CCTV security cameras are ideal for monitoring school premises and students  in the school. As more and more cases of crimes in schools show up, installing CCTV Cameras for security in schools has become a must for the school authorities. Constant surveillance also reduces the incidents of harassment or any other nuisance within the school campus.

CCTV cameras are highly useful as the school administration.

***************************************************************

CCTV in the School Environment

In 1996 Memphis, TN installed a $450,000 CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) surveillance program for its downtown district. The intent was to discourage crime in a new evolving business district. The system covered 12 square blocks and was connected to the police dispatch by fiber optic cable. This was the beginning of a 72-camera system that the city planned to install to increase the sense of security for downtown merchants and to encourage tourism. In the first year of the program police reported a 10 percent drop in crime in the areas where the cameras were installed.

Virginia Beach, VA has had a CCTV system in the beachfront area since 1993. The city used drug seizure money to pay for the $240,000 system. The system in monitored from 8 a.m. to 3 a.m. during the summer months. Police report that the cameras have led to hundreds of arrests over the years and are widely supported by the beachfront business association.

In 1995, a spike in criminal activity stimulated business owners in Hollywood to install cameras on the roofs of apartment buildings and businesses in the busy Yucca Street area. The following year, the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency expanded the system and connected it to the police substation. The success of the program soon led to many other video surveillance projects in the Los Angeles area.

From Tacoma, WA to Fort Lauderdale, FL, CCTV camera systems have become a way of life for many cities in their quest to protect citizens and to provide another tool for understaffed police departments that have the task of protecting larger areas without increasing manpower. A recent survey indicated that the average citizen is videotaped on an average of 4 times a day. Anyone who enters a large mall complex, a chain department store, or many public buildings, most likely is being videotaped. It has become a way of life in society today. While some view it as a form of personal intrusion, others view it as necessary, increased security.

It is logical to expect that school districts would not be far behind this trend. In the wake of Columbine, school districts have scrambled to update security systems in schools and find a solution that meets the needs of students, faculty, and parents. With limited resources to hire additional staff, school officials have turned to electronic means to beef up security. Video surveillance systems have improved dramatically within the last five years. School districts throughout the United States are using CCTV systems as a way to reduce campus crime and prevent crimes such as theft and graffiti. A 1996 survey of school districts by the American Society for Industrial Security showed that 49 percent of U.S. school districts use some form of video security. In Indianapolis, the largest high school uses 90 CCTV video surveillance cameras inside and outside the school. And Prince Georges County, MD has 400 CCTV cameras at 20 high schools.

As the demand has increased, cameras have gotten smaller and more affordable. Recording systems have also improved. With the advent of digital cameras, many districts have turned to this new technology due to its ease of use, Internet capability, and large storage capacity. The old VHS-based system required maintenance of changing tapes and replacing old tapes. In addition, VHS systems have limited storage capacity. Even with commercial long play systems, 24 hours is the best such recorders can store. With digital the system is only limited by the size of the hard drive. Typically most systems can hold 5-10 days of recordings, allowing the busy administrator time to go back and review captured footage. This can even be stretched longer with the use of motion sensitive cameras that only record when movement is noted, thus saving hard drive space.

The digital camera records “pixels” or tiny blocks that make up a digital image. As long as the pixels are the same in a fixed camera, the camera does not record but as soon as an object enters the camera view and changes a pixel, the sleeping camera instantly awakes and begins recording. The system also has the ability to “paint” area to ignore. If the camera is in an area where a ceiling fan can be seen on the image the operator can “paint” the ceiling fan and the camera will now ignore changes in this pixel area. Consequently, there is no need to record an empty hallway as VHS systems do. In addition, the search time is greatly reduced. Typically it took hours to go back-and-forth through VHS tapes to find the time frame needed. With digital recorders, the operator simply inputs the time and camera number and the system instantly retrieves the requested video.

Before installing such CCTV cameras the district needs to identify the purpose and the expected result of the camera system. Is it to deter break-ins? Is it meant to monitor student movement? Is it to oversee high crime areas? The real decision that needs to be made is whether the system will be monitored or passive in design.

If a system is designed to deter break-ins, then most cameras would be focused on door areas, vulnerable areas (areas with large glass windows), or areas where theft is most likely to occur (computer labs, equipment storage areas, kitchens, etc.). The camera lens would be “close-focused” to identify facial features. While this is an important aspect of camera security most administrators are more interested in monitoring student areas where problems would most likely occur.

When designing a system to monitor student movement and problem areas, administrators are more interested in the wide view rather than close features. Most administrators and security personnel are familiar with the student population and therefore “close-focus” is not needed. The more important information is gathered with the wide view (number of students involved, instigators/supporters of an event, etc.). Areas that the need to be viewed for student management purposes are hallways, cafeterias, commons, outside perimeters, parking lots, gyms, and any problem areas. Cafeteria areas are extremely important, since a majority of student interaction takes place there and thus the probability of conflict is the greatest. When designing camera location, it is advisable to put at least two cameras and possibly more - depending on the cafeteria design. Gymnasiums are another area that need multiple cameras. Large groups gather in this area, so again, the probability of a problem arising is greater.

An often-ignored area is the parking lot. This area is not only important for student management, but also for the monitoring of intruders. Outdoor cameras are more expensive but also very valuable. Outside cameras require protective, heated housing and must be mounted above normal reach to prevent vandalism. PTZ cameras (pan-tilt-zoom) are important for outside applications. Cameras can be designed to be controlled by a joystick from a remote location, controlled over the Internet, set for random panning programs, or motion activated to zoom in on anything that breaks the pixel range. Though expensive, one camera can be programmed to cover a large area, such as a student or faculty parking lot. Newer cameras can be purchased that are color during the day but switch to black-and-white at night to clearly see under low light conditions. While older systems needed as much as 6.0 lux (unit of light to operate) to see, the newer digital can clearly film in .5 lux. PTZ cameras are also useful in the cafeteria to zoom in on potential problems or closely record events such as fights. Gateway High School in Denver, CO uses a PTZ camera to oversee the parking lot that allows a security person to watch suspected perpetrators before and after classes.

A major problem facing most school districts is whether or not to monitor the cameras on a continual basis. It all comes down to commitment of resources. The size of the school, the grade level, or the community it serves will dictate if a system needs to be monitored constantly. In a small elementary school, the monitors can be placed in the office secretary area or the principal’s office for occasional monitoring. Such small schools have limited resources, thus the principal can view the whole school while continuing to work in the office area. A real effective use is to install a camera with an electronic door strike and intercom to control access to the school. All school doors can now be locked. A visitor presses a button on the intercom which alerts the secretary that someone is at the door. The secretary can view the individual on the monitor and talk to the person. A button on the intercom activates the magnetic door strike allowing the visitor to come in the door. This prevents unauthorized persons from entering the building. In high school applications the systems require that someone be assigned to monitor the cameras during school hours. This person can double as a receptionist and issue visitor passes. This person can monitor the whole school and identify problems developing and get personnel to the area before it escalates. A total lockdown of exterior doors can take place permitting this person to have control over who enters the building. A security station near the main entrance would be ideal. However, a location in the main office would suffice.

A major consideration that should not be forgotten before cameras are installed is the issue of legality. Most state and certainly federal laws allow the recording of images in areas identified as “public”. When Boulder Valley School District in Colorado voted to spend $840,000 to install video cameras throughout the district, the ACLU objected on the grounds that they did not want “Big Brother” watching students. In the aftermath of Columbine, such issues become less important as student safety takes the front line.

Opponents argue that cameras do not stop violent acts but merely record them. Proponents on the other hand point to many instances where cameras helped prevent an incident or led to the arrest of persons engaged in criminal activity.

Farragut High School in Chicago experienced over 100 fights a year. After installing a CCTV system and other security measures the number dropped to 3-4. Districts have seen a drop in vandalism once camera systems were installed. One school district reported that a yearly cost of $35,000 for vandalism dropped to $2,000 a year after cameras were placed in areas of high vandalism.

The Huntsville, AL school district installed security cameras and watched vandalism costs drop from about $1.2 million a year to under $200,000. The district’s insurance policy premium also dropped $700,000 in the first two years after the cameras were installed.

Biloxi, Miss. has gone one step further by installing video cameras is classrooms. The superintendent, Larry Drawdy, touts the cameras as an “additional pair of eyes” and sees them as no different then if he entered the classroom himself to observe a class. The 10 schools were outfitted with classroom cameras at a cost of $2 million.

While not legally necessary some districts have found it useful to post signs concerning the use of surveillance cameras. It is important that these signs be correct to avoid a liability issue. If the cameras are not monitored do not say that they are. Like “dummy” cameras this gives a false sense of security to persons in the building. If someone is attacked or injured and the injured individual believed that someone was watching out for their safety through the camera system then some liability may occur. Wording of any signage should go as follows: “This facility employs video surveillance equipment for security purposes. This equipment may or may not be monitored at any time.” Such a statement alerts facility users to the level of security provided.


No matter what choices you make regarding your CCTV system, it is important to remember that no cameras will replace discipline rules that are fairly and consistently enforced. However, as technology advances and costs continue to drop, more and more districts will no doubt move to the use of cameras in schools. Districts that want to consider this path need to identify the purpose of the system, the anticipated use, and how the system will be utilized. With a wealth of systems available, administrators need to carefully review proposals to see what the system can and cannot do. CCTV systems are a fact of life in society today. Schools would be wise to take advantage of these systems like they would any other technology. Research, test, review, and implement. But like any other tool, it is only as good as the person using it. Care needs to be taken to insure the use is in keeping with a district security plan.