Date:
This program consists of installing closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras, to deter crime in five cities in England. The program is rated Promising. Intervention sites that installed CCTV cameras experienced a statistically significant reduction in assault-related emergency department visits, compared with control sites that did not install CCTV cameras. However, there was no statistically significant difference between intervention and control sites in police-reported violent offenses.
A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).
This program's rating is based on evidence that includes either 1) one study conducted in multiple sites; or 2) two or three studies, each conducted at a different site. Learn about how we make the multisite determination.
A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).
This program's rating is based on evidence that includes either 1) one study conducted in multiple sites; or 2) two or three studies, each conducted at a different site. Learn about how we make the multisite determination.
Program Goals/Components
The goal of closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras is to conduct surveillance of public areas to prevent crime and disorder. CCTV cameras were installed in five urban center entertainment districts that attract economic activity at night and relatively high pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The towns and cities were Ashford, Eastbourne, Lincoln, Newport (Isle of Wight), and Peterborough. Cameras were installed to reduce crime and ran 24 hours a day.
In all but Eastbourne—where the police installed the cameras—the cameras were installed by the local council. These systems were linked with the police through dedicated telephone lines in the CCTV control rooms. Any actions taken as a result of information on assaults or precursors to violence were taken by the police.
Program Theory
The use of CCTV cameras is thought to reduce crime through various mechanisms. For instance, by increasing the perceived risk of offending, some people may choose not to offend. By increasing actual detection through surveillance, early intervention may be possible to avert a crime or violence, and those who committed the crime may be removed. If surveillance leads to the early detection of precursors to violence, then injuries may decrease (Sivarajasingam et al. 2003).
Study 1
Assault-Related Emergency Department Visits
Sivarajasingam and colleagues (2003) found that intervention sites that implemented CCTV (closed circuit television) cameras had fewer assault-related emergency department visits, compared with control sites that did not install CCTV cameras. Assault-related injuries decreased by 3 percent in intervention sites, while they increased by 11 percent in control sites. This difference was statistically significant.
Police-Recorded Violent Offenses
There was no statistically significant difference found between intervention and control sites in police-recorded violent offenses.
Study
Sivarajasingam and colleagues (2003) assessed the impact of CCTV (closed circuit television) cameras on increases in the detection of violent crime and decreases in emergency department (ED) visits for assault-related injuries.
The researchers used ED visits as a proxy for overall violence because of the close proximity of city centers and hospital facilities in most English cities (which would mean that injuries occurring in the city centers would be treated by the nearby hospital). Since other types of violence (e.g., domestic, workplace violence) would not be affected by the installation of CCTV in public spaces, a drop in overall ED visit rates was interpreted as the result of reductions in assault-related urban violence.
CCTV cameras were installed at five intervention sites: 1) Ashford, 2) Eastbourne, 3) Lincoln, 4) Newport, and 5) Peterborough. Control sites — Chelmsford, Derby, Huntingdon, Poole, and Scarborough — had no cameras. It was impossible for the researchers to match the towns/cities closely, but the five selected were from the same geographical region and had approximately the same population.
Data was collected from spring 1995 to spring 1999, which provided 2 years of data before the installation of cameras and 2 years of postimplementation data. All centers had data available. ED data was collected on assault-related visits from the hospitals. Violent offenses data related to assault and wounding was collected by the local police. No data was identifiable at the individual level. A Student’s t-test was used to examine the differences in outcomes before and after the installation of CCTV cameras. No subgroup analyses were conducted.
These sources were used in the development of the program profile:
Study
Sivarajasingam, Vaseekaran, Jonathan P. Shepherd, and Kent Matthews. 2003. "Effect of Urban Closed Circuit Television on Assault Injury and Violence Detection." Injury Prevention 9:312–16.
Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:
Public surveillance systems include a network of cameras and components for monitoring, recording, and transmitting video images. Public surveillance cameras are designed to reduce both property and personal crime. This practice is rated Promising for reducing overall crime, property crime, and vehicle crime, and rated Ineffective for impacting violent crime.
Evidence Ratings for Outcomes
|
Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types |
|
|
Crime & Delinquency - Property offenses |
|
|
Crime & Delinquency - Vehicle crime |
|
Crime & Delinquency - Violent offenses |
Gender: Male, Female
Geography: Urban
Setting (Delivery): Other Community Setting
Program Type: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design/Design Against Crime, General deterrence, Situational Crime Prevention
Current Program Status: Active