U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Video Surveillance 

of Public Places 

by Jerry Ratcliffe 

Response Guides Series 

No. 4 

www.cops.usdoj.gov 
Got a Problem? We’ve got answers! 

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website 

at www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help 

you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your 

community, including: 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing 

www.PopCenter.org

• Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides 

• Interactive training exercises 

• Online access to research and police practices 

• Online problem analysis module. 

Designed for police and those who work with them to 

address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great 

resource in problem-oriented policing. 

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice. 
Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Response Guides Series 

Guide No. 4 

Video Surveillance of 

Public Places 

Jerry Ratcliffe 

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#2003CKWX0087 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein 

are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the 

official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to 

specific companies, products, or services should not be considered an 

endorsement of the product by the author or the U.S. Department 

of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement 

discussion of the issues. 

www.cops.usdoj.gov 

ISBN: 1-932582-58-4 

February 2006 

About the Response Guides Series i 

About the Response Guides Series 

The response guides are one of three series of the ProblemOriented Guides for Police. The other two are the problemspecific guides and problem-solving tools. 

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police summarize knowledge 

about how police can reduce the harm caused by specific 

crime and disorder problems. They are guides to preventing 

problems and improving overall incident response, not 

to investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. 

The guides are written for police—of whatever rank or 

assignment—who must address the specific problems the 

guides cover. The guides will be most useful to officers 

who: 

• understand basic problem-oriented policing principles 

and methods 

• can look at problems in depth 

• are willing to consider new ways of doing police business 

• understand the value and the limits of research 

knowledge 

• are willing to work with other community agencies to 

find effective solutions to problems. 

The response guides summarize knowledge about whether 

police should use certain responses to address various crime 

and disorder problems, and about what effects they might 

expect. Each guide: 

• describes the response 

• discusses the various ways police might apply the 

response 

• explains how the response is designed to reduce crime 

and disorder 
ii Video Surveillance of Public Places Underage Drinking

• examines the research knowledge about the response 

• addresses potential criticisms and negative consequences 

that might flow from use of the response 

• describes how police have applied the response to 

specific crime and disorder problems, and with what 

effect. 

The response guides are intended to be used differently 

from the problem-specific guides. Ideally, police should 

begin all strategic decision-making by first analyzing the 

specific crime and disorder problems they are confronting, 

and then using the analysis results to devise particular 

responses. But certain responses are so commonly 

considered and have such potential to help address a range 

of specific crime and disorder problems that it makes 

sense for police to learn more about what results they 

might expect from them. 

Readers are cautioned that the response guides are 

designed to supplement problem analysis, not to replace it. 

Police should analyze all crime and disorder problems in 

their local context before implementing responses. Even 

if research knowledge suggests that a particular response 

has proved effective elsewhere, that does not mean the 

response will be effective everywhere. Local factors matter 

a lot in choosing which responses to use. 

Research and practice have further demonstrated that, 

in most cases, the most effective overall approach to 

a problem is one that incorporates several different 

responses. So a single response guide is unlikely to provide 

you with sufficient information on which to base a 

coherent plan for addressing crime and disorder problems. 

Some combinations of responses work better than others. 
About the Response Guides Series iii 

Thus, how effective a particular response is depends partly 

on what other responses police use to address the problem. 

These guides emphasize effectiveness and fairness as the 

main considerations police should take into account in 

choosing responses, but recognize that they are not the only 

considerations. Police use particular responses for reasons 

other than, or in addition to, whether or not they will 

work, and whether or not they are deemed fair. Community 

attitudes and values, and the personalities of key decision 

makers, sometimes mandate different approaches to 

addressing crime and disorder problems. Some communities 

and individuals prefer enforcement-oriented responses, 

whereas others prefer collaborative, community-oriented, 

or harm-reduction approaches. These guides will not 

necessarily alter those preferences, but are intended to 

better inform them. 

For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit 

the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at www. 

popcenter.org. This website offers free online access to: 

• the Problem-Specific Guides series 

• the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools 

series 

• instructional information about problem-oriented 

policing and related topics 

• an interactive training exercise 

• online access to important police research and practices. 

Acknowledgments v 

Acknowledgments 

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are very much a 

collaborative effort. While each guide has a primary 

author, other project team members, COPS Office staff 

and anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide 

by proposing text, recommending research and offering 

suggestions on matters of format and style. 

The principal project team developing the guide series 

comprised Herman Goldstein, professor emeritus, 

University of Wisconsin Law School; Ronald V. Clarke, 

professor of criminal justice, Rutgers University; John 

E. Eck, professor of criminal justice, University of 

Cincinnati; Michael S. Scott, clinical assistant professor, 

University of Wisconsin Law School; Rana Sampson, 

police consultant, San Diego; and Deborah Lamm 

Weisel, director of police research, North Carolina State 

University. 

Cynthia Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS Office. 

Katharine Willis edited the guide. Research for the guide 

was conducted at the Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers 

University under the direction of Phyllis Schultze. 

The project team also wishes to acknowledge the members 

of the San Diego, National City and Savannah police 

departments who provided feedback on the guides' format 

and style in the early stages of the project, as well as the 

line police officers, police executives and researchers who 

peer reviewed each guide. 

Contents vii 

Contents 

About the Response Guides Series ....................................... i

Acknowledgments .................................................... v

Introduction ......................................................... 1

What is CCTV ........................................................ 3

How CCTV Aims to Prevent Crime ........................................ 8

Other Benefits .................................................... 11

Reduced Fear of Crime .......................................... 12

Aid to Police Investigations ...................................... 12

Provision of Medical Assistance .................................. 13

Place Management............................................. 13

Information Gathering .......................................... 13

Diffusion of Benefits............................................ 14

Unintended Consequences .......................................... 14

Displacement ................................................. 15

Increased Suspicion of Fear of Crime .............................. 16

Increased Crime Reporting ....................................... 16

Evaluations of CCTV ................................................... 17

Implementation Considerations .......................................... 21

Is CCTV the Best Option? ........................................... 21

Deciding on a Camera Configuration .................................. 22

Overt Systems................................................. 22

Semi-Covert Systems ........................................... 22

Covert Systems................................................ 22

Camera Functionality .............................................. 23

Publicity ......................................................... 23

Where Should Cameras be Located? .................................. 24
viii Video Surveillance of Public Places 

Who will Operate the System? ...................................... 25

Do You Have Both the Capital and Revenue Funds for Operation? ........... 27

Do the Local Police Have the Resources to Respond to Any Incidents? ....... 27

Who and What Should be Watched? .................................. 28

Evaluation ....................................................... 29

Public Concerns ................................................... 30

Managing Public Concerns ............................................. 31

Covert Cameras ................................................... 31

Privacy and Constitutional Concerns .................................. 32

Ownership of Images .............................................. 33

Future Systems ....................................................... 34

Conclusions ......................................................... 35

Appendix A .......................................................... 37

Appendix B .......................................................... 59

Endnotes ............................................................ 63

References .......................................................... 67

About the Author ..................................................... 75

Recommended Readings ............................................... 77

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police .................................. 81
Introduction 1 

Introduction 

The purpose of this guide is to provide an overview 

of the use of closed circuit television (CCTV) systems 

as a problem-oriented policing response to a crime 

problem. This guide explores the benefits and problems 

associated with CCTV and summarizes the findings of 

numerous CCTV evaluations (see Appendices A and B). 

The public is now used to being watched by surveillance 

technology in many commercial and semi-public 

establishments such as banks, casinos, convenience 

stores, and shopping malls. About three-quarters of 

small businesses record who comes into their location 

on CCTV.1

 There are systems that recognize license 

plates on moving vehicles and systems that monitor 

traffic flow and catch people violating traffic laws. 

Although these systems fall under the label of video 

surveillance technology, they are not included in the 

discussion, as this guide is intended for the reader 

considering CCTV as a crime prevention option for a 

broader range of property and personal crimes in public 

places. Examples of relevant public spaces include: 

• public parks 

• pedestrianized streets in city centers 

• outdoor public parking areas 

• residential neighborhood streets 

• public transport interchanges 

• areas outside public facilities such as sports arenas 

and subway stations. 
2 Video Surveillance of Public Places

Although some see CCTV as a panacea to crime and 

disorder in public places, others view the growth of 

CCTV as an intrusion, with visions of an Orwellian 

“Big Brother” invading personal privacy. This guide will 

help you better understand the effectiveness of CCTV 

and address some constitutional and privacy concerns. 

The guide’s two appendices summarize much of the 

available research about the effectiveness of CCTV 

as a crime control measure. After you read this guide, 

you should not only be aware of the strengths and 

weaknesses of CCTV in a public setting, but also be 

able to answer many of the public’s concerns. 
What is CCTV? 3 

What is CCTV? 

Closed circuit television (CCTV) is a surveillance 

technology. More specifically, it is “a system in which a 

number of video cameras are connected in a closed circuit 

or loop, with the images produced being sent to a central 

television monitor or recorded.”2

 The term closed circuit 

television was originally used to differentiate between 

public television broadcasts and private camera-monitor 

networks. These days CCTV is used as a generic term for a 

variety of video surveillance technologies. 

Although some systems are extremely sophisticated, 

employing bullet-proof casing, night-vision capability, 

motion detection, and advanced zoom and automatic 

tracking capacities, many existing systems are more 

rudimentary. More common CCTV installations include 

a number of cameras connected to a control room where 

human operators watch a bank of television screens. 

Many (but not all) will have a recording facility that works 

in one of the following ways: 

• recording the images from a selected camera 

• using multiplex recording where the image switches 

from camera to camera thus allowing one tape to see 

every camera view on a rotating basis 

• employing digital technology to record images from 

multiple cameras at once. 

Often an operator can pan, tilt, and zoom a number of 

cameras. As the technology has developed, cameras with 

a full range of movement and control facilities have 

become the norm, and it is likely there will be continual 

improvements in optical and digital zoom, color, and pixel3 

resolution, all of which will enhance image quality. 
4 Video Surveillance of Public Places

Including the human element, we can categorize systems 

into passive – where banks of recording devices record 

images that can be replayed if a crime is reported, though 

nobody actively monitors the images, and active – where a 

person sits and monitors a series of displays in real time. 

In reality, many systems are a hybrid, where recording 

devices record all images, and an operator scans from 

monitor to monitor, concentrating on some and ignoring 

others. 

Jerry Ratcliffe 

With an overt CCTV camera, the public (and offenders) 

can clearly see the surveillance camera and determine the 

direction in which it is facing. 

Although most CCTV schemes employ overt cameras, 

which are obvious, it is possible to find systems in which 

cameras are mounted into protective shells or within 

frosted (polycarbonate) domes. Often termed semi-covert, 

these camera systems make it more difficult for people 

under surveillance to determine if they are being watched, 

as it is usually impossible to figure out in which direction 

the camera is facing. Some cameras employ dummy 

lenses to conceal the surveillance target. The advantage 

of using a one-way transparent casing is that it provides 

for the possibility of retaining the overt impression of 
What is CCTV? 5 

surveillance—and hence a deterrent capacity—without 

having to place a camera in every housing or to reveal 

to the public (and offenders) the exact location under 

surveillance.4 

Jerry Ratcliffe 

This semi-covert CCTV camera may have a crime 

prevention advantage over an overt system because 

offenders can never be sure in which direction that 

camera is facing. 

In addition to the cameras, the cabling to feed images to 

the monitors, and the recording devices, a CCTV system 

also requires an operator to watch the monitors or review 

the recordings. Because of this, a full description of 

CCTV should not ignore the human element. Reviewing 

video, acting on the information, and preparing video 

evidence for court all create a potential need for ongoing 

office space and personnel costs over and above any 

initial capital expenditure. There may also be extra 

demands placed on local law enforcement as a result 

of increased surveillance of an area. With increased 

surveillance, more public order crime may come to 

the notice of police. With technological and personnel 

costs, CCTV comes at a considerable price. Though 
6 Video Surveillance of Public Places 

the technological costs continue to fall, the human 

costs do not. Therefore, you must give CCTV serious 

consideration before you purchase and install a system 

to combat a crime problem. A later section details some 

of the factors to consider before deploying a CCTV 

solution. 

In summary, there is a range of CCTV configurations 

available. A complete CCTV system (for the purposes of 

this report) comprises: 

• one or more cameras that view a public area 

• a mechanism to transmit video images to one or more 

monitors 

• video monitors to view the scene—usually 

accompanied by recording devices such as a timelapse video recorder or computer hard drive for 

digital images 

• a viewer or camera operator, such as a police officer 

or security guard. 

Variations to this basic configuration include: 

• the ability to transmit images across the Internet 

• motion sensors that activate the camera when activity 

is detected 

• normal or infrared lighting to enhance picture quality 

at night 

• a pan and tilt capacity that allows an operator to 

change the camera’s viewing direction, zoom, and 

focus. 
What is CCTV? 7 

More advanced systems can include limited facial 

recognition technologies or estimate the location of 

firearm incidents, though more advanced systems often 

rely on other technology. For example, a facial recognition 

program is of limited value unless it is linked to a 

computer database of suspect photos. Intelligence systems 

that can detect unusual activity (such as fights in the 

street) are also under development.5 

In addition to determining if you want to install a 

CCTV system (and what type), you should consider 

how sophisticated you want it to be and if you have the 

resources to support it. 
8 Video Surveillance of Public Places

How CCTV Aims to Prevent Crime 

A CCTV system is not a physical barrier. It does not limit 

access to certain areas, make an object harder to steal, or 

a person more difficult to assault and rob. This does not 

mean it is not an example of situational crime prevention. 

It is highly situational, and as will be shown, does have 

some crime prevention capacity in the right situations. 

Although CCTV has many functions, the primary 

preventative utility is to trigger a perceptual mechanism 

in a potential offender. It seeks to change offender 

perception so the offender believes if he commits a crime, 

he will be caught. In other words, CCTV aims to increase 

the perceived risk of capture, a factor which, assuming 

the offender is behaving in a rational (or limited rational) 

manner, will de-motivate the potential offender.6

 For this 

crime prevention process to succeed, two elements must 

exist: 

1. The offender must be aware of the cameras’ 

presence. 

2. The offender must believe the cameras present 

enough risk of capture to negate the rewards of the 

intended crime. 

Consider the first element. If, for example, a CCTV 

system is initiated to stem a perceived increase in 

disorder crime in a town center, the crime prevention 

mechanism requires that potential offenders know they 

are being watched. Evidence suggests that even though 

implementers install a system, have a publicity campaign, 

and place signage, there is no guarantee the population 

will be aware of the cameras. In Glasgow, Scotland, 15 

months after 32 cameras were installed in the city center, 

only 41 percent of those interviewed were aware of the 
How CCTV Aims to Prevent Crime 9 

cameras.7 These findings are similar to other research that 

found only one-third of respondents were aware they were 

within the vision of a public-street CCTV system.8 

Not only are there limitations with the public’s perception 

of the location of cameras, the second element (the 

presence of cameras affecting offenders’ perception of 

risk) is not guaranteed. In theory, CCTV should provide 

the capable guardianship necessary to prevent a crime, 

but this concept requires that offenders demonstrate 

rationality in their behavior. There is certainly the 

suggestion, and some qualitative evidence, that potential 

offenders who are under the influence of alcohol or 

drugs may not care or remember that they may be under 

surveillance.9

 This may be a factor in the reason CCTV 

appears to be more effective in combating property crime 

than disorder and violent offenses. 

There is a second mechanism whereby CCTV has the 

potential to reduce crime. The cameras may be able to 

assist in the detection and arrest of offenders. This crime 

prevention mechanism requires that police can respond in 

a timely manner to any significant incidents identified by 

camera operators, and that the local criminal justice system 

can pursue the offenders’ conviction. This mechanism 

will work if incarcerated offenders are prevented from 

committing further crimes within the CCTV area (or other 

local area). Although there may be some initial crime 

reduction due to the installation and publicity of a new 

system, offenders may soon learn what types of incidents 

elicit a police response and the speed of that response. 

The availability of local resources is therefore a factor in 

the success of this mechanism. 
10 Video Surveillance of Public Places

The desire to catch an offender in the act is often the 

rationale behind the placement of hidden cameras, as by 

police in New Orleans.10 Undoubtedly CCTV evidence 

is convincing, though CCTV’s ability to reduce overall 

crime levels through detection (rather than prevention) 

is less convincing and arguably a less effective way of 

impacting crime. For this mechanism to be effective, the 

implementer must believe arrests are the best way to solve 

a crime problem. There is some evidence from Australia 

that increasing arrests can have a short-term benefit, 

but the benefit fades in the long term without a more 

preventative policy.11 

An important consideration in the effectiveness of a 

surveillance technology is the type of crime to be tackled, 

because this impacts the criminals’ ability to adapt. 

Although a CCTV system may reduce the likelihood of 

burglary at a commercial location within the range of 

the camera, there is some evidence that drug markets 

can continue operation in the presence of CCTV by 

changing their operating practices. For example, at one 

location some offenders met and discussed business in 

the cameras’ presence, but concluded the transaction 

at another site.12 In other CCTV areas, however, drug 

crime that could not successfully relocate or adapt to the 

cameras was eradicated. 

Fake cameras have been employed in some instances. 

Poyner13 reports that crime was reduced on public buses 

after the installation of both active and dummy cameras 

onboard a number of buses (indeed crime reduced on 

more buses than the ones fitted with any cameras, a 

concept known as a diffusion of benefits). It is therefore 

possible that fake cameras could achieve the same 
How CCTV Aims to Prevent Crime 11 

preventative aim as active systems. However, if users of 

the space under surveillance are led to believe—through 

signs, for example—that they are being watched 24 hours 

a day and an incident occurs, the misrepresentation of a 

form of guardianship may have liability implications. 

A third, more general mechanism by which CCTV may 

reduce crime is through an increase in collective efficacy. 

Welsh and Farrington14 argue that if residents see CCTV 

cameras being installed in their neighborhood, this will 

signal to them a degree of investment in and efforts to 

improve their local area. They argue that this might lead 

to greater civic pride and optimism, and, as a result, lead 

to an increased level of informal social control among 

the local people. A counter to this argument is that 

overt cameras may instead lead to a neighborhood being 

labeled as high-crime, accelerating the process of social 

disorganization. 

Other Benefits 

A number of other benefits, beyond a reduction in crime, 

may be accrued from a CCTV system, including:

• reduced fear of crime

• aid to police investigations

• provision of medical assistance

• place management

• information gathering

• diffusion of benefits. 

The following section describes these potential benefits in 

more detail. 
12 Video Surveillance of Public Places 

Reduced Fear of Crime 

Numerous studies have tried to determine if the presence 

of cameras in public places reduces fear of crime in 

people who use the area. These studies, many of which 

interviewed people in the CCTV area, have examined 

whether consumer buying has increased in areas with new 

CCTV systems. The general argument is that the area will 

benefit from a positive economic impact when people feel 

safer. The findings are mixed but generally show there 

is some reduced level of fear of crime among people in 

CCTV areas, but only among people who were aware they 

were in an area under surveillance. Most studies exploring 

the perception of surveillance areas found that less than 

half the interviewees were aware they were in a CCTV 

area. Reduced fear of crime in an area may increase the 

number of people using the area, hence increasing natural 

surveillance. It may also encourage people to be more 

security conscious. 

Aid to Police Investigations 

Regardless of the potential for a CCTV system to have a 

role in crime prevention, it can still make a contribution 

in a detection role. There are numerous examples of 

CCTV tapes aiding in an offender’s conviction. Camera 

footage can also help identify potential witnesses who 

might not otherwise come forward to police. CCTV 

camera evidence can be compelling, though issues of 

image quality are a factor if CCTV images are used for 

identification purposes. If the cameras record an incident, 

and police respond rapidly and make an arrest within view 

of the camera (and the offender does not leave the sight 

of the camera), the recording of the incident can help 

investigators gain a conviction, usually through a guilty 
How CCTV Aims to Prevent Crime 1313 

plea. The potential to assist in police investigations may 

also drive offenders away from committing offenses that 

take time, as they run a greater risk of capture. 

Provision of Medical Assistance 

As a community safety feature, CCTV camera operators 

can contact medical services if they see people in the 

street suffering from illness or injury as a result of 

criminal activity (such as robberies and assaults) or 

non-crime medical emergencies. The ability to summon 

assistance is a public safety benefit of CCTV. Squires 

found that police are called about 10 to 20 times for every 

700 hours of observation.15 

Place Management 

CCTV can be used for general location management. The 

cameras can be used to look for lost children, to monitor 

traffic flow, public meetings, or demonstrations that may 

require additional police resources, or to determine if 

alarms have been activated unnecessarily thus removing 

the need for a police response. Brown reports that some 

police commanders claim that assaults on police have 

reduced because the cameras allow them to determine 

the appropriate level of response to an incident, either 

by sending more officers to large fights, or by limiting 

the number of officers to a minor incident and avoid 

inflaming the situation.16 

Information Gathering 

Cameras can also be used to gather intelligence and 

to monitor the behavior of known offenders in public 

places (such as shoplifters in public retail areas). Camera 

operators often come to know the faces of local 
14 Video Surveillance of Public Places

offenders, and the cameras become a way to monitor their 

movements in a less intrusive manner than deploying 

plainclothes police officers. For example, officers in one 

city were able to gather intelligence on the behavior of 

individuals selling stolen goods. This intelligence was 

gathered remotely by CCTV cameras and enabled police 

to interdict in an organized and coordinated manner.17 

Although intelligence gathering is a potential benefit of 

CCTV, the use of intelligence gathered from CCTV to 

control public order through surveillance is perceived by 

some to be a threat to civil liberties.18 

Diffusion of Benefits 

Although rarely addressed in the research literature, there 

is also the distinct possibility that if offenders are aware 

and cautious in the presence of cameras, they may be 

unaware of the extent of the cameras’ capabilities. As a 

result they may curtail their criminal activity in a wider 

area than that covered by the camera system. In effect, 

this extends the value of the cameras beyond their area 

of operation, a process criminologists call a diffusion of 

benefits.

19 

Unintended Consequences 

Although not discussed in the literature of companies 

that sell cameras, CCTV systems may also have some 

unintended consequences. These possibilities, discussed in 

the following section, include: 

• displacement 

• increased suspicion or fear of crime 

• increased crime reporting. 
How CCTV Aims to Prevent Crime 15 

Displacement 

There are many different types of displacement. Instead 

of a reduction in offenses, you may see offenders 

react by moving their offending to a place out of sight 

of the CCTV cameras. This is an example of spatial 

displacement. The evaluations in Appendix A suggest that 

spatial displacement can occasionally take place, but—as 

is the case with the general crime prevention literature20— 

the amount of crime displaced rarely matches the amount 

of crime reduced. There is usually a net gain for crime 

prevention. In all of the studies evaluated for this report, 

there is not a single example of a complete displacement 

of all crime from a CCTV area to a neighboring area. 

In the evidence presented here, spatial displacement is 

not the issue many people think it is, and in most of the 

studies there is little evidence of spatial displacement. 

A CCTV system may also force the criminal fraternity 

to be more imaginative and to diversify operations. For 

example, researchers reported that in a London drug 

market the presence of cameras encouraged the drug 

market to move to a system where orders were taken by 

mobile phone and then delivered, and as such increased 

“the speed and ingenuity of the drug transaction.”21 This 

is an example of tactical displacement, where offenders 

change their modus operandi to continue the same 

criminal acts. Even though this particular introduction 

of CCTV may not be seen as an unqualified success, that 

the CCTV system forced a change in behavior is positive. 

CCTV is likely to have forced drug dealers to adopt a less 

effective way of conducting business, resulting in a net 

reduction in crime. 
16 Video Surveillance of Public Places

Increased Suspicion or Fear of Crime 

A second concern is the possibility of a negative public 

response to the cameras’ existence. In one survey, onethird of respondents felt that one purpose of CCTV 

was “to spy on people.”22 In other surveys, some city 

managers were reluctant to advertise the cameras or have 

overt CCTV systems for fear they would make shoppers 

and consumers more fearful. In other words, it is hoped 

that most citizens will feel safer under the watchful eye 

of the cameras, but CCTV may have the reverse effect on 

some people. 

Remember that the primary crime prevention mechanism 

appears to work by increasing a perception of risk in the 

offender. With their reluctance to advertise the system, 

some city managers may be inadvertently reducing the 

cameras’ effectiveness. By failing to advertise the cameras’ 

presence, fewer offenders will be aware of the system and 

so will not perceive an increase in risk. On the whole, 

however, the public appears to be strongly in favor of a 

properly managed surveillance system for public areas. 

Increased Crime Reporting 

A third unintended consequence is the possibility that 

there will be an increase in recorded crime for some crime 

types. Many offenses have low reporting rates, especially 

minor acts of violence, graffiti, and drug offenses. CCTV 

operators are better placed to spot these offenses and 

this can actually drive up their recorded crime figures, as 

happened with narcotics offenses in Oslo Central Train 

Station.23 This is not to say there was an increase in actual 

crime, just recorded crime. This is a potential outcome, 

and you may need to prepare other people involved in a 

future CCTV system of this possibility. 
Evaluations of CCTV 17 

Evaluations of CCTV 

A number of surveys have examined the perception 

of CCTV system managers and the public in regard to 

CCTV’s crime prevention benefits.24 These perceptions 

are usually positive, but evidence of actual crime reduction 

is harder to find. In the early days of CCTV, many 

evaluations were carried out, but a number of significant 

methodological considerations draw into question their 

reliability. Problems included a lack of control areas, 

independence of researchers, and simplistic approaches to 

temporal crime patterns. 

Establishing if CCTV reduces crime is often difficult 

because a problem-oriented policing solution is rarely 

implemented without incident or without other crime 

prevention measures being applied at the same time. 

The implementation can often run into problems and 

commence late or in piecemeal fashion; crime rates 

naturally vary and show evidence of seasonality and 

long- and short-term trends; offenders are not necessarily 

aware of the system or become aware at different times 

(a theoretically crucial mechanism to CCTV success); 

and, there are quantitative challenges to the measurement 

and detection of displacement and diffusion of benefits. 

These issues make it difficult to detect the impact of 

CCTV alone. For example, although CCTV was a factor 

affecting the operation of four street drug markets in 

London, the cameras were often used with other crime 

prevention/detection efforts, such as large-scale arrests of 

sellers and situational crime prevention measures.25 

In some cases, the sheer lack of crime inhibits any robust 

evaluation. For example, the state of Illinois is reported 

to have spent $4 million installing cameras at all interstate 
18 Video Surveillance of Public Places

rest areas. The cameras are monitored by state police. 

However both the Illinois Department of Transportation 

and the state police admit that serious crime at rest areas 

is extremely rare, with the latter identifying about 50 total 

crimes per year at all rest areas in the state.26 With such 

low crime rates, it may be impossible to demonstrate any 

crime reduction benefit for the millions spent. 

Assessing the impact of CCTV is also complicated by 

the system’s design. CCTV is designed to see crime. As a 

result, the cameras may detect offenses that police would 

not otherwise notice. This may inadvertently increase the 

crime rate, especially for offenses that have low reporting 

rates—as noted in this guide. In the United States, the 

reporting rate of violent crime is only 50 percent.27 A 

process by which police can become aware of street 

violence without having to rely on the cooperation of the 

general public may increase reporting rates substantially. 

This does not mean crime will go up, but it is possible 

recorded crime may rise, as was probably the cause for 

a significant increase in reported woundings and assault 

in more than one British town.28 Although Appendix A 

conducts a meta-analysis of existing CCTV evaluations by 

predominantly exploring any recorded crime reductions, 

this may be a less than ideal way to evaluate CCTV. 

There have been a number of evaluation reviews. 

Phillips29 concluded that CCTV can be effective against 

property crime, but the results were less clear regarding 

personal crime and public order offenses, and the results 

were mixed in regard to reducing fear of crime. Similarly 

Welsh and Farrington’s meta-analysis of 13 programs 

found five that appeared to work, three that appeared not 

to, and five that produced inconclusive results.30 Recently, 

Gill and Spriggs31 evaluated 13 British CCTV systems, 

finding that six demonstrated a relatively substantial 
Evaluations of CCTV 19 

reduction in crime in the surveilled area when compared 

to the designated control area. Of these six, only two 

showed a statistically significant reduction relative to 

the control zone.32 In seven areas there was an increase 

in crime, though the increase could not be attributed 

to CCTV. Other potential causes for the crime increase 

included fluctuations in crime rates caused by seasonal, 

divisional, and national trends, and additional initiatives. 

The evaluations in Appendix A go some way to 

confirming these rather confusing findings. The general 

findings suggest that: 

• CCTV is more effective at combating property 

offenses than violence or public order crime (though 

there have been successes in this area). 

• CCTV appears to work best in small, well-defined 

areas (such as public car parks). 

• The individual context of each area and the way the 

system is used appear to be important. 

• Achieving statistically significant reductions in crime 

can be difficult (i.e., crime reductions that clearly go 

beyond the level that might occur due to the normal 

fluctuations in the crime rate are difficult to prove). 

• A close relationship with the police appears important 

in determining a successful system. 

• There is an investigative benefit to CCTV once an 

offense has been committed. 

Reading this, you may feel the answer is unclear. Academic 

evaluators tend toward caution in their language, as they 

understand there is often a complex pattern of factors 

that dictate whether a system is successful or not. The 

rigid requirements of statistical evidence often limit the 

conclusions that quantitative evaluators can draw. 
20 Video Surveillance of Public Places

To move beyond a strictly statistical interpretation, it 

is possible to say there was some evidence of crime 

reduction in most of the systems reported in the 

appendices. In other words, CCTV will almost certainly 

not make things worse (though crime reporting may 

increase), and there is a growing list of evaluations 

that suggest CCTV has had some qualified successes in 

reducing crime. 

The important point is that the local context is central 

to determining the likelihood of success. For example, 

city streets with long, clear lines of sight may be more 

amenable to CCTV than short, narrow winding lanes with 

trees that might obscure camera views. The availability of 

police to respond to incidents in an appropriate manner 

may also be a local context that affects CCTV’s success. 

Areas with high levels of property crime may be more 

amenable to CCTV than areas with low levels of public 

disorder. Smaller systems in well-defined areas may be 

more effective than broad-ranging systems that cover large 

areas. Understanding your local context is central to a 

successful problem-oriented policing solution. 

CCTV appears to be somewhat effective at reducing fear 

of crime, but only among a subset of the population. 

There are examples of a reduction in fear of crime among 

some people who are in CCTV areas, but it requires them 

to know they are in a surveillance area, and this is often 

not the case. Relying on CCTV to reduce fear of crime 

may require a significant and ongoing publicity campaign. 
Implementation Considerations 21 

Implementation Considerations 

Consider the following aspects of CCTV should you 

decide to employ CCTV at the response phase of your 

SARA (Scan, Analyze, Respond, Assess) model.33 

Is CCTV the Best Option? 

In one survey, when asked to rank desired crime 

prevention strategies, the public was offered CCTV, more 

police officers patrolling on foot, more or brighter street 

lights at night, or more private security patrols. Mean 

scores showed CCTV ranked third behind more police 

patrols and more or brighter street lights.34 Cameras 

can provide surveillance over an area, but they may not 

necessarily act as a replacement for police officers, as 

they cannot offer the same range of services an officer 

can provide. Furthermore, implementation times can be 

significant: not only does it take time to requisition and 

install cameras, but operating procedures, space allocation, 

and staffing arrangements can be time-consuming and 

costly. CCTV is not a short-term fix, but an ongoing 

commitment to the long term. 

The evaluations described in the appendices suggest that 

CCTV is not a panacea that works in all circumstances. 

In a number of cases, CCTV has not reduced crime. In 

others, it has. The context is therefore important. There 

may be other solutions that are cheaper, more flexible, 

and quicker to implement than CCTV. Are you seeking to 

protect a single, specific target? If so, a response geared 

directly to that target may suffice. A reinforced door 

or security grills may not look attractive, but they may 

be more cost-effective and quicker to install. Similarly, 

street closures can redirect traffic and have an impact on 
22 Video Surveillance of Public Places

an area’s crime level. The Center for Problem-Oriented 

Policing’s website (www.popcenter.org) is an excellent 

resource for options to consider. If, after thorough 

research and analysis, you determine CCTV is worth 

further consideration, there are a number of decisions to 

make, some of which follow. 

Deciding on a Camera Configuration 

Overt Systems 

Overt camera systems are common. The cameras are in 

view of the public and are often accompanied by signs 

indicating that people are now in a CCTV surveillance 

area. Overt systems have a strong crime prevention 

rationale but are more vulnerable to tampering and 

vandalism. 

Semi-Covert Systems 

These systems are in public view, but the cameras are 

concealed behind a one-way transparent casing. This 

approach retains most of the preventative rationale of the 

overt system, but the cameras have some protection. It 

also prevents the public from determining who is under 

surveillance and allows you to conceal the exact number 

of cameras in a system, as you are not required to install a 

camera in every casing.35 

Covert Systems 

With these systems, the aim is to hide camera locations. 

These systems are particularly well suited to crime 

detection; however, without public signage or a publicity 

campaign, they have little crime prevention function until 

word spreads within the offender community. The cameras 

are fairly immune to tampering. 
Implementation Considerations 23 

Camera Functionality 

If deterrence is the primary goal, then the mere presence 

of a camera should be sufficient. It may not be necessary 

to spend vast sums on the latest technology. This holds 

true if another aim is to alert police to any incidents 

as a reactive information mechanism, and then rely on 

police or local security to deal with the incidents. If the 

aim is to aid in the prosecution and conviction of offenders, 

then it may be necessary to purchase a system with highresolution cameras and recording equipment. A suitable 

night vision capability may also be required. Cameras that 

have power to provide, often at some distance, images of 

sufficient clarity to support an evidential case in court are 

considerably more advanced than cameras in the majority 

of current systems. These additional requirements will 

increase costs. 

Additional features available include night vision, bulletproof casing, motion detection, facial recognition, and 

even defensive mechanisms that detect when a camera is 

under attack and train other cameras to that location.36 

These features do not necessarily improve the crime 

reduction function, though they may improve the system’s 

survivability. They will also increase the costs. 

Publicity 

As stated elsewhere in this report, if the public—and 

especially the offending public—are not aware cameras 

are watching, the preventative aspect of CCTV will not 

function. Covert systems require no publicity, but you 

should consider the costs and the placement of any 

signage that advises the public about overt cameras. 

A media campaign can help, but can also be relatively 
24 Video Surveillance of Public Places

short-lived: the media can rapidly lose interest in CCTV, 

especially if they are not permitted to have access to 

camera footage. Bear in mind that even with publicity, a 

number of surveys have shown that most of the public 

tend to be unaware they are in CCTV areas, so significant 

effort should be made to advertise the cameras’ presence 

if you want to maximize the system’s preventative aspect. 

Where Should Cameras be Located? 

Guidelines are available for many of the activities 

involving CCTV;37 however, guidelines for locating 

cameras are usually not provided. Crime analysis is not 

necessarily the sole arbiter of CCTV camera locations. 

The cities of New York and Cincinnati, Ohio used town 

hall meetings and liaisons with the public to determine 

potential locations for CCTV installation.38 Although 

police recorded crime data are known to be incomplete, 

crime analysis still remains the most objective way to 

determine areas that may need CCTV. If caution is not 

exercised, it’s possible cameras can be placed in locations 

that more reflect the vagaries of local politics and public 

misconceptions about fear of crime rather than actual 

crime hot spots. If schemes are orchestrated and primarily 

directed by local authorities, there is a risk police can 

be excluded from the crucial design stage, including 

the placement of cameras. If the system’s measure of 

effectiveness is to reduce crime, then camera locations 

that are not primarily driven by the crime distribution are 

unlikely to demonstrate any significant crime reduction 

benefits. 

The choice of camera locations should, ideally, result from 

a high quality crime analysis that not only incorporates 

a micro-level mapping of local crime patterns, but also 

an appreciation for the types of crime the system aims 
Implementation Considerations 25 

to target. It is also valuable to conduct a number of site 

visits that examine the lines of sight for cameras and 

identify any potential obstructions. If time permits, visits 

during different times of the year are advisable because 

spring and summer foliage can obscure a camera image 

that appears clear in winter, and Christmas lights and 

other seasonal holiday decorations can also impede the 

view from some cameras. The main determining factor 

should be the crime problem, and crime mapping systems 

can be fundamental in identifying crime hot spots and 

other areas of need.39 The design of the space to be 

surveilled makes a difference in CCTV’s success. 

Who Will Operate the System? 

Although the aim of CCTV is to reduce crime, the 

actual operation of most schemes is split between police 

operators and civilian operators, who are either employees 

of the local authority or city, or occasionally (as in a 

small Detroit CCTV scheme) local civilian volunteers.40 

In much of the literature from the United Kingdom, 

it appears police are less concerned with the system’s 

ownership than by ensuring they are the system’s primary 

and priority users. Because police rarely have the funds for 

complete systems, a common arrangement is for police 

to enter into partnerships with local authorities and city 

management. 

If a civilian organization operates the cameras, then the 

system will be most effective when integrated into a 

police command and control system, so a coordinated 

response to identified incidents can be made timely and 

effectively. This means you should arrange for a direct 

communication link from the CCTV control location 

to local police. To ensure rapid communication, some 
26 Video Surveillance of Public Places

civilian control facilities have police radios so they can 

communicate directly with officers on the street. An 

additional advantage is that operators with access to police 

communications can train their cameras on incidents that 

police become aware of without having to be contacted 

by police. For example, if a shop calls police to suspected 

shoplifters, or if police request further assistance to make 

arrests, the camera operators can train their cameras on 

the incident immediately upon hearing the information on 

the police radio. 

In some configurations, police monitor the cameras’ video 

displays, which are fed to monitors at the local police 

station. Often, the police operator is whoever is on duty. 

These individuals are often not trained in the system’s 

operation, and have other duties to perform at the same 

time, limiting the actual surveillance.41 As a result, the 

systems are less effective from a proactive stance, and 

become a reactive tool that merely aids the deployment of 

officers to incidents that have occurred. 

One Detroit neighborhood plans for local volunteers to 

monitor cameras through a password-protected internet 

feed, though this proposal has raised civil liberty issues.42 

Similar concerns exist for a proposal in Soulard, a St. 

Louis neighborhood, that might allow any local resident to 

control the camera through an internet site.43 The negative 

implications of this type of crime reduction intervention 

from a civil liberties perspective may outweigh any crime 

reduction benefits. Although it does reduce ongoing 

human costs, you should not select this type of system 

without careful consideration. A public survey of the 

proposed idea may convince you not to proceed with a 

system monitored and controlled by the public. 
Implementation Considerations 27 

Do You Have Both the Capital and Revenue Funds for 

Operation? 

Initial capital costs for CCTV systems fluctuate, though 

they are generally falling as the technology becomes more 

mainstream. Human costs continue for the life of the 

scheme and are often difficult to contain. Once a CCTV 

system is operational, there is likely to be considerable 

reluctance to downsize or dismantle it. A CCTV system 

is a permanent cost. In one scheme three staff members 

were let go after 18 months of operation, due to a lack of 

ongoing operating funds.44 

Do the Local Police Have the Resources to Respond to 

Any Incidents? 

There is scant evidence that CCTV significantly reduces 

public order and violent offenses, but the impact of these 

crimes can be reduced with a quick and effective police 

response, and this is a real potential benefit of CCTV. 

As interviews with offenders have shown, many are not 

deterred by the presence of CCTV,45 though CCTV does 

work as a deterrent with offenders who have been caught 

with CCTV and are aware they were caught with CCTV. 

As a result, it is prudent to ensure an effective police 

response is available. This may require additional police 

resources for the long term, a cost that may need to be 

factored into CCTV running costs, or at least into the 

local community safety budget. 
28 Video Surveillance of Public Places

Who and What Should be Watched? 

None of the six CCTV schemes studies by Goold46 

had established effective systems of control and 

regulation, and the lack of police involvement in the early 

implementation stages increased the difficulties for police 

to regulate the systems according to their needs, or for the 

camera use to reflect police priorities. Goold also noticed 

that in police-managed CCTV schemes, civilian operators 

tended to use the cameras to follow individuals based 

on their behavioral attributes (demeanor, aggressiveness, 

behavior to others, running in a busy street, and so on) 

more so than in civilian-run schemes. Regardless of who 

ran the system, the majority of surveillance was conducted 

based on a target’s behavioral or categorical attributes 

(age, dress, gender, race), or because the camera operator 

had personal knowledge of the individual based on 

contact with police officers. 

As a guide, it is prudent for any system to have: 

• operational guidelines 

• employee vetting 

• effective training (in matters such as camera operation, 

recording practices, the length of time tapes are 

retained, and mechanisms to contact police) 

• a clear policy about whom and what are the subjects 

of targeting. 

With regard to the last item, a clear policy, intelligence 

on local crime patterns, and likely suspects based on 

thorough, sound and objective crime analysis and 

intelligence appears essential. A policy based on an 

objective interpretation of the criminal environment 

would help deflect some of the (occasional) criticism that 

CCTV operators unfairly target marginalized populations. 
Implementation Considerations 29 

There is one scenario that is rarely discussed, but should 

be considered. What if the cameras capture images of 

police misconduct? This should be addressed for systems 

that are operated by police or local authorities. Hopefully 

this is only a hypothetical issue, but you should determine 

a policy. The majority of officers interviewed in one study 

said the cameras forced them to be more careful when on 

patrol.47 It is possible that officers may be more reluctant 

to use reasonable force in circumstances that require a 

high level of force. 

Evaluation 

Many funding sources that can provide the money for a 

CCTV scheme also require an evaluation of the scheme. 

An ideal evaluation would be a robust one that avoids 

most, if not all, of the criticisms leveled at poorer 

evaluations.48 Although a “quick and dirty” evaluation 

conducted locally and with little methodological rigor may 

satisfy a grant’s minimum criteria, it is unlikely to be of 

wider benefit to the problem-oriented policing and crime 

reduction community. Partnering with a local university, 

which can provide statistical and evaluative advice, is 

suggested. 

As said elsewhere in this guide, you should also prepare 

the implementation team for an evaluation’s range of 

possible outcomes. In a number of cases, recorded 

crime has increased, but as stated earlier, this does not 

necessarily mean crime has increased. Consider the 

following scenario. A CCTV scheme is created to counter 

drug dealing in a local park. Drug dealing has a low 

reporting rate as both dealer and seller do not want police 

involvement. It is possible that much of the drug dealing 

in the park may stop because of the cameras’ introduction, 
30 Video Surveillance of Public Places

but the cameras will also provide an opportunity for local 

police to spot and arrest those dealers initially unaware of 

the cameras. As a result, police arrests—the main source 

of drug-related recorded crime—can actually increase at 

first, inflating recorded crime figures even though drug 

dealing has actually declined. 

Public Concerns 

As stated earlier, surveys of public perception about the 

benefits of CCTV are usually positive. However, they 

are not universally so, and managers of any potential 

implementation should anticipate fielding questions about 

a range of public concerns. The next section aims to 

anticipate these questions. 
Managing Public Concerns 31 

Managing Public Concerns 

Some have suggested that with the growth of public 

place CCTV and the already extensive network of private 

surveillance systems in the transport system, hospitals, 

commercial premises, schools, and so on, it is nearly 

impossible to escape (unregulated) surveillance.49 This may 

be so, but we are probably some way yet from the type 

of overwhelming global surveillance network described 

in novels such as George Orwell’s 1984.

50 This does 

not mean a city-wide or nationwide network of cameras 

maintaining surveillance on the public is a fictional idea 

to be dismissed: discussions have been held at federal 

government levels regarding the growth of cameras in the 

nation’s capital.51 Public anxiety is usually more focused 

on specific areas. 

Covert Cameras 

Unlike overt cameras, which can be seen conducting 

surveillance of public areas, covert cameras are designed 

to be unseen. Although some consider covert cameras 

to be more intrusive, there are city managers who have 

used domed cameras (a semi-covert scheme) because 

they are deemed to be more discreet.52 Some might argue 

there is less accountability with covert cameras because 

the general public has no way to determine the target of 

the surveillance, and this leads to concerns about privacy 

and the right to know if we are being watched by the 

government. 
32 Video Surveillance of Public Places 

Privacy and Constitutional Concerns 

In the United States, privacy issues related to the use of 

CCTV surveillance are first and foremost in regard to the 

Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 

which protects a citizen from unreasonable searches 

and seizures by law enforcement and other government 

agencies. The emphasis is on the protection of people, 

not places. As a result, at least in terms of clearly public 

places, citizens cannot have an expectation of privacy. 

Surveillance of individuals in public places would 

therefore appear to be constitutionally acceptable. This 

interpretation stretches only so far. In the case of Katz 

v. United States,53 the Supreme Court overturned the 

conviction of a man convicted on evidence gleaned from 

an FBI electronic listening device fixed to the outside 

of a public telephone booth. As one concurring opinion 

pointed out, a court must determine whether a suspect 

had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his activities, 

and if so, would society be prepared to accept the privacy 

expectation as reasonable.54 Reasonable expectations of 

privacy tend to be subjective but for the purposes of 

simple video (not audio) surveillance of public space, 

the use of CCTV would appear to be on solid ground 

constitutionally. 

A number of cases support the use of technological 

devices to enhance the natural ability of vision and 

hearing police officers could employ on the street if they 

were there in person. It is likely the courts would not look 

so positively on surveillance technology that is able to 

intrude where a police officer could not reasonably expect 

to be able to see. Future video surveillance equipment that 

employs x-ray technology to examine inside and under 

clothing may potentially fall foul of Fourth Amendment 

protections. 
Managing Public Concerns 33 

More generally, concerns have been voiced in regard to 

the use of CCTV as a surveillance mechanism in public 

order situations.55 For example, some people expressed 

anxiety after New York City officials declared a desire 

to increase the number of cameras in operation before 

the 2004 Republican National Convention.56 It would 

therefore seem prudent to stress to the public that a 

CCTV system is in place as a problem-oriented solution to 

an existing crime problem. 

In summary, public agencies wishing to install CCTV 

systems in public places should consider these two key 

points: 

• The area under surveillance should cover only clearly 

public areas. 

• Surveillance equipment can use zoom, tilt, and pan to 

enhance video capture, and enhanced microphones 

to detect sound. However, technology that is able to 

intrude beyond reasonable limits of audio and visual 

capability may be constitutionally questionable. 

This guide is not intended to provide advice on the 

legality of particular CCTV systems. Implementers should 

seek legal advice in their local area if they have concerns 

about the legality of introducing CCTV. 

Ownership of Images 

The public is unlikely to support CCTV if there is a risk 

that video of them shopping on a public street when 

they should be at work will appear on the nightly news. 

Therefore, a policy should exist that covers when recorded 

images are released to the police, media, or other agencies 

in the criminal justice system. Releasing video footage 

for any reason other than to enhance the criminal justice 

system is not recommended. 
34 Video Surveillance of Public Places 

Future Systems 

Implementers should be aware that technology is always 

on the march, and a number of particular innovations are 

imminent. 

Two systems are undergoing rapid development. 

Backscatter low-level x-ray imaging is a technology 

that provides the potential to see through clothing and 

detect weapons and other prohibited materials.57 Facial 

recognition systems require a link to another computer 

system within a police department, such as a database 

containing photographs of wanted individuals. A facial 

recognition system tied to an existing bank of 140 

cameras was first used in East London in 1998. 

Beyond their use to identify specific fugitives, the next 

generation of CCTV camera images may also be analyzed 

by problem recognition systems. Unlike basic motion 

detection systems (which activate a camera when a sensor 

is tripped), problem recognition systems are software 

programs that interpret video images from a CCTV 

camera. The program attempts to identify problems such 

as potential robberies or street brawls by seeking out 

unusual characteristics or patterns in digital images. They 

can also be programmed to identify out-of-place articles, 

such as abandoned packages or weapons.58 Some cities 

are also considering the introduction of cameras with 

systems that can identify the source of firearm activity 

and automatically train their cameras on the source of that 

activity. All of these next-generation systems will carry 

with them particular issues in terms of police response, 

the public’s perception of safety, and, may also influence 

the public’s perception of the government’s intrusion into 

private life. 
Conclusions 35 

Conclusions 

Although much of the professional literature from 

manufacturers tends to over-hype CCTV’s benefits, 

robust evaluations (where they exist) are apt to be more 

circumspect. Companies that produce surveillance systems 

claim unqualified success, while cautious academics often 

say the opposite.59 As noted from one study, “openstreet CCTV can ‘work’ in limited ways, but is not a 

universal panacea. It works in different ways in different 

situations.”60 The evidence suggests that CCTV works 

most effectively when bundled with a package of other 

situational preventative measures.61 That CCTV is often 

implemented with other measures makes conclusive 

evidence of CCTV’s effectiveness difficult to confirm. 

Media manipulation may place an important role in 

advertising a system, help increase public knowledge, 

and, therefore, reduce fear of crime. It may also 

inform offenders and increase their risk of perception. 

Advertising success also helps to maintain offender 

wariness as well as reinforce feelings of public safety 

(and the perceived additional benefit of economic 

improvement). 

Conclusions about effectiveness that can be cautiously 

drawn are: 

• CCTV works best in small, well-defined sites (for 

example, public parking areas) rather than across large 

areas (such as housing estates). 

• CCTV is more effective in combating property crime 

rather than violence or disorder. 

• A close relationship with the police will improve 

system effectiveness. 

• A good quality CCTV system can aid police 

investigations. 
36 Video Surveillance of Public Places 

Finally, you should consider the impact of a CCTV system 

from a societal view. It has been suggested that everincreasing surveillance can make the local environment 

a less pleasant place to live.62 Of course, it may also 

reduce fear of crime and increase public participation in 

public space. This may be an acceptable benefit from the 

ongoing costs of a CCTV scheme. 
Appendix A 37 

Appendix A 

The following table summarizes a number of CCTV 

systems and the results of their evaluations. It is not 

an exhaustive list, as some studies may have been 

inadvertently omitted during the literature search 

for this guide. Also, a number of studies have been 

excluded. The main reasons for exclusion were when the 

evaluation report did not include sufficient information 

to corroborate any reported crime reduction, or where 

the evaluation was conducted by a party perceived to be 

heavily invested in the system.63 This commonly occurred 

when a system was reported as a success in a newspaper 

article based solely on the comments of a city manager or 

local police. When some evaluations reported findings that 

did not appear to accurately reflect the changing pattern 

of crime, they were either excluded, or the language was 

changed to a more general tone. As a result of this last 

caveat, if you require further information you should 

refer to the original study reports. This is the best way to 

judge the reliability of the findings and conclusions, as the 

quality of studies varies considerably. 

The table below emphasizes studies that have a strong 

quantitative component. This is not intended to negate 

the value of qualitative analysis, but to reflect the 

likely audience for the report. Most CCTV systems are 

implemented to tackle, at least as one aim, levels of 

reported crime. These are usually apparent in police 

recorded crime records and so the table reflects more 

positively on reports that demonstrate they have examined 

and evaluated recorded crime statistics in a robust manner. 

Studies are ordered by implementation date, with the most 

recent first. 
38 Appendix A 

Location Camera

Organization 

Implementation Effect on crime Effect on 

fear of crime 

Operation Evaluation Research

design 

Kabukicho, 

Tokyo 

No information 

available 

March 2002 Reduction in 

vehicle crime,

slight reduction

in violence, 

substantial

reduction in

larceny, within 50

meters of cameras.

 No

information 

available

 No

information 

available 

(Harada et

al., 2004) 

Adequate. Geocoding

crime events improved 

accuracy and better

determined which 

crimes were within the

CCTV area. 

Although there have been few evaluations of CCTV in Japan, a system in the Kabukicho area of Tokyo was evaluated following system 

implementation in March 2002. Kabukicho is a large and popular entertainment district. Recorded offenses decreased by about 22% in the 

implementation area (within 50 meters of a camera), by 9% in the buffer zone (50-100 meters from a camera), and by 11% in the control area 

(100-150 meters from a camera). Research design: Adequate. The system was evaluated using the weighted displacement quotient approach 

(Bowers & Johnson, 2003), which quantifies program impact in relation to a control area and a buffer area (used to check for immediate spatial

displacement). Offenses for one year before, and one year after, implementation were geocoded and compared to buffer and control areas. 

Results varied by crime type with larceny exhibiting the largest decrease. Geocoding crime events provided a significant advantage over many 

studies that aggregate crime counts to beats that may have only partial camera coverage, though the use of 50-meter zones was not clearly 

explained. It is possible that a camera’s deterrence effect could still be viable at 70 meters, well into the displacement (buffer) zone. 
Appendix A 39

Cincinnati,

Ohio 

Cameras

sited in

three city

locations 

Early 1999 Some reduction

in calls for service 

and anti-social

behavior in two

sites (one with

some diffusion),

but an increase

in anti-social

behavior in a

third location,

as well as some

displacement on

implementation. 

No

information 

available 

No

information 

available 

(Mazerolle et

al., 2002) 

Strong. An ARIMA

time series analysis

of data derived from 

interpretation of video 

footage was combined

with police incident

data. 

Three camera sites were examined in and around Cincinnati, Ohio. The city installed its first camera in 1996 and more cameras in 1998 and 1999. One was at a 

strip mall in a residential neighborhood, one in a mixed neighborhood with small shops, a park, and low-income housing, and the last at a site with a popular local

market surrounded by residential and commercial buildings. 

Research design: Strong. Employing an unusual research design, the authors examined random samples of video footage taken from three CCTV sites in the city

(three, three, and two months of video, respectively). A stratified random sample framework was used to extract and examine video footage, from which incidents 

were examined and coded. Five-minute snippets of video activity were coded by students. A random selection was also recoded by an independent party as a 

reliability check. ARIMA time series analysis techniques were applied to the coded results. In addition, police calls for service data were examined in both the

CCTV areas and buffered regions within 200, 500, and 1,000 feet of cameras, for a number of months before and after camera implementation.

The results suggest that one site had a significant decline in calls for service and some diffusion of benefits. A second site had a gradual decline in anti-social

behavior compared to a slight increase in calls for service in the wider police district. The public market site experienced a drop in anti-social behavior, an effect 

that appeared to decline after some time. Although the police data period was relatively short, the combined approach makes this an interesting and relatively 

strong study. 
40 Appendix A 

Location Camera Organization Implementation Effect on crime Effect on fear of crime Operation Evaluation Research design 

Central Train 

Station

Oslo, Norway 

Six cameras January 1999 Decrease in

robbery/theft from

person and bicycle

theft. 

None Civilians

working at a 

police station 

(Winge & 

Knutsson,

2003) 

Adequate. The data have 

some limitations, and 

the surveys are not large; 

however, the incident

data were examined for

experiment, control, and

displacement areas. 

Due to drug abusers’ use of the area outside the central train station in Oslo, the Oslo Police Department introduced a trial CCTV camera system in 1999. The 

area under surveillance was a typical city center with large numbers of people moving through, using nearby restaurants, shops, and hotels. Six cameras were 

installed and then monitored by trained operators based at the station. To assess the effects of the CCTV scheme, evaluators studied police incident log data from

one year before, and one year after, the installation. This was supplemented by local crime data and three surveys that explored local reaction.

The research found that recorded crime increased in the study area, especially violent and narcotics offenses. However, the researchers suggest this is most likely 

due to increased detections by the police department as a result of proactive work directed by the cameras, as well as an increase in police patrolling the area. Most

local businesses showed mainly insignificant changes in perception of crime and public order problems. Although local businesses had confidence in the system,

confidence in effectiveness did decline after some time. 

Research design: Adequate. Limitations of Norwegian crime data limit the ability to map crime events with precision. Business turnover also limited the value of 

the third survey, which had a poor response rate. However the study did examine changes in a control area and a displacement area as well as exploring public

reaction in the experiment, control, and displacement areas. 
Appendix A 41

East Brighton,

United

Kingdom 

10 cameras in a

housing project 

Summer 1998 Crime continued a 

long-term increase. 

Feelings of

lack of safety 

continued

after CCTV’s

introduction. 

No

information

available 

(Squires, 2003) Weak, though some factors were out of the

researchers’ control. There 

were potentially significant

differences between pre- and

post-survey groups, and

the crime analysis does not

break down the data into

more meaningful offense

categories. 

Ten CCTV cameras were installed in a housing project with a reputation for disorderly conduct and crime problems. The area also had high levels of 

unemployment and negligible rates of home ownership. Various crime prevention and community building initiatives did not appear to have solved 

some of the underlying troubles in the community. 

Pre and post surveys of 243 and 237 residents respectively found that knowledge of the CCTV cameras was high. Analysis of nearly three years

of crime and incident data found the CCTV system did not significantly inhibit a long-term increase in crime and disorder that increased roughly

in line with a comparable housing project that did not have CCTV. 

Research design: Weak, though some factors were out of the researchers’ control. The research is predominantly a report of pre and post surveys. 

Researchers were unable to get the 300 respondents they sought for both surveys, and there were potentially significant differences between the 

two survey groups, especially in terms of home ownership (which doubled from the first survey), and the age structure (more elderly people were 

surveyed in the second visit). Reports of the crime and incident data do not break down the data into crime and disorder offense groups that 

CCTV could be expected to effect. 
42 Appendix A 

Location Camera Organization Implementation Effect on crime Effect on fear of crime Operation Evaluation Research design 

Greater

Easterhouse, 

Glasgow,

Scotland 

Not reported May 1998 No overall crime

reduction. Drug 

offenses and

violent crime

increased, but at a

lower rate than in

other areas. Other

crime types not

reported in the

paper. 

No

information 

available 

Civilian

operators

working 

at a police

station 

(Hood, 2003) Adequate, but not all

quantitative results 

reported. 

Greater Easterhouse is a large housing project with about 15,000 residents in northeast Glasgow, Scotland’s largest city. Predominantly public

housing, the area has long suffered from deprivation, depopulation, and crime. As the City of Glasgow installed CCTV in the city center (see

Ditton et al., 1999) CCTV’s profile was high and funding was received for Greater Easterhouse. The catalyst for the funding bid was the collection

of two petitions, totaling more than 2,800 names, as a result of two gang-related homicides. The system went live in May 1998. At the time of

system implementation, the Greater Easterhouse project was the largest residential-area CCTV system in Scotland.

Research design: Adequate, but not all quantitative results reported. Although the study employed crime data analysis, a pre-installation public

survey (of 100 people), and key stakeholder interviews, much of the paper is given over to the qualitative elements of the evaluation and there is

insufficient data presented to estimate CCTV’s impact on recorded crime. A straight comparison on the year following implementation with the

preceding year found that violent crime increased in three of five police beats in the CCTV area at a rate comparable with increases in violent

crime across the whole police region (Strathclyde). However, these increases were less than the increases in the police district that includes

Easterhouse. Drug offenses also increased but at a lower rate than in the Strathclyde area. Three other crime types were examined but the results

were not reported. 
Appendix A 43 

Camberwell, 

London 

17 cameras in

a town center January 1998 Street, vehicle and violent crime

decreased at a

faster rate than

before CCTV’s 

introduction,

while the buffer

and comparison

areas saw an

increase in crime. 

Of public 

surveyed, who

knew about

the cameras,

69% felt safer. 

Civilian,

based at a

public car

park and

linked to

a police

station 

(Sarno et

al., 1999) 

Quite strong. Four years 

of crime data examined,

and supported with

numerous qualitative 

approaches. 

The town had long suffered from street crime, the vast majority of which occurred in the town center. Short-term police crackdowns had the

expected short-term effects. The local council led a local partnership and successfully bid for CCTV-system funding from the UK Home Office. 

The 17 cameras were installed so that they covered the main commercial areas of small shops and restaurants. As with the Peckham evaluation, 

the area was one of a number targeted for a street robbery reduction program by the Metropolitan (London, UK) police. The report found that

although crime had decreased slightly before implementation, the rate of decrease increased after implementation. Recorded crime fell 4% before

the cameras were installed and 12% afterward. Significant reductions in street, vehicle, and violent crime were recorded. By comparison, crime in

the buffer and comparison areas increased.

Research design: Quite strong. A good evaluation of CCTV, employing recorded crime statistics, operator logbooks and repair invoices, interviews, 

a survey of town residents (200 per site), and a survey of local businesses. Target areas were deemed to be within 200 meters of a camera with

the remainder of the police beat assigned as buffer zones (to test for displacement). The remainder of the police district was assigned the role of

comparison area. Crimes that were not expected to be affected by CCTV’s presence were excluded from the analysis. Crime analysis consisted of

two years of data before, and two years after, system implementation. No evidence that seasonal trends were explored. 
44 Appendix A 

Research design

Quite strong. Four 

years of crime

data examined and

supported with

numerous qualitative 

approaches. 

The East Street area is dominated by one of London’s oldest street markets. The area, a mix of commercial and residential land use, had been in

decline, and crime levels had risen, before the evaluation. The CCTV system was implemented by a partnership between local market traders, the 

local council, and the police department. The target area for the 11 cameras (one fixed and 10 moveable cameras) was the market area and some

local free car parks that had been the target of car crime. The aim of the system was to deter and detect crime, reduce fear of crime, provide 

quality video footage for prosecutions, and restore confidence in the area. The evaluation found that car crime and criminal damage reduced 

substantially, and, although street crime increased, robberies decreased by half. Crime in the target area decreased by 4% in the year before

implementation and 10% in the year after. However, crime in the buffer and comparison areas decreased at a quicker rate than in the target zone. 

Research design: Quite strong. As a part of the previous study, this research had a good evaluation of CCTV, employing recorded crime statistics, 

operator logbooks and repair invoices, interviews, a survey of town residents (200 per site) and a survey of local businesses. Target areas were 

deemed to be within 200 meters of a camera with the remainder of the police beat assigned as buffer zones (to test for displacement). The 

remainder of the police district was assigned the role of comparison area. Crimes that were not expected to be affected by the presence of CCTV 

were excluded from the analysis. Crime analysis consisted of two years of data before, and two years after, system implementation. No evidence

that seasonal trends were explored. 

Evaluation 

Sar no et al,

1999 

Operation

Civilian,

based at a

public car

park and

linked to

a police

station 

Effect on fear 

of crime 

Of public 

surveyed,

who knew

about the

cameras, 53% 

felt safer. 

Effect on crime 

Vehicle crime

and criminal

damag e

decreased,

though street

crime increased

(mainly in

theft from the

person; robberies

decreased). 

Implementation

January 1998 

Camera

Organization

12 cameras

covering a

street market 

Location

East Street,

London 
v

45 

ntion data

ev

ev

wns and

ow

pre-and

. T

ev

Appendix A

.

that police control to

intervention due to

CCTV surveillance

increased arrests

and reduced the

escalation of

violence. 

This study focused on the nexus between recorded violent offenses and assault-related emergency room attendances across five English towns. 

Five control towns or cities were also selected, from locations in the general geographic proximity of the experiment sites and locations that had

similar population sizes. The authors argue that the comparison of emergency room data and police data allow two hypotheses to be explored.

First, if a deterrence effect for CCTV exists, then recorded assaults should decrease. Second, if CCTV increases police detections and provides 

the opportunity to intervene earlier in potentially violent incidents, then recorded violent incidents may increase but assault-related hospital

attendances should decrease. 

The study found that CCTV surveillance was associated with increased police detection of violence and reduced numbers of people treated at the

emergency department for assault. However, the impact was not the same for all locations. 

Research design: Fairly strong. The study collected data for the same four-year period for the control towns (May 1995 to April 1999) and 

a generally equivalent period for the experiment sites (all of the experiment sites installed CCTV between March and July 1997). The study 

employed quarterly moving average plots of emergency department and police recorded violence. Student tests were used to compare changes in 

the violence level before and after CCTV schemes were introduced. General trends in the data and the existence of long-term seasonality were 

unclear. Also, data collections areas for the intervention and control area police and hospital data were very large and not adjoining the target 

areas. 

ere explored for fi

experiment and fi

irly strong

years of

post-inter

cities

a F

w

, 2003)

m, a

pherd, & She 

Matthews

arajasing (Si No

information 

available 

ation

ailable

m

No

infor

va

Assault-related

emergency room

visits decreased,

recorded violence

increased, suggesting 

h to

ly 1997 

Varied Five British 

towns 

Marc

uJ
46 Appendix A

Research design 

Adequate. A long er 

data period would 

have been able to 

cor rect the apparent

seasonality. 

The report provides little data regarding the operation or installation of the CCTV system other than it was implemented in Ilford town center, 

east of London. There is no information about system ownership or the number of cameras. Pre and post surveys of about 750 people each 

found strong support (more than 90%) for the CCTV system before and after implementation. There was also evidence that respondents who 

were aware of the cameras felt safer. There were reductions in all crime types in the five months post-implementation (the second half of 1997) 

compared to the months immediately preceding the implementation, as well as (generally smaller) reductions compared to the same months in the

preceding year. 

Research design: Adequate. Used 18 months of crime data, though the combination of actual and moving average displays for the same data 

on some charts makes interpretation more difficult. The data suggest annual seasonality that a longer data period preceding and following the 

implementation would have been able to correct. 

Evaluation 

(Squires, 1998) 

Operation

No

information 

available 

Effect on fear 

of crime 

Modest

improvement

after CCTV

implementation 

Effect on crime 

Reduction over 

five months for 

every crime type

examined. Lesser

reductions outside

implementation area

for a number of

crime types. Crime in

the CCTV area also

declined compared

to the same months

in the previous year. 

Implementation

May/June 

1997 

Camera

Organization

Town center. 

Number of

cameras not

available. 

Location

Ilford, Essex,

United

Kingdom 
47 

ev

ur o . F

ted with

crime

. hes

Appendix A

Elephant and Castle is centered around a large shopping mall and a network of arterial roads and service streets. It is also a major local public

transportation hub, with bus stops, a train station, and a subway stop. The main access to the shopping area is through a pedestrian subway system 

that had a reputation for personal robberies. The CCTV system was introduced after an initiative by a group of local council representatives, the 

local police, and local businesses to reduce crime and fear of crime. The extensive camera system is focused on the shopping area and the local

transport terminals. The aim of the system was to reduce opportunist street and subway crime and to eliminate drug trafficking in the area. The 

research found (against a background of crime reducing in the area generally) that recorded crime in both the target area and the buffer zone fell

by about 17% in the two years post-implementation. A portion of the steep decline in the incidence of street robbery was attributed to the CCTV

system.

Research design: Quite strong. A good evaluation of CCTV, employing recorded crime statistics, operator logbooks and repair invoices, interviews, 

a survey of town residents (200 per site) and a survey of local businesses. Target areas were deemed to be within 200 meters of a camera with

the remainder of the police beat assigned as buffer zones (to test for displacement). The remainder of the police district was assigned the role

of comparison area. Crimes that were not expected to be affected by the presence of CCTV were excluded from the analysis. Crime analysis 

consisted of two years of data before, and two years after, system implementation. No evidence that seasonal trends were explored. 

CCTV

data examined and

merous qualitati

Quite strong

years of

suppor

approac

un

(Sarno et al.,

1999) based at a

police station

d to a

shopping

center and

vilian,

e

Ci

link

Of public 

surveyed, who

knew about

the cameras, 

about 60%

felt safer. 

ecorded crime

p decline

in street robberies

et and buffer

fell 17% in both

attributed to

Stee 

. 

.

targ 

areas

Elephant 34 cameras January 1997 

and Castle, around a

London shopping

center 

R
48 Appendix A 

Research design 

Adequate, though

the quantitative

data are not fully

explored. 

Against the background of significant growth in the use of CCTV across The Netherlands, this study reports on an evaluation of CCTV systems

in three different Amsterdam locations that were initiated at different times. Unusual for a CCTV system, the cameras were monitored only 

for certain hours of the day on certain days of the week. For example, the system in the area perceived to have the worst crime problem was 

monitored Monday through Saturday from 8 AM to 10:30 PM. Images were not recorded unless an operator deemed it necessary. 

Research design: Adequate, though the quantitative data are not fully explored. The systems were evaluated by means of an analysis of police 

records for one year before, and one year after, CCTV implementation at each site. Data were collected for the CCTV area, and, for displacement

and comparison purposes, from the wider police beat and the whole city. More than 2,000 questionnaires were completed and qualitative 

interviews were conducted with a smaller group of the same shopkeepers in two survey sweeps a year apart in each site. In-depth interviews were 

also conducted with local police, camera operators, and policy-makers. Unfortunately, the paper emphasizes the qualitative aspects of the research, 

and the potential value of the quantitative data is not fully explored. The qualitative aspects of the study found that fear of crime improved 

significantly in only one of the three areas. The research found that recorded crime dropped substantially in the CCTV area while the trend in the

comparison regions either remained steady (or slightly improved) or increased. 

Evaluation 

(Flight,

Heerwaarden,

& Soomeren,

2003) 

Operation

Variable

hours, with 

two systems

operational

only during

peak hours 

Effect on fear 

of crime 

Slight

improvement

in only one

area 

Effect on crime 

General reduction

in crime levels.

Some displacement

to other areas,

though still a net

reduction. Some

immediate diffusion

of benefits. 

Implementation

Early 1997 to

mid-2001 

Camera

Organization

29 cameras,

in three areas, 

with variable

viewing hours 

Location

Amsterdam,

The

Netherlands 
Appendix A 49

Adequate. The 

evaluation compared

crime rates in the target

area with a comparison

site in a similar town 

with five years of 

aggregated data. 

This undergraduate dissertation evaluates the CCTV system in the town center of Gillingham, a town approximately 30 miles south of London. 

The town is described as a combination of market town and suburban center. A local partnership of police, borough council, local businesses, 

and community services successfully implemented seven city center cameras in early 1997. Comparison with a neighboring town (with no CCTV

system) shows that recorded crime initially fell in Gillingham at a significantly faster rate than in the comparison town: a 44% reduction in

recorded crime, compared to a 22% reduction in the comparison town. In later years, the comparison town returned to the pre-implementation

crime levels, while Gillingham’s crime rate remained at the new post-CCTV lower level. 

Research design: Adequate. The evaluation compared crime rates in the target area with a comparison site in a similar town. Crime data were 

gathered for police reported crime figures for one year before, and four years after, CCTV implementation. The quantitative work was supported 

by some qualitative findings. As expected changes in crime differed by crime type; substantial reductions occurred in thefts, vehicle thefts, and 

robberies. The study did not explore more micro-level interactions, such as displacement to local areas close to the CCTV cameras, and did not

explore longer seasonal trends in the data. 

(Griffith, n.d.) Civilian. No

infor mation 

available 

Reduction in 

vehicle crime and

robberies 

Seven town

center cameras 

1997 Gillingham,

United

Kingdom
50 Appendix A 

Research design

Weak, but due only tolimitations in crimedata outside theresearchers’ control. 

The town center area had declined, becoming a hot spot for drug dealing and street robbery, which lead to the introduction of CCTV. The 14 new 

cameras were added to an existing system of 27 static car park surveillance cameras. The surveilled area consisted of a number of small businesses

and larger retail chains. The evaluation of the CCTV system in Peckham is complicated by two factors. First, during the evaluation period, the area

was one of a number targeted for a street robbery reduction program by the Metropolitan (London, UK) police. Second, the area also received 

major urban regeneration funding. Report authors are cautious in their findings; however, their research suggests that crime did fall in the target 

area, though in line with the same level of decline in the comparison area.

Research design: Weak, but due only to limitations on crime data outside the researchers’ control. There was a thorough evaluation of the 

qualitative aspects of the CCTV implementation. This included examining operator logbooks and repair invoices, interviews, a survey of town 

residents (200 per site), and a survey of local businesses. Target areas were deemed to be within 200 meters of a camera with the remainder of

the police beat assigned as buffer zones (to test for displacement). The remainder of the police district was assigned the role of comparison

area. Crimes that were not expected to be affected by the presence of CCTV were excluded from the analysis. Crime analysis was complicated by 

limited access to crime data due to the introduction date of a crime recording system. Researchers did manually gather data for a pre- and postimplementation period. No evidence that seasonal trends were explored. 

Evaluation 

(Sarno, Hough,

& Bulos, 1999) 

Operation

Civilian,

based at a

public car

park and

linked to a

police station 

Effect on fear 

of crime 

Of public 

surveyed, who

knew about the

cameras, about

60% felt safer. 

Effect on crime 

Inconclusive, due to

limitations in access

to recorded crime

data 

Implementation

October 1995

Camera

Organization

14 cameras in a

public retail area 

Location

Pe c k h a m , 

London 
Appendix A 51

Fairly strong. The

study used a long-time

series of data and

also explored hourly

temporal patterns. 

Police beats were categorized as focal (with CCTV cameras), displacement (adjoining areas to CCTV beats), and other beats in the city (as a

baseline comparison area). Data were collected for the year before CCTV installation, the year of CCTV implementation, and the two years 

following. The data showed crime reductions of 25% and 16% respectively in the two years following implementation. There was no evidence of

displacement and some suggestion of diffusion of benefits. 

Research design. Fairly strong. The research used a long-time series of data post-implementation, though there does not appear to have been any 

correction for seasonal trends. The paper also reports a temporal analysis by hour of day, which is not conducted in other studies to the same

degree. 

(Ar mitag e, 

Smyth, & 

Pease, 1999) 

No

information 

available 

No

infor mation 

available 

Substantial decline

in most crime types.

Some diffusion effect

for most crime types. 

1995 No information 

available 

Burnley, 

United

Kingdom
52 Appendix A 

(Ditton et al.,

1999) 

Civilian Marginal Marginal, though the

system has helped

with some major

crime in ations. 

No mber 

1994 

32 city center

cameras 

Glasg ow,

Scotland 

conducted in control

putation within the UK for higher lev . CCTV w ion. Although

an autonomous body w funds to

months after

implementation, three CCTV staff members w

ere conducted in both CCTV and control locations

s introduction and that the city center w

being a crime victim in the city center did impro

h: some ci

rected crime series indicated that recorded crime increased slightly, though some crime categ

introduction of CCTV when crime rates w y be a lev

the mean.

luctuation remo

 seasonal v

post-implementation data set g . 

Location Camera Organization Implementation Operation 

vestig

ve Strong. Three years 

of crime data hadseasonal variation removed before trendanalysis, and pre andpost surveys wereareas. 

The Glasgow CCTV system started with a public survey that suggested strong support for the introduction of CCTV. Glasgow had, for 

many years, a re els of violence than other cities as perceived as a potential solut

as set up to fund and manage the system, when the 32 city center cameras went live there were insufficient 

support the system. Funding differences between who should pay (the public or the private sector) were never resolved. Eighteen

ere let go. 

Three public awareness and perception surveys (one pre and two post) w . The surveys found 

that fear of crime did not improve after CCTV’ as still perceived to be relatively unsafe. Concerns about 

ve slightly, but still remain higher than control areas outside the CCTV area. Support for CCTV

was still strong, but not as strong as found in other researc vil liberty concerns were voiced to researchers. Three years of crime 

data were examined. Seasonally cor ories fell. The 

ere already low suggests that the slight increase in the adjusted rate ma eling or regression to 

Research design: Strong. Surveys included control areas, and the crime data had seasonal f ved before the application of smoothing 

techniques to examine trends. Furthermore, two years of pre-implementation data enabled the estimation of ariation, and a one year

ave a better indication of longer effects

Effect on crime Effect on fear of crime Evaluation Research design 
Appendix A 53

Adequate. Crime

data examined for

26 months before,

and 15 months after, 

implementation. 

The Newcastle Upon Tyne evaluation explored the impact of 16 CCTV cameras in the center of a large city in northeast England. The city 

center area is a major entertainment district. Although the system’s funding originally came from the City Centre Partnership Security Initiative, 

the system is effectively under police control. Operators (both civilian and police) are housed in a police station, the civilian operators’ wages 

and other ongoing costs are met by the local police authority, and the camera positions were determined through crime pattern analysis. Camera 

operators have direct radio contact with patrolling police officers. 

Research design: Adequate. Incident data were examined for 20 different crime types across four areas: the CCTV area, other parts of the city 

center not covered by CCTV, a nearby residential area (no CCTV), and the whole police region. Data were collected for 26 months before, and 15 

months after, system implementation. Burglary, criminal damage, theft from vehicle, and vehicle theft all demonstrated greater reductions than in

the other areas. Charts of monthly incident counts suggest a strong initial deterrence benefit that may fade over time. There was no evidence of

displacement, but some suggestion of a diffusion of benefits. 

(Brown, 1995) Police and 

civilians

in a police

station 

No

infor mation 

available 

Reduction in

burglary (57%), theft

from vehicle (50%),

vehicle theft (47%),

and criminal damage 

(34%). Reductions 

occurred in areas

outside the CCTV

area, but not to the

same level. 

December

1992 

16 city center

cameras 

Newcastle

Upon Tyne, 

United

Kingdom 
54 Appendix A 

Research design 

Strong. Researchers 

controlled for

seasonality and used

a long-time series

before and after CCTV

implementation. 

CCTV was introduced to Airdrie, a town of about 35,000 people in central Scotland (about 15 miles east of Glasgow), as the result of a local 

initiative. Members of a local youth club suggested the idea, which was championed by a sub-divisional officer at the local police station. Funds

were raised from local councils and businesses, and 12 CCTV cameras became operational in November 1992. The monitors are based in the 

local police station and monitored by civilian employees. 

Research design: Strong. This study used 24 months of data before and after CCTV’s introduction. Seasonality was controlled for using trend

analysis software, to elicit a clearer indication of the real underlying trend in the crime level. Furthermore, the research design was able to control

for general trends across the country and the region, as well as test for displacement at the local level. General crime levels fell by 21% in the

CCTV area for the two years after CCTV installation. Some crime types (such as dishonesty) fell by 50%. Although some crime types increased,

it appears likely this was due to the increase in detections following the cameras’ introduction. Overall this study provides significant support for 

CCTV as a crime prevention measure, and the strong research design suggests the findings are robust. 

Evaluation 

(Shor t &

Ditton, 1996) 

Operation

Civilian

operators

working

at a police

station 

Effect on fear 

of crime 

No

infor mation 

available 

Effect on crime 

Overall 21%

reduction, especially

crimes of dishonesty 

and vandalism.

Some crime types

increased, but this

may be due to

increased detections. 

Implementation

November 

1992 

Camera

Organization

12 town center

cameras 

Location

Airdrie,

Scotland 
Appendix A 55

Adequate. Nearly four 

years of data were used 

for the study, but the 

data were ag g reg ated

only to monthly beat

counts. 

At the suggestion of local police, the Birmingham City Centre Association created a trust to fund a CCTV program in the city center of England’s 

second largest city. This region of low population is a significant business and entertainment area. It is also popular for demonstrations and public

meetings that require police to perform a public order function in an area of heavy vehicle and pedestrian traffic. At the time of the evaluation, 

nine cameras were installed (the number has since increased significantly). The city center’s high number of obstacles and complicated street layout 

make cameras generally less effective than in Newcastle Upon Tyne. Civilian operators, employed by the local police authority, monitor the cameras

from a central location in the police station.

Research design: Adequate. Monthly (aggregated to beats) crime data were gathered for one year before, and nearly three years after, system 

implementation. The evaluation is complicated by two factors. The target CCTV police beat had areas that were not covered by CCTV, and, 

although there were nine cameras in the initial period, two more cameras were added within a year. Robbery, burglary, and theft from person trends

remained stable, comparably better than the increase that took place in the rest of the police division. Criminal damage patterns were unchanged, 

and vehicle crime pattern changes may be more attributable to traffic calming measures introduced to the city center than CCTV. 

(Brown, 1995) Civilian staff

employed by 

the police 

A positive 

change only

in people who

were aware the

cameras had

been installed 

Apparent crime

control benefits (in

robber y, burglar y, 

and theft from

person) Possible

displacement of

robber y and theft

from person out

of the area, as well 

as displacement

of offending from

vehicle theft to

theft from vehicles. 

Some evidence of

reduced personal

victimization in

CCTV area. 

1991-1992 Nine city

center

cameras

initially 

Birmingham,

United

Kingdom 
56 Appendix A

Research design 

Not able to assess

from the information 

provided. 

This report is not a strict CCTV evaluation, but it is interesting as it reports on drug dealers’ techniques to avoid detection by CCTV in some

areas. The report authors mainly examined six London drug markets and explored ways to tackle these markets. Of the six, four (B, D, E, and F) 

employed CCTV at some point in the study. CCTV was discussed in and around markets B and E.

Market B was in a deprived inner-city area of public housing and high unemployment, known for crime, drugs, and prostitution. At the time of the 

study, the drug market had evolved to a round-the-clock market split between two main areas and operated by about six main dealers with 20-30

runners. In Market B, some dealing took place in sight of the CCTV cameras. Dealers adapted by ensuring they were either dealing on the move or 

that the cameras could not get a good view of them. As the report states, “CCTV was thought to have helped increase the speed and ingenuity of 

the drug transaction” (p.16-17).

Market E, centered at a train station, was a well-established and accessible drug market in an area with high pedestrian traffic. Local authorities

employed CCTV and covert surveillance (using video evidence where necessary) in the area. The impact of CCTV is difficult to gauge as 

these situational measures were introduced along with a local arrest strategy: targeting hotels known for drug selling, litter and debris removal, 

restrictions on licenses for fast food outlets, and other measures. 

The report focused on site assessments, interviews with drug market users (about 30 interviews per site), and interviews with local drug workers 

and police. The findings are therefore anecdotal rather than quantitative. The authors report that in Market D, an inner-city area of shops, fast 

food outlets, and mixed private/public housing, the introduction of a single camera caused the drug market to disperse and client contact for local

outreach workers to drop to 20% of former levels. In Market B, dealing disappeared from the CCTV surveillance area. 

Evaluation 

(Edmunds et

al., 1996) 

Operation

No

infor mation 

available 

Effect on fear 

of crime 

No

infor mation 

available 

Effect on crime 

Effective in

dispersing drug 

markets in two 

areas. In a third,

users appear to

have adapted to the

cameras’ presence. 

Implementation

1990s 

Camera

Organization

Four different

dr ug markets. 

Camera

org anization 

ch a n g e d by s it e. 

Location

London 
Appendix A 57

Weak. The evaluation 

was limited to cameras

overlooking car parks

only. The number of 

crime events is low,

limiting the application

of any statistical

measures. 

King’s Lynn is a market town about 90 miles north of London. Initial public area cameras were installed as early as 1987, and the system is welldeveloped and extensive. System funding has come from a variety of sources, including a tariff on area parking charges and increases in rent for

public housing tenants and charges at a local sports center. At the time of the report, the cameras were monitored by civilian operators based at a

local council office. These operators were in telephone contact with the local police station.

Research design: Weak. Although the city center area had 60 cameras at the time of the report, the evaluation examined the impact of only 19 

cameras in and around public car parks. These locations are likely to be non-contiguous and may also be surveilled by other cameras. Crime data 

were gathered for about one year before, and about two years after, system implementation. The number of crime events is low, limiting the 

application of any statistical measures. Different scales used on many charts make comparisons between the limited CCTV areas and the wider

police division and police force area impractical. The evidence suggests that vehicle crime continued to decline at a more significant rate compared

to the surrounding police division. Burglary also reduced in the evaluated CCTV area. Within two years, vehicle crime in the camera areas declined

to nearly zero. 

(Brown, 1995) Civilian No

infor mation 

available 

Vehicle crime

continued ongoing 

reduction, and

reduced at a more

significant rate

compared to the

surrounding police

division. Burglary 

reduced in the

evaluated CCTV area.

Within two years,

vehicle crime in the

camera areas declined

to nearly zero. 

1987-1994 60 cameras

around the

town 

King’s Lynn, 

United

Kingdom 

Appendix B 59 

Appendix B 

During the writing of this report, a large UK Home 

Office study was published (Gill & Spriggs, 2005). This 

study evaluated 13 CCTV projects comprising 14 separate 

systems. The systems were implemented in a variety of 

ways, including at public car parks, in town centers, in 

residential areas and housing estates, and in hospital areas. 

Furthermore the systems varied in type. Some were fixed, 

others redeployable. Some were digital, others analogue. 

Some were monitored full time, others for less than 24 

hours a day. The variations in the system therefore had 

an impact on the success of the system. The table below 

aims to concisely summarize the ten systems relevant to 

this report. 

Research design: Strong. Police recorded crime statistics 

were examined in both the target area and the comparison 

areas. Some projects were also evaluated for displacement 

effects. Where possible (as was the case in nearly all 

studies) at least one to two years of pre-and postintervention crime data were gathered. Time-series 

techniques were used to control for seasonal fluctuations. 

In 12 of the areas, public attitude surveys explored the 

public’s perceptions of the CCTV systems and fear of 

crime. Researchers also identified other crime prevention 

measures taking place in the evaluation areas so the 

individual contribution of CCTV could be explored. 

Please note that in the original report the names of the 

locations were changed to preserve anonymity. 
60 Appendix B 

Location Camera organization Effect on crime Effect on fear of crime 

City outskirts 47 cameras installed in a

deprived area of residential,

park, hospital, and light

industrial land use. 

Significant reduction in crime. 14% fewer respondents reported being worried about crime after CCTV

installation. Other measures less clear. 

South City 51 cameras added to an existing

system in a mixed affluent/

deprived city center area in

southern England. 

10% reduction in crime, though 

there was a 12% reduction in

the control area with no CCTV. 

Increased public order. 

About 7% fewer respondents reported 

being worried about crime after CCTV

installation. 

Shire Town 12 cameras installed in the town 

center of a Midlands former 

mining town. 

Crime reduced 4% in the town, 

while it increased 3% in the

control site. 

12% fewer respondents at night and 4%

during the day reported being worried

about crime after CCTV installation.

Greater reduction at night in control

area. 

Market Town Nine evaluated cameras. two new 

cameras, with further cameras

added to an existing system, in the

center of an affluent market town. 

Crime increased 18% in the town,

while only increasing 3% in the

comparison site. 

No information available. 

Borough Town 40 new cameras installed in a small town center aiming to reduce

retail crime, alcohol problems, and 

criminal damage. 

No change in crime in the town

center, while crime increased 14%

in the comparison area. 

Fear of crime reduced. 
Appendix B 61

Northern Estate 11 new cameras introduced to a

deprived public housing project in

northern England. 

Crime decreased by 10% in the 

target area (especially burglary).

Crime in the comparison area

increased by 21%. 

3% fewer respondents reported being 

worried about crime after CCTV

installation. Similar reductions in

control area. 

Eastcap Estate 12 new cameras (10 evaluated) 

implemented into a deprived 

public housing project in

southeast England. 

Crime increased in the target area,

but only by 2% compared to a 5%

increase in the control site. Some

displacement within the target area. 

3% increase in feelings of safety, 

matched with a similar level in control 

areas. 

Dual Estate 14 cameras (10 evaluated) installed

to three areas of a deprived public

housing project in southeast

England. 

Crime increased 4% in the

target area, and decreased 19%

in the control area, suggesting a

statistically significant difference. 

About 9-10% fewer respondents reported 

being worried about crime after CCTV

installation. Significantly better findings

than in control area. 

Borough Eight new cameras used in a

redeployable system which could 

be attached to any lamp post

across a mixed/affluent residential

area of southeast England. 

Crime increased by 73% in the 

target area, a statistically significant

difference from the more modest

12% increase in the control area. 

No information available. 

Deploy Estate 11 new redeployable cameras

implemented to different areas of

a deprived public housing project. 

A 21% increase in crime recorded

in the housing estate, compared to

only a 3% increase in the control

area. 

A slight improvement in those worried 

about crime in one area of the project

compared to the comparison area. No

change in the other area. 

Endnotes 63 

Endnotes

 1 Usher (2003a). 2 Goold (2004: 12). 3

 A pixel is an abbreviation of picture element. Pixel

resolution refers to the quality of an image. For example, 

a digital camera with a resolution of 640 x 480 pixels 

(640 pixels wide by 480 pixels high) will record a better 

quality image than a camera with a resolution of 320 

x 240 pixels. Higher resolution images are generally of 

better quality, but increased storage capacity is required 

for better quality recording.

4 Leman-Langlois (2002). 5 Surette (2005). 6

 Clarke and Cornish (1985). 7

 Ditton, Short, Phillips, Norris, and Armstrong (1999: 24). 8

 Honess and Charman (1992: 6). 9

 Short and Ditton (1998). 

10 Usher (2003b).

11 See Makkai, Ratcliffe, Veraar, and Collins (2004). It could 

also be argued that this worked only in a city that was 

geographically isolated, such that a rapid replacement of 

prolific offenders was not possible. 

12 Edmunds, Hough, and Urquia (1996).

13 Poyner (1988).

14 Welsh and Farrington (2004).

15 Squires (2000).

16 Brown (1995: 7).

17 Brown (1995: 14).

18 Harris, Jones, Hillier, and Turner (1998).

19 For example, see Clarke and Weisburd (1994), Green

(1995), Ratcliffe and Makkai (2004).

20 For example, see Ratcliffe (2002). 

21 Edmunds et al (1996: 16-17). 
64 Video Surveillance of Public Places

22 Honess and Charman (1992: 17)

23 Winge and Knutsson (2003).

24 For example, see Honess and Charman (1992).

25 Edmunds et al. (1996: 27).

26 McCoppin (2002).

27 48.4% said they had reported the crime to the

police. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002, Criminal 

Victimization in the United States, Table 91. 

28 Brown (1995: 59); Short and Ditton (1998). 

29 Phillips (1999).

30 Welsh and Farrington (2002, 2004). 

31 Gill and Spriggs (2005) and see Appendix B. 

32 And as the report authors note, “in one of these cases 

the change could be explained by the presence of 

confounding variables.” 33 See www.popcenter.org for more information on the 

SARA model. 

34 Bennett and Gelsthorpe (1996: 87). 

35 You should consider the potential liability issues in the 

section “How CCTV aims to prevent crime.” 

36 Davies (1996). 

37 For example, see Cavoukian (2001). 

38 Mazerolle, Hurley, and Chamlin (2002). 

39 For readers unaware of crime mapping, the website 

of the National Institute of Justice Mapping and 

Analysis for Public Safety (MAPS) program offers a 

good introduction to the concept (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ 

nij/maps). The reader is also directed to Chainey and 

Ratcliffe (2005).

40 Bodipo-Memba (2004).

41 When a system is monitored by the police officer 

in charge of a station front desk, the system is not 

monitored when the officer attends to a police station 

visitor (Leman-Langlois, 2002). 42 Bodipo-Memba (2004). 
Appendix Endnotes 65 

43 Smithson (2004).

44 Ditton et al. (1999: 8).

45 Gill and Loveday (2003).

46 Goold (2004).

47 Goold (2004: 180).

48 See Tilley (1997).

49 Norris and Armstrong (1999).

50 Orwell (1949).

51 House of Representatives (2002).

52 Goold (2004: 86).

53 389 U.S. 347. 

54 For a detailed discussion of various cases, see Hickey, 

Capsambelis, and LaRose (2003: 549). 

55 Harris et al. (1998).

56 Hamilton (2004).

57 Leman-Langlois (2002). 58 Surette (2005).

59 The authors of a recent UK Home Office study said: 

“The most obvious conclusion to be drawn from the 

analysis in this chapter is that CCTV is an ineffective 

tool if the aim is to reduce overall crime rates and 

make people feel safer. The CCTV systems installed 

in 14 areas mostly failed to reduce crime (with a 

single exception), mostly failed to allay public fear of 

crime (with three exceptions) and the vast majority of 

specific aims set for the various CCTV schemes were 

not achieved. Despite all this we are reluctant to draw 

the simple conclusion that it failed.” (Gill and Spriggs, 

2005: 61).

60 Ditton et al. (1999: 61).

61 Home Office (1994).

62 Koskela (2000). 

63 This is not to suggest or imply an inappropriate 

behavior on the evaluator’s part. Simply, the evaluator’s 

impartiality cannot be guaranteed and, therefore, the 

evaluation was excluded. 

References 67 

References 

Armitage, R., G. Smyth, and K. Pease (1999). “Burnley 

CCTV Evaluation.” In N. Tilley (ed.), Surveillance of 

Public Space: CCTV, Street Lighting and Crime Prevention, 

Vol. 10. Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press. 

Bennett, T., and L. Gelsthorpe (1996). “Public Attitudes 

Towards CCTV in Public Places.” Studies on Crime and 

Crime Prevention 5(1):72-90. 

Bodipo-Memba, A. (2004). “Fighting Blight in Southwest 

Detroit.” Detroit Free Press. Apr. 19. 

Bowers, K. J., and S. D. Johnson (2003). “Measuring the 

Geographical Displacement and Diffusion of Benefit 

Effects of Crime Prevention Activity.” Journal of 

Quantitative Criminology 19(3):275-301. 

Brown, B. (1995). CCTV in Town Centres: Three Case Studies. 

Crime Detection and Prevention Series, Paper 68. London: 

Home Office. 

Cavoukian, A. (2001). Guidelines for Using Video Surveillance 

Cameras in Public Places. Toronto: Information and 

Privacy Commissioner. 

Chainey, S. P., and J.H. Ratcliffe (2005). GIS and Crime 

Mapping. London: Wiley and Sons. 

Clarke, R. V., and D. B. Cornish (1985). “Modeling 

Offenders’ Decisions: A Framework for Research 

and Policy.” In N. Morris (ed.), Crime and Justice: An 

Annual Review of Research, Vol. 6. Chicago: University 

of Chicago Press. 
68 Video Surveillance of Public Places

Clarke, R. V., and D. Weisburd (1994). “Diffusion of 

Crime Control Benefits.” In R. V. Clarke (ed.), Crime 

Prevention Studies, Vol. 2. Monsey (New York): Criminal 

Justice Press. 

Davies, S. G. (1996). “The Case Against: CCTV Should 

Not be Introduced.” International Journal of Risk, Security 

and Crime Prevention 1(4):327-331. 

Ditton, J., E. Short, S. Phillips, C. Norris, and G. 

Armstrong (1999). The Effect of Closed Circuit Television 

on Recorded Crime Rates and Public Concern about Crime in 

Glasgow (Final report). Edinburgh: The Scottish Office. 

Edmunds, M., M. Hough, and N. Urquia (1996). Tackling 

Local Drug Markets. Crime Detection and Prevention Series, 

Paper 80. London: Home Office. 

Flight, S., Y. v. Heerwaarden, and P. v. Soomeren (2003). 

“Does CCTV Displace Crime? An Evaluation of the 

Evidence and a Case Study from Amsterdam.” In M. 

Gill (ed.), CCTV. Leicester: Perpetuity Press. 

Gill, M., and K. Loveday, K (2003). “What do Offenders 

Think about CCTV?” Crime Prevention and Community 

Safety: An International Journal 5(3):17-25. 

Gill, M., and A. Spriggs (2005). Assessing the Impact of 

CCTV. Home Office Research Study, Number 292. 

London: Home Office Research, Development and 

Statistics Directorate. 

Goold, B. J. (2004). CCTV and Policing: Public Area 

Surveillance and Police Practices in Britain. Oxford: Oxford 

University Press. 
References 69 

Green, L. (1995). “Cleaning Up Drug Hot Spots in 

Oakland, California: The Displacement and Diffusion 

Effects.” Justice Quarterly 12(4):737-754. 

Griffith, M. (n.d.). Town Centre CCTV: An Examination 

of Crime Reduction in Gillingham, Kent. University of 

Reading, Accessible at www.crimereduction.gov.uk/ 

cctv33.pdf. 

Hamilton, B. (2004). “Hidden Eyes of Our Apple: No 

Escaping City Security Cameras.” The New York Post, 

May 2, p. 5. 

Harada, Y., S. Yonezato, M. Suzuki, T. Shimada, S. Era, 

and T. Saito (2004). Examining Crime Prevention Effects 

of CCTV in Japan. Paper presented at the American 

Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Nov. 17-20, 

Nashville, Tennessee. 

Harris, C., P. Jones, D. Hillier, and D. Turner (1998). 

“CCTV Surveillance Systems in Town and City Centre 

Management.” Property Management 16(3):160-165. 

Hickey, T. J., C. Capsambelis, and A. LaRose (2003). 

“Constitutional Issues in the Use of Video 

Surveillance in Public Places.” Criminal Law Bulletin 

39(5):547-568. 

Home Office (1994). CCTV: Looking Out For You. London: 

Home Office. 

Honess, T., and E. Charman (1992). Closed Circuit Television 

in Public Places. Police Research Group: Crime 

Prevention Unit Series, Number 35. London: Home 

Office. 
70 Video Surveillance of Public Places

Hood, J. (2003). “Closed Circuit Television Systems: 

A Failure in Risk Communication?” Journal of Risk 

Research 6(3):233-251. 

House of Representatives (2002). Privacy v. Security: 

Electronic Surveillance in the Nation’s Capital (Hearing 

107-166). Washington D.C.: Committee on 

Government Reform: Subcommittee on the District 

of Columbia. 

Koskela, H. (2000). “‘The Gaze Without Eyes’: Video 

Surveillance and the Changing Nature of Urban 

Space.” Progress in Human Geography 24(2):243-265. 

Leman-Langlois, S. (2002). “The Myopic Panopticon: The 

Social Consequences of Policing Through the Lens.” 

Policing and Society 13(1):43-58. 

Makkai, T., J. H. Ratcliffe, K. Veraar, and L. Collins 

(2004). ACT Recidivist Offenders. Research and Public 

Policy Series, 54:83. 

Mazerolle, L., D. Hurley, and M. Chamlin (2002). “Social 

Behavior in Public Space: An Analysis of Behavioral 

Adaptations to CCTV.” Security Journal 15(3):59-75. 

McCoppin, R. (2002). “Illinois Focuses on Safety with 

Cameras at Rest Stops.” Chicago Daily Herald, Aug. 26, 

p. 11.

Norris, C., and G. Armstrong (1999). The Maximum 

Surveillance Society. New York: Berg. 

Orwell, G. (1949) Nineteen Eighty-Four, a Novel. London: 

Secker and Warburg. 
References 71 

Phillips, C. (1999). “A Review of CCTV Evaluations: 

Crime Reduction Effects and Attitudes Towards its 

Use. In N. Tilley (ed.), Surveillance of Public Space: 

CCTV, Street Lighting and Crime Prevention, Vol. 10. 

Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press. 

Poyner, B. (1988). “Video Cameras and Bus Vandalism.” 

Journal of Security Administration 11(2):44-51. 

Poyner, B. (1999). “Situational Crime Prevention in Two 

Parking Facilities.” Security Journal 2(2):96-101. 

Ratcliffe, J. H. (2002). “Burglary Reduction and the 

Myth of Displacement.” Trends and Issues in Crime and 

Criminal Justice, No. 232, 6. 

Ratcliffe, J. H., and T. Makkai (2004). “Diffusion of 

Benefits: Evaluating a Policing Operation.” Trends and 

Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 278:1-6. 

Sarno, C., M. Hough, and M. Bulos (1999). Developing a 

Picture of CCTV in Southwark Town Centres: Final Report. 

London: Criminal Policy Research Unit, South Bank 

University. 

Short, E., and J. Ditton (1996). Does Closed Circuit Television 

Prevent Crime? An Evaluation of the Use of CCTV 

Surveillance Cameras in Airdrie Town Centre. Edinburgh: 

The Scottish Office Central Research Unit. 

Short, E., and J. Ditton (1998). “Seen and Now Heard -

Talking to the Targets of Open Street CCTV.” British 

Journal of Criminology 38(3):404-428. 
72 Video Surveillance of Public Places

Sivarajasingam, V., J. P. Shepherd, and K. Matthews (2003). 

“Effect of Urban Closed Circuit Television on Assault 

Injury and Violence Detection.” Injury Prevention 

9(4):312-316. 

Smithson, S. (2004). “Peeping Bob: Soulard Residents 

Worry Big Brother Will Come Knocking with 

Krailberg’s Camera Plan.” Riverfront Times. Apr. 21. 

Squires, P. (1998). An Evaluation of the Ilford Town Centre 

CCTV System. Brighton (United Kingdom): Health and 

Social Policy Research Centre. 

Squires, P. (2000). CCTV and Crime Reduction in Crawley: 

Follow-up Study 2000. Brighton (United Kingdom): 

Health and Social Policy Research Centre. 

Squires, P. (2003). An Independent Evaluation of the 

Installation of CCTV Cameras for Crime Prevention in 

the Whitehawk Estate, Brighton. Brighton (United 

Kingdom): Health and Social Policy Research Centre. 

Surette, R. (2005). “The Thinking Eye: Pros and Cons 

of Second Generation CCTV Surveillance Systems.” 

Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and 

Management 28(1):152-173. 

Tilley, N. (1997). “Whys and Wherefores in Evaluating the 

Effectiveness of CCTV.” International Journal of Risk, 

Security and Crime Prevention 2(3):175-185. 

Usher, N. (2003a). “Video Surveillance Comes to Big 

Easy.” San Diego Union-Tribune, Aug. 24, p. A14. 

Usher, N. (2003b). “Who’s Watching You?” Times-Picayune, 

Aug. 9, p. 1. 
References 73 

Welsh, B. C., and D. P. Farrington (2002). Crime Prevention 

Effects of Closed Circuit Television: A Systematic Review. 

Home Office Research Study, Number 252. London: 

Home Office Research, Development and Statistics 

Directorate. 

Welsh, B. C., and D. P. Farrington (2004). “Surveillance for 

Crime Prevention in Public Space: Results and Policy 

Choices in Britain and America.” Criminology and Public 

Policy 3(3):497-526. 

Winge, S., and J. Knutsson (2003). “An Evaluation of the 

CCTV Scheme at Oslo Central Railway Station.” Crime 

Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal 

5(3):49-59. 

About the Author 75 

About the Author 

Jerry H. Ratcliffe 

Jerry H. Ratcliffe is an associate professor of criminal justice at 

Temple University, Philadelphia. He is a former police officer with the 

Metropolitan Police (London) but became an academic after 11 years 

service as a result of a winter mountaineering accident that curtailed 

his police career. Dr. Ratcliffe has held positions as a lecturer in 

policing (intelligence) with Charles Sturt University at the New South 

Wales Police College in Australia, and as a senior research analyst with 

the Australian Institute of Criminology. He holds a Bachelor's degree 

in geography from the University of Nottingham, a Ph.D. that focused 

on spatial and temporal crime analysis techniques (also Nottingham), 

and is a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society. 

Recommended Readings 77 

Recommended Readings 

• A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their 

Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This 

guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners 

to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying 

public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It 

provides guidance on whether and how to conduct costeffective surveys. 

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An 

Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers,

by John E. Eck (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide 

is a companion to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series. 

It provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing 

problem-oriented policing efforts. 

• Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel 

(Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with 

accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic 

pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The 

document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs. 

• Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 

(Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of 

volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing 

opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of 

initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems. 
78 Video Surveillance of Public Places

• Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing: The 

1999 Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This 

document produced by the National Institute of Justice 

in collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum 

provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the 

annual award program that recognizes exemplary problemoriented responses to various community problems. A 

similar publication is available for the award winners from 

subsequent years. The documents are also available at 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

• Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime 

Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office 

Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and 

describes the factors that make problem-solving effective 

or ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in 

England and Wales. 

• Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory 

for Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. 

Clarke (Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98, 

1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity 

theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory 

have practical implications for the police in their efforts to 

prevent crime. 

• Problem Analysis in Policing, by Rachel Boba (Police 

Foundation, 2003). Introduces and defines problem 

analysis and provides guidance on how problem analysis 

can be integrated and institutionalized into modern 

policing practices. 
Recommended Readings 79 

• Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein 

(McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990). 

Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented 

policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses 

how a police agency can implement the concept. 

• Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention, 

by Anthony A. Braga (Criminal Justice Press, 2003). 

Provides a thorough review of significant policing research 

about problem places, high-activity offenders, and repeat 

victims, with a focus on the applicability of those findings 

to problem-oriented policing. Explains how police 

departments can facilitate problem-oriented policing by 

improving crime analysis, measuring performance, and 

securing productive partnerships. 

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the 

First 20 Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

2000). Describes how the most critical elements of 

Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have 

developed in practice over its 20-year history, and proposes 

future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report 

is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

• Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in 

Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman 

(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the 

rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the 

problem-solving process, and provides examples of 

effective problem-solving in one agency. 
80 Video Surveillance of Public Places

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing 

Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving 

Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott 

Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 1998) (also available at www.cops.usdoj. 

gov). Provides a brief introduction to problem-solving, 

basic information on the SARA model and detailed 

suggestions about the problem-solving process. 

• Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case 

Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 

(Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and 

methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over 

20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives. 

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: 

Case Studies in Problem-Solving, by Rana Sampson 

and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000) (also available 

at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case studies of effective 

police problem-solving on 18 types of crime and disorder 

problems. 

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook 

for Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for 

police to analyzing problems within the context of 

problem-oriented policing. 

• Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement 

Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G. 

LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains 

many of the basics of research as it applies to police 

management and problem-solving. 
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 81 

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides series: 

1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2 

2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0 

3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-02-9 

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. 

Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7 

5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5 

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-05-3 

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1 

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-07-X 

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8 

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. 

Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6 

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X 

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8 

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6 

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4 

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-14-2 

16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-15-0 

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-16-9 

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7 

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5 
82 Video Surveillance of Public Places

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. 

Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3 

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4 

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-30-4 

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. 

Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2 

24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-33-9 

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004 ISBN: 1-932582-35-3 

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glesnor and Kenneth J. Peak. 

2004 ISBN: 1-932582-36-3 

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004 ISBN: 1-932582-39-8 

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-42-8 

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-43-6 

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X 

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike 

Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2 

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0 

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-47-9 

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-50-9 

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7 

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. 

Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6 

37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006 ISBN: 1932582-56-8 
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 83 

Response Guides series: 

• The Benefits and Consequences of Police 

Crackdowns. 

Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X 

• Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should 

You Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X 

• Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-55-X 

• Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 

2006 ISBN: 1-932582-58-4 

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3 

• Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. 

Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7 

• Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem 

Solving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1932582-49-5 

• Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm 

Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1 

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides 

Domestic Violence 

Mentally Ill Persons 

Student Party Disturbances on College Campuses 

Bank Robbery 

Witness Intimidation 

Drive-by Shootings 
84 Video Surveillance of Public Places

The Exploitation of Trafficked Women 

Problem with Day Laborer Sites 

Child Pornography on the Internet 

Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues 

Traffic Congestion Around Schools 

Theft from Construction Sites of Single Family Houses 

Robbery of Convenience Stores 

Theft from Cars on Streets 

Problem-Solving Tools 

Partnering with Business to Address Public Safety Problems 

Risky Facilities 

Implementing Responses to Problems 

Designing a Problem Analysis System 

Response Guides 

Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns 

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 

Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call 

the Department of Justice Response Center at 800.421.6770 

or visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 



FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the 

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below. 

e02061006 

ISBN: 1-932582-58-4 

 February 1, 2006 

www.cops.usdoj.gov