A report by P&G Security to the Port Douglas Chamber of Commerce has outlined estimated security costs for both CCTV cameras and security guards.
The report found that vandalism, drunken and disorderly behaviour "often resulting in isolated violent incidents, and theft were the most common crimes committed in Port Douglas.
Surveys of local business people and police also showed:
- incidents occurred mostly between Thursday and Sunday evenings or when licensed venues extended operating hours;
- incidents occurred in a defined area near licensed venues and around late night eateries; and
- offenders were predominantly tourists or temporary workers, but there was a trend towards local young people offending.
Gareth Morris, Director of P&G Security, told The Newsport that research he'd obtained showed that a CCTV presence increased the prevalence of reported crime, but did not increase the number of prosecutions.
"It depends on the quality of the cameras used. You need good images to identify people because otherwise unless the person is a local you're not going to be able to identify them.
"I see the issue here being that if the offenders aren't locals you're not going to be able to identify them before they leave town, therefore you're not solving the crimes you're just recording the incident."
Mr Morris said that Council's denial of the CitySafe monitoring system for Port Douglas means that foot patrols are the preferred option.
"If there's a camera system in place where someone is monitoring it and there's a response in place it can be more cost effective than people on the ground.
"If you can't do that then I think the next best option is to have more police on the street or security on the street, a visible presence as opposed to a camera which, if you're drunk, you're going to miss it.”
Mr Morris, a former police officer, said that extra police would be an ideal but expensive deterrent.
"You can't beat a physical police presence out on the street being seen, there's nothing better than that. Cameras are a very useful tool, but they're just a tool."
The P&G Security report to the Chamber of Commerce provided estimated costs of a CCTV system as well as security guards.
A five camera, infrared, colour system with 24 hour monitoring had estimated costs of $256,500 in year one, with an ongoing annual cost of around $221,000. The price of having two security guards patrolling the town for four nights a week, ten hours a night, was around $141,000 annually.
Mr Morris said that the role of security guards would observe and report crimes to police.
Do you think the benefits of a security system outweighs the cost? Have your say below.
Read more of today's news. Check out The Newsport home page.
Video normally takes up much more time - there is no legislation/advisory as to how much time it should take to "observe" and therefore this activity is divided into two categories
a) Alarm verification (which is like saying just enough time to view monitors to determine if the alarm received is false or not)
b)Video patrol - where customers ask for the central station to go the site system and do a specific tour or keep the alarm camera on and observe/evaluate the problem till such time it is clear what response is to be taken. This is sometimes wasteful and ineffective (note: the "attention span of a human" worse when rushed)
Most central stations who must follow the SLA defined cannot do video guarding/patrol whilst they operate as an "alarm monitoring" entity because their "SLA" performance will drop and they could lost their accreditation.
Therefore a "video monitoring centre" is more tuned to getting events via video (maybe triggered by the alarm) and then attending to it like it was a patrol or a guarding job.
They get paid by the hour as a guard/patrol would do.
The SLA and operational requirements for the two are different. Hence costs are different.
Also video monitoring centres do not focus on "alarms" alone - the can do many varied duties that add value and make the value proposition to the public much more appealing and cost effective (if you take the cost of a patrol car getting to the site when the false/unwanted alarm rate is as high at 90%)
I think every business must decide their commercial realities and cost according to the service they deliver. By putting "video" into a central monitoring station and estimating the "monitoring cost" for video monitoring is fraught with commercial "heartache" so be wary of this option.
Also an RVR - "remote video response" centre as in the UK is again to purely respond to alarms. This makes it OK because one has to "verify alarms" for the police to respond if there is a problem (keeping in mind the industry statistics of "false" alarms) - but because they are bound by the SLA of an alarm bound operation they cannot value add and deliver a range of services that are more akin to guarding and patrols.
So with estimating costs and te quest to find the right "price" we have a key factor missing - and this is "what is the service?" being offered and based on this service - what is the value to the customer?.
Simple arithmetic, when comparing service provided and fees for a "guarding and patrols" operation to CCTV monitoring centre operation, will provide you a better method to determine the right market price for the service. Central Station monitoring is a totally different operational environment that restricts the value added options that could make video monitoring a viable operation.
The right place for a video monitoring centre is in a "guarding and patrol" operational centre where the benefits of video will not only help the OH&S requirements of the operation but be a very valuable tool kit to supplement/support the human frailties that result in ineffectual responses and most importantly allow the operation to expand the services to the community that neither alarms or video can deliver on their own!
Guards/Patrols and Technology offer the most cost effective solution to the customer.
Add comment