Professor James Byrne Director, Global Centre for Evidence-based Corrections and Sentencing School...

Professor James Byrne

Director, Global Centre for Evidence-based Corrections and Sentencing

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University

Jessica Ritchie, Research Fellow, GCECS

SafeCity Conference, Ipswich, Queensland, 11 June, 2014

TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS IN CRIME PREVENTIONGLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON CCTV: WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH REVEAL?

(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: WWW.GCECS.EDU.AU

PRESENTATION OVERVIEW

• New Technology of Crime Prevention: CCTV in Global Context

• Impact of New Technology: Global Research Review

• The Future of CCTV: Three Issues To Consider

CCTV APPLICATIONS AROUND THE GLOBE• CCTV in the United States

• CCTV In UK and Europe

• CCTV in China

• CCTV in Australia

• Hard Technology

• CCTV & police

• CCTV & private sector

• CCTV & public sector

• CCTV & street lighting

• Soft Technology

• Gunshot location & CCTV

• Facial recognition & CCTV

• Flash mobs & CCTV

THE NEW TECHNOLOGY OF CRIME PREVENTION: CCTV APPLICATIONS

DOES CCTV TECHNOLOGY REDUCE CRIME?

Four Research Issues to consider:

1. Research on the reliability of the technology?

2. Training on the use of technology?

3. Research on the impact of the technology on key outcome measures?

4. Cost effectiveness of technology acquisition?

EVIDENCE 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.

WELSH, B.C. & FARRINGTON, D.P. (2008). EFFECTS OF CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION SURVEILLANCE ON CRIME. CAMPBELL SYSTEMATIC REVIEW.

Location UK US Sweden Norway Canada Total

City and Town Centres 17 3 1 1 - 22

Public Housing 7 2 - - - 9

Public Transport 3 - - - 1 4

Car Parks 6 - - - - 6

Other Settings 3 - - - - 3

44

CCTV EVALUATIONS OF CITY AND TOWN CENTRESBrown (1995) Newcastle-Upon-Tyne

UKUndesirable effect.Some displacement and diffusion occurred.

Brown (1995) BirminghamUK

Desirable effect.Displacement occurred.

Sarno (1996) London Borough of SuttonUK

Undesirable effect.Displacement/diffusion not measured.

Skinns (1998) DoncasterUK

Desirable effect.No displacement occurred.

Squires (1998) IlfordUK


Armitage (1999) BurnleyUK

Desirable effect.Diffusion occurred.

Ditton (1999) AirdrieUK


Sarno (1999) London Borough of Southwark (Elephant and Castle)UK

Null effect.Possible evidence of diffusion.

Sarno (1999) London Borough of Southwark (Camberwell)UK


Sarno (1999) London Borough of Southwark (East Street)UK

Uncertain effect.No diffusion; possible functional displacement occurred.

CCTV EVALUATIONS OF CITY AND TOWN CENTRESMazerolle (2002) Cincinnati (Northside)

USNull effect. Little or no displacement occurred.

Mazerolle (2002) Cincinnati (Hopkins Park)US

Null effect.Displacement/diffusion not measured.

Mazerolle (2002) Cincinnati (Findlay Market)US

Null effect.Some displacement occurred.

Blixt (2003) Malmö (Möllevångstorget or Möllevång Sqaure) Sweden

Desirable effect. No displacement occurred.

Sivarajasingam (2003) Multiple city and town centresUK


Winge (2003) OsloNorway

Undesirable effect.No displacement occurred.

Gill (2005) Borough TownUK


Gill (2005) Market TownUK


Gill (2005) Shire TownUK


Gill (2005) South CityUK

Null effect.No displacement occurred.

Farrington (2007a) CambridgeUK


Griffiths (no date) GillinghamUK

Desirable effect. Displacement/diffusion not measured.

CCTV EVALUATIONS OF PUBLIC HOUSINGMusheno (1978) Bronxdale Houses

New York City USUncertain effect.Displacement/diffusion not measured.

Williamson (2000) Brooklyn New York US

Null effect.Displacement and diffusion did not occur.

Hood (2003) Greater Easterhouse Housing EstateGlasgow UK

Desirable effect.Displacement/diffusion not measured.

Gill (2005) Deploy EstateUK


Gill (2005) Dual EstateUK

Uncertain effect.No displacement occurred.

Gill (2005) Southcap EstateUK


Gill (2005) Eastcap Estate UK

Uncertain effect.No displacement occurred.

Gill (2005) Northern Estate UK


Gill (2005) Westcap EstateUK


CCTV EVALUATIONS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTBurrows (1979) “Underground” subway London

UKDesirable effect.Some displacement occurred.

Webb (1992) “Underground” subway LondonUK


Webb (1992) Oxford Circus station “Underground” subwayUK


Grandmaison (1997) “Metro” subway MontrealCanada

Null effect.Displacement/diffusion not measured.

CCTV EVALUATIONS OF CAR PARKS

Poyner (1991) University of SurreyGuildford UK

Undesirable effect.Diffusion occurred.

Tilley (1993) HartlepoolUK


Tilley (1993) Bradford UK


Tilley (1993) CoventryUK


Sarno (1996) London Borough of SuttonUK


Gill (2005) Hawkeye UK


CCTV EVALUATIONS IN OTHER SETTINGS

Gill (2005) City Outskirts (residential area)UK


Gill (2005) Borough (residential area)UK


Gill (2005) City Hospital UK


CCTV EVALUATIONS OF PUBLIC SPACE (POST WELSH & FARRINGTON)

Ratcliffe & Taniguchi (2008)Ratcliffe, Taniguchi, & Taylor (2009)

Philadelphia PA, US

Reduction in crime but there were sites that showed decrease and others with no impact.

Caplan, Kennedy, & Petrossian (2011)

Newark, NJUS

Statistically significant reduction in auto thefts, no significant displacement, small diffusion of benefits.

Park, Oh, & Paek (2012) South Korea Reduction in number of robberies and thefts in areas with CCTV installed, no displacement effect found.

McLean, Worden, & Kim (2013)

SchenectadyNew York US

Suggested that cameras have had effects on crime, and visibility of cameras is associated with its impact on crime and disorder.

Cerezo (2013) Spain No 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)

South Korea 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.

ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF CCTV TECHNOLOGY ON CRIME AND JUSTICE: THREE CRITICAL ISSUES TO CONSIDER IN AUSTRALIA

1. Is CCTV a technology in search of a program?

2. Why have high quality evaluation of CCTV systems in Australia not been completed to date?

3. Does Australia need to conduct its own RCT of the impact of CCTV on crime?

Contact information

Professor James Byrne

[email protected]

Jessica Ritchie

[email protected]

Professor James Byrne Director, Global Centre for Evidence-based Corrections and Sentencing School...

Documents

Transcript of Professor James Byrne Director, Global Centre for Evidence-based Corrections and Sentencing School...