Effectiveness

Mixed Evidence

.

.

.

.

.

Mixed Evidence

¿Quieres saber más acerca de esta clasificación? Consulte nuestro manual metodológico.

Description

The use of surveillance cameras seeks to prevent crime in public and private spaces, contributing to deter criminal practices wherever those devices are installed and assisting the police in surveillance and potential future criminal investigations.

Country of application
  • Colombia
  • United States
  • United Kingdom
  • Uruguay
Evidence

A systematic review by the Campbell Collaboration identified 44 studies that evaluated the impact of using video camera monitoring systems on crime rates. Video surveillance interventions in streets and other public spaces have had a small and not statistically significant effect on crime reduction. The best result of video surveillance is achieved in parking areas, where it causes an average reduction of 51% in vehicle theft [1].
The Crime Reduction Toolkit platform classifies this type of intervention as promising in terms of reducing crime in general, and in particular for reducing crime in parking lot areas (crime decreased by 37% in treatment areas compared to control areas, according to eight studies) and, to a lesser extent, in residential areas (overall reduction of 12%, according to 16 studies). However, that platform reported no statistically significant effect on violent crime (29 studies) or disorder (six studies) [2] [3] [4].
The Crime Solutions platform presents the results of a meta-analysis that evaluated the impact of 76 video surveillance programs. This practice is classified as promising in terms of reducing overall crime, property crime, and vehicle crime, although with no impact on violent crime [4].

Bibliography

[1] Welsh, B., Farrington, D. (2008) Effects of Closed Circuit Television Surveillance on Crime. Campbell systematic Reviews, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2008.17

[2] Farrington D. P., Gill M., Waples, S. J., Argomaniz, J. (2007). The effects of closed-circuit television on crime: Meta-analysis of an English national quasi multi-site evaluation(opens an external website in the same tab). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3, 21-38. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-007-9024-2

[3] Welsh, B. C., Farrington, D. P. (2009) Public Area CCTV and Crime Prevention: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis(opens an external website in the same tab), Justice Quarterly, 26(4), 716 — 745. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418820802506206

[4] Piza, E. L., Welsh, B. C., Farrington, D. P., Thomas, A. L. (2019). Cctv surveillance for crime prevention. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(1), 135–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12419

Evaluated cases

Why might the cases evaluated have different levels of effectiveness in relation to their respective type of solution?
Click here to understand why.

Some cases were not included in the evidence bank due to deficiencies detected in the methodology of their impact evaluations.
Click here to see the list

 

Image
flag

Send us your study!

Have you participated in impact evaluation studies of interventions to prevent crime, violence or disorder? Send us your study. It will be evaluated and may be included in the Evidence Bank!

Contact us