By Jacob Ross, Security Specialist · Last updated June 18, 2026
Across 161 studies spanning 1978–2017, the largest meta-analysis on the question found CCTV cut crime by about 13% overall — but the effect came almost entirely from actively monitored systems (and layered setups reached ~34%), while passive, record-only cameras showed no statistically significant effect. (Source: Piza, Welsh, Farrington & Thomas, 2019 — authors’ summary)
“Do security cameras reduce crime?” has a more precise answer than most pages admit: it depends almost entirely on whether anyone is watching. Below are 25+ statistics — each dated and linked to its source — on deterrence, crime reduction, where cameras work (and where they don’t), ROI, and the monitored-vs-passive gap.
Do security cameras actually reduce crime? (the evidence)
- ~13% — overall crime reduction associated with CCTV across 161 evaluations spanning 1978–2017, the largest systematic review on the question. (Piza, Welsh, Farrington & Thomas, Criminology & Public Policy, 2019 — authors’ summary; catalog: OJP)
- The honest caveat: the round “~20%” figure people repeat overstates it — the best estimate is about 13% overall, and even that hinges on which cameras (more below). (Piza et al., 2019)
The deterrence effect — do cameras scare offenders off?
- 83% of burglars said they would try to determine whether an alarm was present before a job; 60% would seek an alternative target if there were signs of one — from a survey of 422 incarcerated burglars. (Blevins & Kuhns, UNC Charlotte / AIREF, 2013)
- About half of consumers rate outdoor security cameras an effective deterrent — ranked below a nearby police presence (64%) and visible alarm indicators (53%); security signs alone deter ~25%. (deterrence data compiled by Security.org, 2026)
- Visibility is the mechanism: offenders avoid targets that look watched — which is why a camera that’s obviously connected to a response deters more than one that’s clearly just recording. (Security.org)
Monitored vs. unmonitored — the finding that changes everything
- Actively monitored CCTV produced a significant ~15% crime reduction. (Piza et al., 2019 — authors’ summary)
- Passive, record-only systems showed no statistically significant effect on crime. This is the single most important finding on the page. (Piza et al., 2019)
- ~34% — the reduction when CCTV is combined with multiple other interventions (lighting, security personnel, signage) — the largest effect in the analysis. CCTV alone was not statistically significant. (Piza et al., 2019)
- 66% of monitors fail to detect a salient, unexpected event in their field of view — documented “inattentional blindness” in surveillance operators, the human limit that makes unwatched (or under-resourced) monitoring unreliable. (Näsholm, Rohlfing & Sauer, PLOS ONE, 2014)
Where CCTV works best — and where it doesn’t
- Car parks / parking lots are the clear winner: ~37% crime reduction — the largest and most consistent effect across decades of studies. (Piza et al., 2019 — authors’ summary)
- Residential areas also showed a smaller but statistically significant reduction. (Piza et al., 2019)
- Outside those settings — busy city/town centers, public housing, and public transport — effects were generally not statistically significant. Cameras are not a blanket fix. (Piza et al., 2019)
- CCTV has no significant effect on violent crime — only on property/vehicle crime. (Gill & Spriggs, UK Home Office Study 292, 2005)
- Only 2 of 14 UK camera schemes produced a statistically significant reduction in that government evaluation — proof that deployment quality, not the camera itself, decides the outcome. (Gill & Spriggs, 2005)
Business ROI, loss prevention & scale
- U.S. retail shrink reached $112.1 billion — up from $93.9B the prior year — the loss cameras are deployed against. (National Retail Federation, latest National Retail Security Survey, FY2022)
- Shrink averaged 1.6% of sales, and ~65% of it came from internal and external theft. (NRF NRSS, FY2022)
- 53% of retailers increased their technology/software budgets in response. (NRF NRSS, FY2022)
- Cameras can be strongly cost-beneficial — a city saved more than $4 for every $1 spent on a monitored camera program (Chicago). (Urban Institute)
- But ROI is site-dependent: the same study found Baltimore returned only about $0.50 per dollar — underscoring that placement and monitoring, not the hardware, decide the payoff. (Urban Institute)
- Security systems earn a homeowner/property insurance discount of ~2–5% (up to 15% with some insurers) — averaging around $100/year. (Policygenius, 2024)
- The cost gap that drives the ROI case: live/remote video monitoring runs ~$50–$150 per camera per month, versus ~$130,000–$280,000 a year for a 24/7 on-site guard post. (industry/vendor estimate, Safe and Sound Security, 2026)
- The global video surveillance market is ~$56.1 billion (2025), projected to reach ~$88.1 billion by 2031 (7.8% CAGR) — cameras are everywhere, which is precisely why differentiated, monitored coverage matters. (MarketsandMarkets, 2025)
- The 50 largest U.S. cities hold ~537,000 surveillance cameras — about 11 per 1,000 people, led by Atlanta at ~124 per 1,000. (Comparitech, 2024)
- 86% of U.S. students (ages 12–18) report seeing at least one security camera at school — surveillance is now near-universal in a core vertical. (NCES, 2019)
What actually works: layered, actively monitored coverage
The evidence converges on one conclusion: a camera’s value is decided by what happens when it sees something. Passive recording is not statistically associated with less crime; actively monitored systems are, and CCTV combined with other measures delivers the biggest effect (~34%).
None of that is an argument against installing cameras — they’re the necessary foundation. It’s an argument for activating them: the same hardware that does little on its own becomes a documented crime-reducer once it’s monitored and layered with lighting, signage, and response.
That is the case for live video monitoring — trained agents watch professionally installed camera systems in real time, issue voice-down warnings, and alert and coordinate with law enforcement while an incident is unfolding, instead of handing you footage afterward. It closes the exact gaps the research exposes: passive cameras don’t deter violent crime, and human operators miss most unexpected events without AI-assisted, well-resourced monitoring. The strongest results come from layering — monitoring plus a full construction site security program on a job site, and for the highest-evidence settings, Guardian’s parking lot security cameras and retail loss prevention cameras guidance.
Cite this page
Found these numbers useful? You’re welcome to cite or link this page. Suggested citation:
Guardian Integrated Security. “Security Camera Effectiveness Statistics (2026).” guardianintegratedsecurity.com, last updated June 18, 2026. https://www.guardianintegratedsecurity.com/security-camera-effectiveness-statistics/
Sources
Piza, Welsh, Farrington & Thomas, Criminology & Public Policy (2019, authors’ summary + OJP catalog) · Gill & Spriggs, UK Home Office Research Study 292 (2005) · Blevins & Kuhns, UNC Charlotte / AIREF (2013) · Security.org · Näsholm, Rohlfing & Sauer, PLOS ONE (2014) · National Retail Federation, National Retail Security Survey (FY2022) · Urban Institute · Policygenius · MarketsandMarkets · Comparitech · NCES · Safe and Sound Security (industry cost estimate). Individual figures are linked inline.
