevent crime by deterring potential criminals, as all patrons were notified about the use of cameras. The cameras also provided the MTP with information that could be used to tailor their patrol schedules and aid in investigations.

The cameras were positioned at the exits of the parking facilities and would take pictures of license plates and exit times of all parking facility users. Cameras were installed on the exterior of the attendant booths. Captured images were accessible by computer and were stamped with the time the photo was taken. Further, prominent signs were positioned so that all users were made aware of the cameras and their purpose. A sign was also installed in the parking facilities informing patrons that cameras would be capturing their license plate number and time of exit from the parking facility.

Program Theory

Implementing digital cameras, both live and dummy, in an effort to prevent crime was based on the rational choice theory—specifically, Situational Crime Prevention. Rational choice theory argues that criminals engage in rational decision-making and that their environment indicates to them whether opportunities for crime exist. If criminals are motivated to commit a crime, the theory continues, they can be deterred if they believe the criminal act involves too much risk, requires too much effort, doesn’t produce a large profit, will cause too much guilt or shame to make it worthwhile, or if the provocations that create criminal opportunities are reduced (Clarke 1997; Clarke and Homel 1997; Cornish and Clarke 2003; Eck 2002). Through implementing camera usage, they are made aware of the increased costs of committing a crime, which potentially decreases their temptation (La Vigne and Lowry 2011). Further, the use of Situational Crime Prevention strategies in parking facilities is ideal, given that parking facilities typically present available targets with a lack of surveillance (Smith 1996).

Study 1

To investigate the impact of camera use in parking facilities of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) rail transit system, La Vigne and Lowry (2011) used a blocked randomized experimental design. A blocked design, which matches groups on similar characteristics, was selected to minimize natural variation that can occur by chance, especially when the sample size is small. Crime levels were analyzed from April 2007 through March 2009 in both the treatment and comparison areas (12-month pre-intervention data, and 12-month follow-up data).  The intervention was implemented in April 2008. Fifty WMATA parking facilities were included in the intervention, with 25 assigned to the treatment group (where the cameras were installed) and 25 assigned to the comparison group (which operated as usual). Notably, because of budget constraints, both live and dummy digital cameras were used. Given that patrons were not made aware of the use of dummy cameras, the live and dummy cameras were expected to have the same deterrent effect.

Crime data from the Metro Transit Police (MTP) and from areas in which WMATA operates was gathered along with administrative data on Metro operations related to the parking facilities, which included hours of operation, staffing, parking facility utilization, and MTP policing practices. The crime and administrative data during the pre-intervention period helped inform an overall understanding of the parking facility’s criminal opportunities.

A difference-in-difference analysis was employed to test for significant changes between the treatment and matched comparison groups as a result of the camera installation. The following outcomes were measured: car-related crime, all crime, property crime, and violent crime. Car-related crime included motor vehicle theft, attempted motor vehicle theft, and theft from automobiles. All crime includes Part I and II offenses reported by MTP. Part I offenses are referred to as index crimes and include homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Part II offenses include offenses that do not fall within Part I crimes (FBI 2009). 

The cost of a camera system at a Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority rail transit system parking facility with one exit lane was $6,162 for the hardware and $1,724 for installation—a total of $7,886. The cost of each additional camera was $704 for the hardware and $1,200 for the installation—a total of $1,904. Therefore, if a facility had three exit lanes, the cost of installation cameras at each of the facilities was $11,694.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Clarke, Ronald V. 1997. Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. Reprint [1992]. New York, N.Y.: Harrow and Heston.

Clarke, Ronald V., and Ross Homel. 1997. “A Revised Classification of Situational Crime Prevention Techniques.” In Steven P. Lab (ed.). Crime Prevention at a Crossroads. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson.

Cornish, Derek B., and Ronald V. Clarke. 2003. “Opportunities, Precipitators, and Criminal Decisions: A Reply to Wortley’s Critique of Situational Crime Prevention.” In Martha J. Smith and Derek B. Cornish (eds.). Theory for Practice in Situational Crime Prevention, Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 16. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press, 41–96.

Eck, John E. 2002. “Preventing Crime at Places.” In Lawrence W. Sherman, David P. Farrington, Brandon C. Welsh, and Doris Layton MacKenzie (eds.). Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. New York, N.Y.: Rutledge.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2009. Crime in the United States: Offense Definitions. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, FBI.

https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/about/offense_definitions.html

Smith, Mary. 1996. “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Parking Facilities”. National Institute of Justice. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/cptedpkg.pdf