Presentation on theme: "Technological Innovations in Crime Prevention Global Perspectives on CCTV: What Does the Research Reveal? Professor James Byrne Director, Global Centre."— Presentation transcript:
1Technological Innovations in Crime Prevention Global Perspectives on CCTV: What Does the Research Reveal?Professor James ByrneDirector, Global Centre for Evidence-based Corrections and SentencingSchool of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith UniversityJessica Ritchie, Research Fellow, GCECSSafeCity Conference, Ipswich, Queensland, 11 June, 2014
2WEBPAGE: WWW.GCECS.EDU.AU (1) High Quality Corrections and Sentencing Research Agenda- the Centre will develop research projects focusing on evaluating the impact of current corrections and sentencing strategies (adult/juvenile) in Queensland, throughout Australia, and internationally.(2) Knowledge Exchange Seminars and Systematic, Evidence -based Policy Reviews -To translate research into practice, the Centre will develop a series of executive session seminars and workshops highlighting corrections and sentencing issues in each global region.(3) Global Evidence-based Corrections and Sentencing Network Development: The Centre—through the Centre’s state of the art website-- will become a global clearinghouse for high quality, evidence-based corrections research, and a primary source of information on global corrections performance, and innovative corrections and sentencing policies and practices.WEBPAGE:
3Presentation Overview New Technology of Crime Prevention: CCTV in Global ContextImpact of New Technology: Global Research ReviewThe Future of CCTV: Three Issues To Consider
4CCTV Applications around the Globe CCTV in the United StatesCCTV In UK and EuropeCCTV in ChinaCCTV in Australia
5The New Technology of Crime Prevention: CCTV Applications Hard TechnologyCCTV & policeCCTV & private sectorCCTV & public sectorCCTV & street lightingSoft TechnologyGunshot location & CCTVFacial recognition & CCTVFlash mobs & CCTV
6Does CCTV Technology reduce crime? Four Research Issues to consider:Research on the reliability of the technology?Training on the use of technology?Research on the impact of the technology on key outcome measures?Cost effectiveness of technology acquisition?
7Evidence of Impact of CCTV Technology on Crime National Research Council review of police performance (2004) in the United States revealed that there was no evidence of improved performance linked to recent police innovations, including CCTV (and other recent innovations).Campbell Collaborative Evidence-Based Review of CCTV by Welsh and Farrington (2008) revealed selected crime prevention effects, which varied within and across global regions.Our review of the recent research underscores the need for quality research that is high quality and Australia-based.
8Welsh, B. C. & Farrington, D. P. (2008) Welsh, B.C. & Farrington, D.P. (2008). Effects of closed circuit television surveillance on crime. Campbell Systematic Review.LocationUKUSSwedenNorwayCanadaTotalCity and Town Centres1731-22Public Housing729Public Transport4Car Parks6Other Settings44Forty-four evaluations met the inclusion criteria. The results suggest that CCTV caused a modest (16%) but significant decrease in crime in experimental areas compared with control areas. This overall result was largely driven by the effectiveness of CCTV schemes in car parks, which caused a 51% decrease in crime. Schemes in most other public settings had small and nonsignificant effects on crime: a 7% decrease in city and town centers and in public housing communities. Public transport schemes had greater effects (a 23% decrease overall), but these were still nonsignificant. Schemes evaluated in the UK were more effective than schemes evaluated in the USA and other countries, but this was largely driven by the studies in the car parks.
9CCTV evaluations of City and Town Centres Brown (1995)Newcastle-Upon-TyneUKUndesirable effect.Some displacement and diffusion occurred.BirminghamDesirable effect.Displacement occurred.Sarno (1996)London Borough of SuttonDisplacement/diffusion not measured.Skinns (1998)DoncasterNo displacement occurred.Squires (1998)IlfordArmitage (1999)BurnleyDiffusion occurred.Ditton (1999)AirdrieSarno (1999)London Borough of Southwark (Elephant and Castle)Null effect.Possible evidence of diffusion.London Borough of Southwark (Camberwell)London Borough of Southwark (East Street)Uncertain effect.No diffusion; possible functional displacement occurred.7% decrease in city and town centers and in public housing communities
10CCTV evaluations of City and Town Centres Mazerolle (2002)Cincinnati (Northside)USNull effect.Little or no displacement occurred.Cincinnati (Hopkins Park)Displacement/diffusion not measured.Cincinnati (Findlay Market)Some displacement occurred.Blixt (2003)Malmö (Möllevångstorget or Möllevång Sqaure)SwedenDesirable effect.No displacement occurred.Sivarajasingam (2003)Multiple city and town centresUKUndesirable effect.Winge (2003)OsloNorwayGill (2005)Borough TownMarket TownShire TownSouth CityFarrington (2007a)CambridgeGriffiths (no date)Gillingham
11CCTV evaluations of public housing Musheno (1978)Bronxdale HousesNew York City USUncertain effect.Displacement/diffusion not measured.Williamson (2000)BrooklynNew York USNull effect.Displacement and diffusion did not occur.Hood (2003)Greater Easterhouse Housing EstateGlasgow UKDesirable effect.Gill (2005)Deploy EstateUKUndesirable effect.No displacement occurred.Dual EstateSouthcap EstateEastcap EstateNorthern EstateWestcap Estate7% decrease in city and town centers and in public housing communities
12CCTV evaluations of public transport Burrows (1979)“Underground” subway LondonUKDesirable effect.Some displacement occurred.Webb (1992)Diffusion occurred.Oxford Circus station “Underground” subwayUndesirable effect.Displacement/diffusion not measured.Grandmaison (1997)“Metro” subway MontrealCanadaNull effect.Public transport schemes had greater effects (a 23% decrease overall), but these were still nonsignificant
13CCTV evaluations of car parks Poyner (1991)University of SurreyGuildford UKUndesirable effect.Diffusion occurred.Tilley (1993)HartlepoolUKDesirable effect.Displacement occurred.BradfordDisplacement/diffusion not measured.CoventrySarno (1996)London Borough of SuttonGill (2005)Hawkeye UKThis overall result was largely driven by the effectiveness of CCTV schemes in car parks, which caused a 51% decrease in crime
14CCTV evaluations in other settings Gill (2005)City Outskirts (residential area)UKDesirable effect.No displacement occurred.Borough (residential area)Undesirable effect.City Hospital
15CCTV evaluations of public space (POST Welsh & Farrington) Ratcliffe & Taniguchi (2008)Ratcliffe, Taniguchi, & Taylor (2009)Philadelphia PA, USReduction in crime but there were sites that showed decrease and others with no impact.Caplan, Kennedy, & Petrossian (2011)Newark, NJUSStatistically significant reduction in auto thefts, no significant displacement, small diffusion of benefits.Park, Oh, & Paek (2012)South KoreaReduction in number of robberies and thefts in areas with CCTV installed, no displacement effect found.McLean, Worden, & Kim (2013)SchenectadyNew York USSuggested that cameras have had effects on crime, and visibility of cameras is associated with its impact on crime and disorder.Cerezo (2013)SpainNo significant reduction in crime and there was a small increase in crime to suggest displacement for property crimes (not crimes against the person).Lim, Kim, Eck, & Kim (2013)No statistically significant reduction in crime or disorder, but depends on the location. Results showed diffusion of benefits were higher in serious crimes than in disorder crimes.
16Assessing the Impact of CCTV Technology on Crime and Justice: Three Critical Issues to Consider in AustraliaIs CCTV a technology in search of a program?Why have high quality evaluation of CCTV systems in Australia not been completed to date?Does Australia need to conduct its own RCT of the impact of CCTV on crime?
17Contact information Professor James Byrne Jessica Ritchie