Audit: City's police cameras cost a lot, don't work
An expensive flop. That's essentially the verdict in a 23-page audit the City Controller released this morning on the city's video surveillance cameras, which were first installed in 2008 to fight crime and violence.
Audit: City's police cameras cost a lot, don't work
UPDATE: Mayor Nutter's chief of staff, Everett Gillison, said later Wednesday the Controller’s information is out of date. Read his full response at the bottom of the story.
An expensive flop.
That's essentially the verdict in a 23-page audit the City Controller released this morning on the city's video surveillance cameras, which were first installed in 2008 to fight crime and violence.
City Controller Alan Butkovitz found that although the City spent $13.9 million already and has committed another $3.6 million for more cameras and repairs, less than half of them work.
"With the city spending millions of dollars on its surveillance program, it’s extremely troubling to have to say that only 102 of the 216 installed cameras were properly functioning," Butkovitz said. "That means at any given time when crime is occurring around our city, only 47 percent of the city’s cameras are able to capture criminal activity at camera locations."
Doing the math, that works out to a $136,000 pricetag per operating camera - not $3,017 as the city first estimated, Butkovita notes.
"This cost is exceedingly alarming, and outright excessive - especially when $13.9 million is equivalent to the cost of putting 200 new police recruits on our streets," he added.
The city has failed to keep warranty and maintenance records for cameras and other video surveillance equipment, leaving the city open to paying for services for which it already contracted, he said. Auditors also saw numerous unopened boxes of camera equipment at a warehouse maintained by the Streets Department.
Butkovitz urged city officials to reexamine whether the additional $3.6 million allocated for the program is absolutely needed and develop a plan to use the cameras to predict potential crime locations.
"Providing effective public safety needs to be our city’s number one priority," Butkovitz said. "But it needs to be done in a cost-efficient method to ensure that every tax dollar goes toward efforts that properly protect our citizens."
Police spokesman Lt. Ray Evers couldn't immediately be reached to respond.
The mayor’s chief of staff Everett Gillison said the Controller’s information is out of date. He acknowledged that getting the cameras up and running has been a slow process, which started before Nutter took office, but said that the city has 70 percent working today.
“It is not news quite frankly that the cameras had gone down,” Gillison said. “Now we’re up to 70 percent working, by September we should be up to 90 percent working.“
Gillison also took issue with the Controller’s complaint that the cameras each cost the city $136,000, saying “it does not cost $136,000 per camera to run this system, it just doesn’t.“
Gillison said the process was slowed down because the original plan was to make this a wireless system, which wasn’t feasible. After the administration came into office, he said they changed course to do a hybrid system, part wireless and part hard-wired.
shocking... but all the red-light cameras work, since they make money. we'd be better off putting 200 police recruits on the streets (or in trees with sniper rifles)— TheRevoltionWillNotBeTelevised
Comment removed.- I bet that other US cities have done this at a fraction of the cost and that the cameras work correctly. The bumbling idiots who run this city cannot do anything right.— philly57
- Comment removed.
- Cameras are very useful in capturing suspected criminals. That said, they often won't deter a hardened criminal from committing a crime; they think they've got a good enough chance of getting away with it that they'll do it anyways. That said, as a method for identifying and eventually apprehending suspects, they are a boon to the city, but often times cameras are installed and maintained by private residents and business owners. This is probably the way to go. Set up a program for individuals and businesses to have their homes equipped with surveillance equipment and then allow that equipment to be used by the police when necessary. Private security systems are already very popular in the city, including systems that have cameras. Generally an individual or business will make sure their one camera is operational, which gives a private camera system an advantage over a large and cumbersome one operated by the police. That said, there are still many public areas like parks and subway stations and trains that would need coverage by either the PPD, SEPTA, or the city. SEPTA seems to have a better track record with its camera system, so it may be a good idea to see what they're doing right so that the PPD and city can still secure those areas away from private eyes.— Gilliam
- Should this come as a surprise, with a city that stumbles over it's budget, AVI, PSD, PHA, but has no problem taxing it's residents to cover the cost of it's failed system!!!!— Dadair1
- Like the video monitors at the Presidents House that failed to operate six months after they were installed, here is another example of a public procurement system breakdown. What is missing here is, who got the contract, and how are they connected?— tomfox
- Why is this in a "news" paper? There's nothing new about corruption laziness ineffficiency or idiocy in this town.— ct23
- Doing the math, that works out to a $136,000 pricetag per operating camera - not $3,017 as the city first estimated, Butkovita notes.
Perhaps a story about who's getting those contracts is in order?— Poit - Remember the tune: "Just look for, the Union Label..." — 19130FM
- Failed to keep warranty records? Is this serious? I would think whoever got the $13.9mm contract to install would keep some records as well. But let me guess all of our Concilmen and Councilwomen are already down the shore; too busy at the beach to deal with this.— knicks84
- "The city has failed to keep warranty and maintenance records for cameras and other video surveillance equipment, leaving the city open to paying for services for which it already contracted, he said. Auditors also saw numerous unopened boxes of camera equipment at a warehouse maintained by the Streets Department."
This is so Philly. The city needs to get a contract negotiated with the unions where the work rules require this type of thing to be taken care of, or people get fired.— SirEdward - Guess it's time to raise taxes again for our administration's culpable (but not admitted to) bumbling. All of our elected "leaders" are not qualified to lead themselves,let alone a city. Of course, what does that say about those that elected them. Keep voting party lines folks, this is what you get.
— DrD11 - Why work efficiently and avoid wasting money and resources when all you need to do to balance the budget is simply raise taxes? Philadelphia's financial management runs like a fool trying to carry water home from the well in a bucket with a hole in the bottom. Why plug the hole when all you have to do is go back and fill the bucket again when it empties?— DonQ
- Wow... couldn't even maintain the records (which is the easiest damn thing to do). And the cost per camera? Shameful.— Yoda117
