MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2188340366 · doi:10.4073/csr.2008.17

Effects of Closed Circuit Television Surveillance on Crime

2008· article· en· W2188340366 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCampbell Systematic Reviews · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Institute of CriminologyCommunity Oriented Policing ServicesU.S. Department of Justice
KeywordsCrime preventionFencingProperty crimeClosed circuitCriminologyViolent crimeBusinessAdvertisingComputer securityEngineeringPsychologyComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of closed circuit television (CCTV) on property crime and violent crime. The review reports on whether using CCTV results in crime displacement, and also assesses whether using CCTV leads to the spread of crime prevention benefits. The authors found 44 evaluations. The studies were from the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada, Norway and Sweden. Most of the studies (34) were from the United Kingdom. CCTV has a modest impact on crime. Effectiveness varies across settings. Surveillance is more effective at preventing crime in car parks, and less effective in city and town centers, public housing, and public transport. CCTV appears most effective in car parks at reducing vehicle crimes such as thefts from cars or stealing cars. The effectiveness of CCTV surveillance is greater when camera coverage of an area is high. CCTV surveillance does not have an effect on levels of violent crime. In all six of the CCTV car park studies, CCTV surveillance was an element in a broader package of crime prevention measures, such as extra security guards, better lighting, and fencing. It is not possible to assess the independent effects of each of these different components. The available evidence does not allow a conclusion as to whether CCTV leads to a displacement of crime or a diffusion of crime prevention benefits to other areas. Abstract Background In recent years, there has been a marked and sustained growth in the use of CCTV to prevent crime in public space in the U.K., United States, and other Western nations. In the U.K., CCTV is the single most heavily funded crime prevention measure operating outside of the criminal justice system. A key issue is how far funding for CCTV has been based on high quality scientific evidence demonstrating its efficacy in preventing crime. There is concern that this funding has been based partly on a handful of apparently successful schemes that were usually evaluated with less than rigorous designs, done with varying degrees of competence, and done with varying degrees of professional independence from government. Recent reviews that have examined the effectiveness of CCTV against crime have also noted the need for high quality, independent evaluation research. Objectives The main objective of this review is to assess the available research evidence on the effects of CCTV surveillance cameras on crime in public space. In addition to assessing the overall impact of CCTV on crime, this review will also investigate in which settings, against which crimes, and under what conditions it is most effective. Search strategy Four search strategies were employed to identify studies meeting the criteria for inclusion in this review: (1) searches of electronic bibliographic databases; (2) searches of literature reviews on the effectiveness of CCTV in preventing crime; (3) searches of bibliographies of CCTV studies; and (4) contacts with leading researchers. Both published and unpublished reports were considered in the searches. Searches were international in scope and were not limited to the English language. Selection criteria Studies that investigated the effects of CCTV on crime were included. For studies involving one or more other interventions, only those studies in which CCTV was the main intervention were included. Studies were included if they had, at a minimum, an evaluation design that involved before‐and‐after measures of crime in experimental and control areas. There needed to be at least one experimental area and one reasonably comparable control area. Data collection & analysis Narrative findings are reported for the 44 studies included in this review. A meta‐analysis of 41 of these 44 studies was carried out; the requisite crime data was missing in other 3 studies. The “relative effect size” or RES (which can be interpreted as an incident rate ratio) was used to measure effect size. Results are reported for total crime and, where possible, property and violent crime categories using (mostly) official data. In the case of studies that measure the impact of CCTV programs on crime at multiple points in time, similar time periods before and after are compared (as far as possible). The review also reports on displacement of crime and diffusion of crime prevention benefits. Main results The studies included in this systematic review indicate that CCTV has a modest but significant desirable effect on crime, is most effective in reducing crime in car parks, is most effective when targeted at vehicle crimes (largely a function of the successful car park schemes), and is more effective in reducing crime in the U.K. than in other countries. Reviewers’ conclusions We conclude that CCTV surveillance should continue to be used to prevent crime in public space, but that it be more narrowly targeted than its present use would indicate. Future CCTV schemes should employ high‐quality evaluation designs with long follow‐up periods.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it