View
4
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
City University of New York (CUNY) City University of New York (CUNY)
CUNY Academic Works CUNY Academic Works
Publications and Research John Jay College of Criminal Justice
2019
Private Security and CCTV Surveillance: A Systematic Review of Private Security and CCTV Surveillance: A Systematic Review of
Function and Performance Function and Performance
Brandon C. Welsh Northeastern University
Eric L. Piza CUNY John Jay College
Amanda L. Thomas
David P. Farrington Cambridge University
How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know!
More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/jj_pubs/332
Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu
This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: AcademicWorks@cuny.edu
Private Security and CCTV Surveillance: A Systematic Review of Function and
Performance
Brandon C. Welsh, a Eric L. Piza, b Amanda L. Thomas, b and David P. Farrington c
a Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA
b John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY, USA
c Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK
Abstract
Private security personnel play an important but largely overlooked role in the operation of
CCTV surveillance to prevent crime in public and private areas. This role can take a number of
forms, including active monitoring of cameras. Drawing upon a global database of CCTV
evaluations (N=165), this article examines the function and performance of private security
personnel as related to the effectiveness of CCTV. Findings indicate that CCTV schemes
operated by private security personnel generated larger crime prevention effects than those
operated by police or those using a mix of police and security personnel. Policy and research
implications are discussed.
Keywords: private security; CCTV; surveillance; crime prevention; systematic review
Citation:
Welsh, B., Piza, E., Thomas, A. and Farrington, D. (2020). Private Security and CCTV
Surveillance: A Systematic Review of Function and Performance. Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice, 36(1): 56-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986219890192
Introduction
Closed-circuit television (CCTV) surveillance cameras occupy a central role in contemporary
policing and crime prevention (Goold, 2004; Welsh and Farrington, 2009; Weisburd and
Majmundar, 2018). As the practical application of CCTV has increased in recent years, so has
the evidence-base on its crime prevention effect in public and private space. The cumulative
evidence demonstrates that CCTV surveillance is associated with a significant yet modest
reduction in crime. However, effects vary across a range of contextual factors, including
geographical setting (e.g., city and town centers, car parks), crime type, camera monitoring
strategy, use of complementary interventions, and country of origin (Piza et al., 2019).
Private security personnel play an important but largely overlooked role in the operation
of CCTV surveillance to prevent crime in public and private areas. This role can take a number
of forms, including on-site active monitoring of cameras and on-the-ground responses to crimes
in progress captured on cameras (e.g., Gill and Spriggs, 2005; Waszkiewcz, 2013).
In general, research on private security personnel in the context of CCTV surveillance
has focused on the operations of those who monitor the cameras, sometimes known as the
“watchers,” as well as on security guards working alongside or as a complementary intervention
to CCTV. Research on both fronts is rather limited, and neither has attempted to investigate the
relative effectiveness of CCTV systems monitored by private security personnel or police. In the
case of the latter research focus, this is distinguished from security personnel (i.e., security
guards) serving as the primary intervention to prevent crime (see Welsh et al., 2010), and is
really a matter of security guards exercising a formal surveillance function (Cornish and Clarke,
2003) and serving as a secondary or additional intervention to CCTV cameras. Unfortunately,
too few examples of this preclude an analysis of security guards as a moderating variable of the
effects of CCTV on crime (Piza et al., 2019). With respect to the other area, some qualitative
research has examined the day-to-day operations of those who monitor the cameras, with some
distinction among the different parties involved: private security, police, local government staff,
or volunteers (Gill and Spriggs, 2005; Wilson, 2005).
The main aim of this article is to examine the function and performance of private
security personnel as related to the effectiveness of CCTV surveillance. The chief question of
interest is: How effective is CCTV surveillance in preventing crime when it is operated by
security personnel compared to other parties? Using systematic review methods and
incorporating meta-analytic techniques, the article draws upon a recently updated database of
CCTV evaluations (N=165), covering 40 years of research (1978-2018) and drawn from the
United States, United Kingdom, Sweden, Canada, South Korea, and other industrialized
countries.
Methods
The primary list of studies was compiled by Piza et al. (2019) as part of their updated systematic
review and meta-analysis of the effects of CCTV on crime. Studies were identified and located
following a comprehensive set of search strategies, and studies were included in the systematic
review if they met the following criteria: (a) CCTV was the main focus of the intervention; (b)
the evaluation used an outcome measure of crime; (c) the research design involved, at minimum,
before-and-after measures of crime in treatment and comparable control areas; and (d) both the
treatment and control areas experienced at least 20 crimes during the pre-intervention period.
Building upon the prior systematic review conducted by Welsh and Farrington (2009), Piza et al.
(2019) amassed a database of 161 CCTV studies (80 included and 81 excluded). In line with the
scope of the present review, four additional studies were eligible for consideration, bringing the
total number of CCTV studies to 165 (84 included and 81 excluded; see Appendix 1 for all
included studies). Of the 84 included studies, 76 could be used in the meta-analysis. Four did not
provide the requisite data for an effect size to be calculated. The other four did not provide
enough detailed information about the nature of the CCTV operation to allow for coding of the
scheme operation variable (i.e., police, mixed-police, or security).
“Scheme operation” is the primary variable of interest in the present review. We
reviewed each study to determine the personnel primarily in charge of carrying out surveillance
functions and notifying the appropriate parties when an offense was observed on camera. CCTV
schemes that exclusively incorporated sworn police officers in the surveillance function were
coded as “police.” Thirty-seven studies fit this criterion. Twelve studies reported on schemes
incorporating both police officers and civilian security personnel in the surveillance operation.
These evaluations were coded as “mixed-police.” Twenty-seven studies reported that civilian
security personnel were solely involved in surveillance functions, and were coded as “security.”
Given the scope of this review, we pay particular attention to the effect of security schemes as
compared to that of the police and mixed-police schemes. Authors of the primary studies were
contacted via email when a determination could not be made from the study text.
It should be noted that we were unable to distinguish the nature of civilian security
personnel used in the CCTV schemes beyond our typology: security, police, and mixed-police.
This was owing to a general lack of detail reported in the studies. The majority of studies
reported the use of police and/or civilian operators without discussing a number of related
processes, such as the nature of operator training, the policies guiding monitoring practices, and
whether civilian security personnel were in-house or contracted. From the available information
there seems to be a high level of variance across civilian security operators. For example, the
civilian security operators working alongside police officers in Newark were hired, trained, and
supervised directly by the Newark Police Department. The Burnley CCTV scheme used retired
British Legion personnel hired directly by the local authority who monitored cameras from a
separate facility, with the police having no authority over the CCTV operators (see Appendix 1).
Meta-analytic techniques were used to compare the effect of CCTV across the three
scheme operations (police, mixed-police, and security). The odds ratio (OR) is used as the
measure of effect size. The OR indicates the proportional change in crime in the control area
compared with the treatment area. An OR greater than 1.0 indicates a desirable effect of the
intervention, and an OR less than 1.0 indicates an undesirable effect. The inverse of the OR
communicates the crime difference within the treatment area, with a value of 1.25, for example,
indicating that crime decreased by 20% (1/1.25 = 0.8) in the treatment area compared to the
control area.
Analyses were conducted using BioStat’s Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software
(version 3.0). We conducted all analyses as random effects models under the assumption that
effect sizes are heterogeneous across individual evaluations as well as sub-populations of
evaluations (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001). In each case, observed Q statistics and associated p
values supported this assumption, demonstrating significantly heterogeneous effect sizes across
categories of our “scheme operation” variable. Also, to account for the potential influence of
outcome measures on observed effect sizes, we followed the analytic approach of recent
systematic reviews of using three approaches to report meta-analytic results (e.g., Braga et al.,
2018). In the first approach, all reported outcomes are summed to present an overall average
effect size statistic. This is a conservative measure of the effect of each type of CCTV scheme
operation. In the second approach, the largest reported effect size for each study is used, which
presents a “best-case” estimate. In the third approach, the smallest reported effect size for each
study is used, representing the lower bound estimate of effect.
Finally, we conducted meta-regression models to further explore how effects differ across
the scheme operation categories. When combined with traditional meta-analysis methods, meta-
regression provides the benefit of controlling for moderator variables that researchers believe
may partially explain observed effect sizes. The scheme operation covariate is the independent
variable of primary interest in the present review. “Police” was set as the reference category,
generating covariates that measure whether the mixed-police and security schemes outperform
police-led schemes. Five additional variables were included as control variables, because Piza et
al. (2019) found each of them to be significantly related to CCTV effects on crime. Two binary
variables identify whether the CCTV scheme was deployed in a car park or a residential setting.
A binary variable identifies whether the study was conducted in the United Kingdom. The two
final covariates are binary measures identifying whether the scheme incorporated active
monitoring of surveillance cameras and whether multiple complementary interventions were
deployed alongside CCTV. Similar to the meta-analyses, all meta-regressions were conducted as
random effects models to account for the heterogeneity not explained by the covariates
(Thompson and Higgins, 2002).
Results
All three scheme operations exhibited statistically significant crime reducing effects. However,
the operations differed in terms of the proportion of evaluations reporting desirable effects as
well as the magnitude of the pooled effects. For the 37 police-led schemes, eight reported
desirable effects, one reported undesirable effects, and 28 reported non-significant effects (see
Figure 1).
Figure 1: Forest plot of police schemes (average effects)
For the 12 mixed-police schemes, three reported desirable effects while the remaining
nine reported non-significant effects (see Figure 2). Eleven of the 27 security schemes reported
desirable effects, a higher proportion (40.7%) than what was observed for both the police
(21.6%) and mixed-police (25.0%) schemes. Two of the security schemes reported undesirable
effects and 14 reported null effects (see Figure 3).
Figure 2: Forest plot of mixed-police schemes (average effects)
Figure 3: Forest plot of security schemes (average effects)
Table 1 displays the findings of the meta-analysis comparing the pooled effect sizes
across scheme operations. In the average-effects meta-analysis (see Table 1a) security schemes
exhibited the largest effect (OR=1.225), indicating a crime reduction of approximately 18% in
treatment compared to control areas. Pooled effect sizes for mixed-police (OR=1.164) and police
(OR=1.081) indicated crime reductions of approximately 14% and 7%, respectively. ORs
achieved statistical significance (p<0.05) for each of the scheme operations. Security schemes
once again demonstrated the strongest effects in the largest-effects meta-analysis (OR=1.208; see
Table 1b), indicating an approximately 17% reduction of crime in treatment compared to control
areas. However, the effect of police schemes was nearly identical (OR=1.206) when the
outcomes exhibiting the largest effects are considered. The mixed-police schemes exhibited the
smallest effect (OR=1.186), which was not substantially smaller than either the security or police
schemes, with a reduction of about 16% in treatment compared to control areas. As with the
average-effects models, all ORs achieved statistical significance (p<0.05) for each of the scheme
operations in the largest-effects meta-analysis. The smallest-effects meta-analysis again indicated
security schemes as having the largest effect size (OR=1.136), followed by mixed police
(OR=1.100) and police (OR=1.026).
Table 1: Effect on crime by scheme operation
(a) Average Effects
95% Confidence Interval
Category N Odds Ratio Lower Upper p
Police 37 1.081 1.007 1.160 0.031
Mixed-Police 12 1.164 1.314 2.450 0.014
Security 27 1.225 1.059 1.419 0.006
Q=24.898, df=2, p<0.001
(b) Largest Effects
95% Confidence Interval
Category N Odds Ratio Lower Upper p
Police 37 1.206 1.097 1.326 <0.001
Mixed-Police 12 1.186 1.022 1.378 0.025
Security 27 1.208 1.072 1.361 0.002
Q=7.219, df=2, p=0.027
(c) Smallest Effects
95% Confidence Interval
Category N Odds Ratio Lower Upper p
Police 37 1.026 0.955 1.103 0.483
Mixed-Police 12 1.100 0.943 1.283 0.226
Security 27 1.136 0.973 1.327 0.107
Q=14.087, df=2, p=0.001
Table 2 displays the meta-regression results. The independent variables of primary
interest are mixed-police and security, which measure the crime prevention effect of these
scheme types compared to police schemes. These variables achieved statistical significance in
only the largest-effects meta-regression model. In this model, both security schemes and mixed-
police schemes were positively related to effect size. However, the coefficient for security
schemes (0.363) was more than twice as large as the coefficient for mixed-police schemes
(0.136). These variables were non-significant in both the average-effects and smallest-effects
meta-regression models. However, we should note that the use of multiple complementary
interventions alongside CCTV was significantly related to larger effect sizes in both the average-
effects and smallest-effects regression models. This suggests that implementing multiple
interventions alongside CCTV perhaps should be the primary consideration for practitioners and
policymakers. This has important implications for security-led CCTV schemes and is discussed
in the next section.
Table 2: Meta-regression in predicting crime
95% Confidence Interval
Covariate Coefficient S.E. Lower Upper p
(a) Average Effects
Mixed-Police1 0.056 0.095 -0.131 0.243 0.557
Security1 0.046 0.085 -0.121 0.213 0.592
Car Park 0.265 0.146 -0.021 0.550 0.069
Residential 0.057 0.084 -0.109 0.222 0.501
United Kingdom 0.032 0.080 -0.125 0.190 0.687
Active Monitoring 0.055 0.077 -0.095 0.205 0.473
Multiple Interventions 0.198 0.100 0.001 0.394 0.049*
(a) Largest Effects
Mixed-Police1 0.136 0.112 -0.090 0.3618 0.238
Security1 0.363 0.124 0.121 0.606 0.003*
Car Park -0.338 0.208 -0.746 0.070 0.104
Residential -0.069 0.096 -0.256 0.119 0.474
United Kingdom -0.424 0.125 -0.669 -0.180 0.001*
Active Monitoring 0.127 0.096 -0.060 0.315 0.183
Multiple Interventions -0.046 0.081 -0.204 0.112 0.567
(a) Smallest Effects
Mixed-Police1 0.057 0.099 -0.137 0.250 0.565
Security1 0.003 0.088 -0.170 0.176 0.975
Car Park 0.371 0.158 0.061 0.681 0.020
Residential 0.052 0.085 -0.114 0.217 0.540
United Kingdom 0.086 0.083 -0.077 0.249 0.302
Active Monitoring -0.016 0.077 -0.168 0.135 0.832
Multiple Interventions 0.213 0.105 0.008 0.419 0.042* Notes: Log odds ratio is the dependent variable for each model. Each regression ran as a random effects model.
1“Police” used as the reference category.
*p.<0.05
The analysis concludes with a test of potential publication bias of the meta-analysis
results. We used BioStat’s trim-and-fill procedure to estimate how reported effects would change
if bias was discovered and addressed (Duval, 2005). This is based on the assumption that effect
sizes should show symmetry around the mean when a representative collection of studies has
been obtained. When there is asymmetry, the trim-and-fill procedure inputs the hypothesized
missing studies and re-computes a mean effect size. The analysis showed that asymmetry is
present (results not shown), and that nine studies should be added to create symmetry. When the
effect size is re-computed to include these additional studies, the mean effect size increased from
1.140 to 1.187. However, the 95% confidence intervals of the observed and adjusted ORs
overlap, suggesting that the effect sizes are not significantly different. The smallest- and largest-
effect versions of the trim-and-fill procedure similarly produced estimates with overlapping
confidence intervals (results not shown). From the results of these tests, we can conclude that
publication bias did not influence the meta-analysis results.
Discussion and Conclusions
This review’s findings reflect positively on CCTV schemes operated by security personnel. In
each of the meta-analyses, security-led CCTV schemes exhibited the largest reduction in crime.
The differences in OR effect sizes were particularly magnified in the average-effects meta-
analysis. In this model, security schemes generated crime reductions of approximately 18%
compared to approximately 16% for mixed-police schemes and approximately 7% for police
schemes.
It is important to note that the effect of security-led CCTV schemes was less magnified in
the meta-regression, which controlled for key factors related to the effects of CCTV on crime.
Security schemes and mixed-police schemes were significantly more effective than police
schemes in only the largest-effects meta-regression model. On the one hand, this suggests that
these schemes may be preferable to police schemes when the maximum potential effect is
achievable. On the other hand, some may give more emphasis to the average-effects and
smallest-effects meta-regression models given that they represent more conservative estimates.
In both of these models, the use of multiple complementary interventions alongside
CCTV was significantly related (car parks also related, especially in smallest) to the CCTV
effect. We feel that this finding tangentially supports the increased use of security personnel in
CCTV operations.
Using security personnel in the CCTV monitoring function may help to achieve the
“force multiplier” effect that policymakers have long sought from video surveillance cameras
(Norris, 2003). Traditionally, policymakers have considered video surveillance cameras a force
multiplier because they provide more “eyes on the street,” which theoretically increases police
presence. However, research has shown that standard CCTV operations detect rather low levels
of criminal activity (Piza et al., 2014), which calls into question CCTV’s role as a proactive
place-based strategy for increasing guardianship (Weisburd and Majmundar, 2018). In this
context, the presence of CCTV alone does not seem to do much to deliver the force multiplier
effect that policymakers envision.
Conversely, having security personnel monitoring CCTV cameras may free up police
officers to conduct proactive operations in support of surveillance functions, which would serve
as a much stronger force multiplier than the conspicuous presence of CCTV cameras alone. In
recognition of prior research analyzing the effect of integrating proactive policing units within
CCTV operations (La Vigne et al., 2011; Piza et al., 2015), such a strategy would likely
strengthen CCTV’s overall crime prevention effect.
This review has two limitations. One has to do with missing information in the included
studies, resulting in eight studies that could not be included in the meta-analysis. We can take
some comfort that only four of these eight studies were missing information about the scheme
operation variable. This bears directly on poor descriptive validity in the reporting of primary
studies, something that confronts other systematic reviews. A second limitation concerns the lack
of details in some studies about the main roles that security personnel and police play in the
deployment of CCTV surveillance and in what capacities security personnel interact with the
other parties. Process evaluations could furnish some of this valuable information, and they
should be carried out in concert with outcome evaluations.
The findings of this systematic review should provide policymakers with the beginning of
an evidence base in considering security-led CCTV schemes as a viable option in deploying
CCTV to prevent crime. Until now, little research has been available to help guide decision-
making on the use of security personnel, police, or some combination of these two parties in the
monitoring of surveillance cameras. Additional factors should also be considered, including
financial costs, intervention context, and police-community relations.
There is also a need to better understand why security-led CCTV schemes are more
effective in reducing crime. Is it the specialized training of security personnel? Is there
something to do with the targeted duties assigned to security personnel? Does it have to do with
the role of operating procedures and overall governance for security personnel? Unfortunately,
these questions could not be investigated as part of this review. However, we feel there are
opportunities for future research to rigorously explore these issues through randomized
experiments. For example, Piza et al. (2015) randomly assigned an additional CCTV operator
and proactive directed patrol units across preexisting CCTV sites. In a similar fashion, we feel
that existing CCTV sites can be randomly assigned experimental factors related to operator
functions. Such experiments can involve random assignment of procedural aspects (e.g., training,
monitoring policies, hiring in-house vs. outside security operators) of the operator function to
better isolate the effect such factors have on the crime prevention effect of CCTV. Furthermore,
there is a real need for qualitative research to explore the day-to-day operations and behind-the-
scenes activities that guide security personnel working in CCTV projects. Importantly, the
findings of qualitative studies need to be integrated with evaluation research findings. We think
this is long overdue and much needed to guide policy and practice on the use of CCTV
surveillance.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank the co-editors of this special issue and the anonymous reviewers for insightful
comments.
References
Braga, A.A., Weisburd, D.L., & Turchan, B. (2018). Focused deterrence strategies and crime
control: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence.
Criminology & Public Policy, 17, 205-250.
Cornish, D.B., & Clarke, R.V. (2003). Opportunities, precipitators, and criminal decisions: A
reply to Wortley’s critique of situational crime prevention. In M.J. Smith & D.B. Cornish
(Eds.), Theory for practice in situational crime prevention (pp. 41-96). Monsey, NY:
Criminal Justice Press.
Duval, S. (2005). The “trim and fill” method. In H. Rothstein, A. Sutton, & M. Bornstein (Eds.),
Publication bias in meta-analysis (pp. 127-144). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Gill, M., & Spriggs, A. (2005). Assessing the impact of CCTV. Home Office Research Study, No.
292. London, UK: Home Office.
Goold, B.J. (2004). CCTV and policing. New York: Oxford University Press.
La Vigne, N.G., Lowry, S.S., Markman, J.A., & Dwyer, A.M. (2011). Evaluating the use of
public surveillance cameras for crime control and prevention. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute.
Lipsey, M.W., & Wilson, D.B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Norris, C. (2003). From personal to digital: CCTV, the panopticon, and the technological
mediation of suspicion and social control. In D. Lyon (Ed.), Surveillance as social
sorting (pp. 249-281). London, UK: Routledge.
Piza, E.L., Caplan, J.M. & Kennedy, L.W. (2014). Is the punishment more certain? An analysis
of CCTV detections and enforcement. Justice Quarterly, 31, 1015-1043.
Piza, E.L., Caplan, J.M., Kennedy, L.W., & Gilchrist, A.M. (2015). The effects of merging
proactive CCTV monitoring with directed police patrol: A randomized control trial.
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 43-69.
Piza, E.L., Welsh, B.C., Farrington, D.P., & Thomas, A.L. (2019). CCTV surveillance for crime
prevention: A 40-year systematic review with meta-analysis. Criminology & Public
Policy, 18, 135-159.
Thompson, S.G., & Higgins, P.T. (2002). How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken
and interpreted? Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1559-1573.
Waszkiewicz, P. (2013). How effective is the public video surveillance system in Warsaw? In F.
Bjorklund & O. Svenonius (Eds.), Video surveillance and social control in a comparative
perspective (pp. 153-170). New York: Routledge.
Weisburd, D., & Majmundar, M.K. (Eds.) (2018). Proactive policing. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Welsh, B.C., & Farrington, D.P. (2009). Public area CCTV and crime prevention: An updated
systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 26, 716-745.
Welsh, B.C., Mudge, M.E., & Farrington, D.P. (2010). Reconceptualizing public area
surveillance and crime prevention: Security guards, place managers, and defensible
space. Security Journal, 23, 299-319.
Wilson, D. (2005). Behind the cameras: Monitoring and open-street CCTV surveillance in
Australia. Security Journal, 18, 43-54.
Appendix 1: Studies meeting the criteria for inclusion in the systematic review
Armitage, R., Smyth, G., & Pease, K. (1999). Burnley CCTV evaluation. In K.A. Painter & N.
Tilley (Eds.), Surveillance of public space (pp. 225-250). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice
Press.
Blixt, M. (2003). The use of surveillance cameras for the purpose of crime prevention. English
summary. Stockholm, Sweden: National Council for Crime Prevention.
Brown, B. (1995). CCTV in town centres. Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper, No. 68.
London, UK: Home Office.
Burrows, J. N. (1979). The impact of closed circuit television on crime in the London
Underground. In P. Mayhew, R.V.G. Clarke, J.N. Burrows, J.M. Hough, & S.W.C.
Winchester (Eds.), Crime in public view (pp. 21-29). Home Office Research Study, No.
49. London, UK: HMSO.
Cameron, A., Kolodinski, E., May, H., & Williams, N. (2008). Measuring the effects of video
surveillance on crime in Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern
California.
Cerezo, A. (2013). CCTV and crime displacement: A quasi-experimental evaluation. European
Journal of Criminology, 10, 222-236.
Charest, M., Tremblay, P., Boivin, R., & D’Élia, M. (2010). La télésurveillance policière dans
les lieux publics: L’apprentissage d’une technologie. Canadian Journal of Criminology
and Criminal Justice, 52, 449-470.
Darcan, E. (2012). The impact of police-monitored CCTV cameras on crime patterns: A quasi-
experimental study in the metropolitan city of Bursa, Turkey. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University.
Ditton, J., & Short, E. (1999). Yes, it works, no it doesn’t: Comparing the effects of open-street
CCTV in two adjacent Scottish town centres. In K.A. Painter & N. Tilley (Eds.),
Surveillance of public space (pp. 201-224). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Farrington, D.P., Bennett, T.H., & Welsh, B.C. (2007). The Cambridge evaluation of the effects
of CCTV on crime. In G. Farrell, K.J. Bowers, S.D. Johnson, & M. Townsley (Eds.),
Imagination for crime prevention (pp. 187-201). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Gerell, M. (2016). Hot spot policing with actively monitored CCTV cameras: Does it reduce
assaults in public places? International Criminal Justice Review, 26, 187-201.
Gill, M., & Spriggs, A. (2005). Assessing the impact of CCTV. Home Office Research Study, No.
292. London, UK: Home Office.
Grandmaison, R., & Tremblay, P. (1997). Évaluation des effets de la télé-surveillance sur la
criminalité commise dans 13 stations du Métro de Montréal. Criminologie, 30, 93-110.
Greenberg, D.F., & Roush, J.B. (2009). The effectiveness of an electronic security management
system in a privately owned apartment complex. Evaluation Review, 33, 3-26.
Griffiths, M. (2003). Town centre CCTV: An examination of crime reduction in Gillingham,
Kent. Unpublished undergraduate thesis. Reading, UK: University of Reading.
Hayes, R., & Downs, D.M. (2011). Controlling retail theft with CCTV domes, CCTV public
view monitors, and protective containers: A randomized control trial. Security Journal,
24, 237-250.
Hennen, I. (2017). Hot spot ‘knarkrondellen:’ An evaluation of police interventions in Malmö.
Unpublished master’s thesis. Malmo, Sweden: Malmö University.
Hood, J. (2003). Closed circuit television systems: A failure in risk communication? Journal of
Risk Research, 6, 233-251.
Kim, Y.S. (2008). An analysis for crime prevention effects of closed circuit TVs: Centering on
the crime displacement effect and diffusion effects of crime control benefits. Journal of
the Korean Society of Private Security, 11, 209-245.
La Vigne, N.G., & Lowry, S.S. (2011). Evaluation of camera use to prevent crimes in commuter
parking facilities. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Lim, H., Kim, C., Eck, J.E., & Kim, J. (2016). The crime-reduction effects of open-street CCTV
in South Korea. Security Journal, 29, 241-255.
Lim, H., & Wilcox, P. (2017). Crime-reduction effects of open-street CCTV: Conditionality
considerations. Justice Quarterly, 34, 597-626.
Mazerolle, L., Hurley, D.C., & Chamlin, M. (2002). Social behavior in public space: An analysis
of behavioral adaptations to CCTV. Security Journal, 15, 59-75.
Murkland, F., & Holmberg, S. (2015). Kameraövervakning på Stureplan och Medborgarplatsen.
Stockholm, Sweden: National Council for Crime Prevention.
Musheno, M.C., Levine, J.P., & Palumbo, D.J. (1978). Television surveillance and crime
prevention: Evaluating an attempt to create defensible space in public housing. Social
Science Quarterly, 58, 647-656.
Papazian, J. (2012). Program evaluation of the Denver police HALO camera surveillance
system. Unpublished thesis. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Park, H.H., Oh, G.S., & Paek, S.Y. (2012). Measuring the crime displacement and diffusion of
benefits of open-street CCTV in South Korea. International Journal of Law, Crime and
Justice, 40, 179-191.
Piza, E.L. (2018). The crime prevention effect of CCTV in public places: A propensity score
analysis. Journal of Crime and Justice, 41, 14-30.
Piza, E.L., Caplan, J.M., Kennedy, L.W., & Gilchrist, A.M. (2015). The effects of merging
proactive CCTV monitoring with directed police patrol: A randomized control trial.
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 43-69.
Poyner, B. (1991). Situational crime prevention in two parking facilities. Security Journal, 2, 96-
101.
Ratcliffe, J.H., Taniguchi, T., & Taylor, R.B. (2009). The crime reduction effects of public
CCTV cameras: A multi-method spatial approach. Justice Quarterly, 26, 746-770.
Reid, A.A., & Andresen, M.A. (2014). An evaluation of CCTV in a car park using police and
insurance data. Security Journal, 27, 55-79.
Sarno, C. (1996). The impact of closed circuit television on crime in Sutton town centre. In M.
Bulos & D. Grant (Eds.), Towards a safer Sutton? (pp. 13-49). London, UK: London
Borough of Sutton.
Sarno, C., Hough, M., & Bulos, M. (1999). Developing a picture of CCTV in Southwark town
centres. London, UK: South Bank University.
Scott, N., Higgs, P., Caulkins, J.P., Aitken, C., Cogger, S., & Dietze, P. (2016). The introduction
of CCTV and associated changes in heroin purchase and injection settings in Footscray,
Victoria, Australia. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12, 265-275.
Sivarajasingam, V., Shepherd, J.P., & Matthews, K. (2003). Effect of urban closed circuit
television on assault injury and violence detection. Injury Prevention, 9, 312-316.
Skinns, D. (1998). Doncaster CCTV surveillance system. Doncaster, UK: Doncaster College.
Sousa, W.H., & Madensen, T.D. (2016). Citizen acceptance of police interventions: An example
of CCTV surveillance in Las Vegas, Nevada. Criminal Justice Studies, 29, 40-56.
Squires, P. (1998). An evaluation of the Ilford town centre CCTV system. Brighton, UK:
University of Brighton.
Tilley, N. (1993). Understanding car parks, crime and CCTV. Crime Prevention Unit Series
Paper, No. 42. London, UK: Home Office.
Verga, S.L., & Douglas, A.J. (2008). Initial statistical analysis of the effects of closed-circuit
surveillance on rates of crime. Toronto, Canada: Toronto Police Service.
Waszkiewicz, P. (2013). How effective is the public video surveillance system in Warsaw? In F.
Bjorklund & O. Svenonius (Eds.), Video surveillance and social control in a comparative
perspective (pp. 153-170). New York: Routledge.
Webb, B., & Laycock, G. (1992). Reducing crime on the London Underground. Crime
Prevention Unit Series Paper, No. 30. London, UK: Home Office.
Williamson, D., & McLafferty, S. (2000). The effects of CCTV on crime in public housing: An
application of GIS and spatial statistics. Paper presented at the American Society of
Criminology meeting, San Francisco, November 2000.
Winge, S., & Johannes, K. (2003). An evaluation of the CCTV scheme at Oslo Central Railway
Station. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 5, 49-59.
Recommended