How to evaluate the impact of CCTV on lrime

Crime Prevention and Community Safety

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 7-16

  Farrington, David P ^a   Painter, Kate A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

CCTV; crime; evaluation; methodological quality; validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847623716     PISSN: 14603780     EISSN: 17434629     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.cpcs.8140151     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. David P. Farrington is Professor of Psychological Criminology and Kate A. Painter is Senior Research Associate at the Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University, 7 West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DT. E-mails: dpf1@cam.ac.uk; Kate.Painter@ntlworld.com.
2. We are very grateful to Maureen Brown for excellent word processing.
3. This paper was given at a conference on 'Evaluating the Real Evidence on CCTV' in Leicester in November 2002.
4. Between 1999 and 2001, £170 million was spent by the Home Office on CCTV schemes: see p 8 of Home Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit (2001) Invitation to Tender: Evaluation of CCTV Initiatives. London: Home Office (21 March).
5. In previous years (1996-98), CCTV accounted for more than three-quarters of total spending on crime prevention by the Home Office:
6. see Koch, B.C.M. (1998) The Politics of Crime Prevention. Aldershot: Ashgate, p 49. CCTV schemes are also funded by other central and local government agencies.
7. See Sherman, L.W., Farrington, D.P., Welsh, B.C. and MacKenzie, D.L. (eds) (2002) Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. London: Routledge.
8. Welsh, B.C. and Farrington, D.P. (2002) Crime Prevention Effects of Closed Circuit Television: A Systematic Review. Home Office Research Study No. 252. London: Home Office.
9. See Welsh, B.C., Farrington, D.P. and Sherman, L.W. (eds) (2001) Costs and Benefits of Preventing Crime. Boulder, CO: Westview.
10. For a discussion of mediators and moderators, see Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986) The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychology Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp 1173-82.
11. Welsh and Farrington, op. cit. CCTV was generally not confounded with other interventions in city centre evaluations.
12. Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979) Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
13. See also Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (2002) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
14. Losel, F. and Koferl, P. (1989) Evaluation Research on Correctional Treatment in West Germany: A Meta-Analysis, in Wegener, H., Losel, F. and Haisch, J. (eds), Criminal Behaviour and the Justice System: Psychological Perspectives. New York: Springer-Verlag.
15. See also Farrington, D.P. (2003) Methodological Quality Standards for Evaluation Research, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 587, pp 49-68.
16. Welsh and Farrington, op. cit.
17. Shadish et al., op. cit., p 97.
18. Home Office (2001) Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 2000, Cmnd 5312. London: Stationery Office, p 27.
19. Baron and Kenny, op. cit.
20. See Clarke, R.V. and Weisburd, D. (1994) Diffusion of Crime Control Benefits: Observations on the Reverse of Displacement, in Clarke, R.V. (ed.), Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 2. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
21. Shadish et al., op. cit., p 87.
22. Baron and Kenny, op. cit.
23. Farrington, D.P. and Petrosino, A. (2001) The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 578, pp 35-49.
24. Farrington, D.P., Gottfredson, D.C., Sherman, L.W. and Welsh, B.C. (2002) The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale, in Sherman et al, op. cit., pp 13-21.
25. Cook and Campbell, op. cit.
26. Sherman et al., op. cit.