The effects of closed-circuit television on crime: meta-analysis of an English national quasi-experimental multi-site evaluation

Abstract

This article reports results obtained in an English national quasiexperimental multi-site evaluation of 14 closed-circuit television (CCTV) projects in residential areas, town and city centers, a city hospital, and car parks (parking lots). Both police and victimization data were collected before and after the installation of CCTV in target, control and buffer areas, and police Divisions. The results showed that CCTV was effective in reducing crimes in train station car parks but not in city centers or residential areas, seemed to be effective in reducing vehicle crimes (but not other types of crimes), and was most effective when the degree of coverage by CCTV was high and when CCTV was combined with other interventions such as improved lighting. Implications for situational crime prevention theory are drawn. There was no evidence of displacement or diffusion of benefits. It is concluded that CCTV needs to be implemented more effectively, based on an analysis of the crime problem and its causes, and needs to be evaluated using a randomized experimental design.

Crime displacement: what we know, what we don’t know, and what it means for crime reduction

“…By comparing the effects of intervention in a treatment area and a catchment area independently, however, it is possible that, if the effect is not limited to the treatment area, researchers may fail to detect the overall effect of intervention. That is, even if the effects observed in the treatment or catchment area fail to reach statistical 2 One issue with using this approach concerns the extent to which the parametric assumptions on which the method is based are reasonable (see Farrington et al 2007). For instance, a key assumption is that the data generating process is a Poisson process.…”

“…For instance, a key assumption is that the data generating process is a Poisson process. This may be reasonable for studies for which the unit of analysis is a person, but may not be for those for which the unit of analysis is a place (Marchant 2005;Farrington et al 2007;Johnson 2009). The consequence of this is that the estimated standard errors and hence confidence intervals may be underestimated.…”

“…For this reason, scholars (e.g. Farrington et al 2007;Weisburd et al 2008;Bowers et al 2011) have typically multiplied the standard error by an inflation factor (often two) when calculating confidence intervals, which leads to a more conservative test. However, it is still possible that the true effect size will not be captured by the intervals derived, and hence when interpreting such findings, readers are advised to focus more on the general trends observed, their magnitude, and the overall conclusions that these might sensibly lead to rather than getting too caught up in the more absolute issue of statistical significance.…”

Applying Google Maps and Google Street View in criminological research

“…They argued that cameras inherently have a limited effect on discouraging crime. First, any deterrence effect will only occur at locations where there is a CCTV camera (Farrington et al 2007). Second, in order for a crime-deterring effect to occur, offenders need to be aware of the presence of a camera, and be concerned that it is operating and effectively monitored and that an appropriate response will follow (Farrington et al 2007;Caplan et al 2011).…”

“…First, any deterrence effect will only occur at locations where there is a CCTV camera (Farrington et al 2007). Second, in order for a crime-deterring effect to occur, offenders need to be aware of the presence of a camera, and be concerned that it is operating and effectively monitored and that an appropriate response will follow (Farrington et al 2007;Caplan et al 2011). Moreover, cameras have limited lines of sight, which often creates blind spots (Caplan et al 2011) that offenders can exploit.…”