Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 43–69 | Cite as

The effects of merging proactive CCTV monitoring with directed police patrol: a randomized controlled trial

  • Eric L. Piza
  • Joel M. Caplan
  • Leslie W. Kennedy
  • Andrew M. Gilchrist



This study was designed to test the effect of increased certainty of punishment on reported crime levels in CCTV target areas of Newark, NJ. The experimental strategy was designed for the purpose of overcoming specific surveillance barriers that minimize the effectiveness of CCTV, namely high camera-to-operator ratios and the differential response policy of police dispatch. An additional camera operator was deployed to monitor specific CCTV cameras, with two patrol cars dedicated to exclusively responding to incidents of concern detected on the experimental cameras.


A randomized controlled trial was implemented in the analysis. A randomized block design was used to assign each of the 38 CCTV schemes to either a treatment or control group. Schemes were grouped into pairs based upon their levels of three types of calls for service: violent crime, social disorder, and narcotics activity. Negative binomial regression models tested the effect that assignment to the treatment group had on levels of the aforementioned crime categories.


The experimental strategy was associated with significant reductions of violent crime and social disorder in the treatment areas relative to the control areas. Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) and Total Net Effect (TNE) values suggest that the number of crime incidents prevented was sizable in numerous instances. The experiment had much less of an effect on narcotics activity.


Overall, the findings support the hypothesis that the integration of CCTV with proactive police activity generates a crime control benefit greater than what research suggests is achievable via “stand-alone” camera deployment, particularly in the case of street-level crime.


CCTV Crime prevention Randomized block design Randomized field experiment Video surveillance Viewsheds 



This research was supported by the National Institute of Justice, Grant Number 2010-IJ-CX-0026. We are truly indebted to a number of individuals at the Newark Police Department whose support made this project possible, including former Director Garry McCarthy, former Director Samuel DeMaio, former Chief-of-Staff Gus Miniotis, Captain Phil Gonzalez, Lieutenant Joseph Alferi, Lieutenant Brian O’Hara, Lieutenant Angelo Zamora, Sergeant Marvin Carpenter, and Sergeant Catherine Gasavage. We are especially grateful to the CCTV operators, patrol supervisors, and patrol officers who worked on the experiment for diligently carrying out their experimental tasks. We also thank Editor-in-Chief Lorraine Mazerolle, Associate Editor Emma Antrobus, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Supplementary material

11292_2014_9211_MOESM1_ESM.doc (218 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 217 kb)


  1. Ariel, B., & Farrington, D. (2010). Randomized block designs. In A. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Armitage, R., Smythe, G., & Pease, K. (1999). Burnley CCTV evaluation. In N. Tilley & K. Painter (Eds.), Surveillance of public space: CCTV, street lighting and crime prevention (Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 225–249). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barr, R., & Pease, K. (1990). Crime placement, displacement and deflection. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: a review of research (Vol. 12, pp. 277–218). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Belkap, J. (1992). Empirical estimates of Bonferroni corrections for use in chromosome mapping studies with the BXD recombinant inbred strains. Behavior Genetics, 22(6), 677–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowers, K., & Johnson, S. (2003). Measuring the geographical displacement and diffusion of benefit effects of crime prevention activity. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 275–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braga, A. (1997). Solving violent crime problems: an evaluation of the Jersey City Police Department’s pilot program to control violent places. Doctoral Dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-Newark, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.Google Scholar
  7. Braga, A. (2010). Setting a higher standard for the evaluation of problem-oriented policing initiatives. Criminology & Public Policy, 9(1), 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braga, A., & Bond, B. J. (2008). Policing crime and disorder hot spots: a randomized controlled trial. Criminology, 46(3), 577–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braga, A., & Weisburd, D. (2010). Policing problem places: crime hot spots and effective prevention. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braga, A., Weisburd, D., Waring, E., Mazerolle, L., Spelman, W., & Gajewski, F. (1999). Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: a randomized controlled experiment. Criminology, 37(3), 541–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Braga, A., Papachristos, A., & Hureau, D. (2012). The effects of hot spots policing on crime: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:  10.1080/07418825.2012.673632.
  12. Brantingham, P.L., & Brantingham, P.J. (1998). Mapping crime for analytic purposes: location quotients, counts and rates. In Weisburd, D., & McEwen, T. (Eds) Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, 8, 263–288.Google Scholar
  13. Britt, C., & Weisburd, D. (2010). Statistical power. In P. Alex & D. L. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, B. (1995). CCTV in town centres: three case studies (Crime Detection and Prevention Series, Paper 68). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  15. Buerger, M. (1993). Convincing the recalcitrant: reexamining the Minneapolis RECAP experiment. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  16. Butler, G. (1994). Shoplifters’ views on security: lessons for crime prevention. In M. Gill (Ed.), Crime at work: studies in security and crime prevention. London: Perpetuity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cameron, A., Kolodinski, E., May, H., & Williams, N. (2008). Measuring the effects of video surveillance on crime in Los Angeles. Report prepared for the California Research Bureau. USC School of Policy, Planning, and Development.Google Scholar
  18. Caplan, J., Kennedy, L., & Petrossian, G. (2011). Police-monitored cameras in Newark, NJ: a quasi-experimental test of crime deterrence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(3), 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clarke, R. (1997). Introduction. In R. Clarke (Ed.), Situational crime prevention, successful case studies (2nd ed.). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  20. Clarke, R., & Eck, J. (2005). Crime analysis for problem solvers in 60 small steps. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.Google Scholar
  21. Clarke, R., & Weisburd, D. (1994). Diffusion of crime control benefits. In R. Clarke (Ed.), Crime prevention studies (Vol. 2, pp. 165–183). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  22. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. (Eds.). (1986). The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Cowan, N. (2000). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42, 87–185.Google Scholar
  25. Ditton, J., & Short, E. (1998). Evaluating Scotland’s first town centre CCTV scheme. In C. Norris, J. Moran, & G. Armstrong (Eds.), Surveillance, closed circuit television and social control. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  26. Ditton, J., & Short, E. (1999). Yes, it works, no it doesn’t: comparing the effects of open-street CCTV in two adjacent Scottish town centres. In N. Tilley & K. Painter (Eds.), Surveillance of public space: CCTV, street lighting and crime prevention (Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 201–223). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  27. Durlauf, S., & Nagin, D. (2011). Imprisonment and crime: can both be reduced? Criminology and Public Policy, 10(1), 13–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eisner, M. (2009). No effects in independent prevention trials: can we reject the cynical view? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(2), 163–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Farrington, D., Gill, M., Waples, S., & Argomaniz, J. (2007). The effects of closed-circuit television on crime: meta-analysis of an English national quasi-experimental multi-site evaluation. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3, 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Feise, R. (2002). Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2, 8–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fyfe, N., & Bannister, J. (1996). City watching: closed circuit television surveillance in public spaces. Area, 28(1), 37–46.Google Scholar
  33. Gajewski, F. (1994). The drug market analysis program: a participant observation study. Unpublished master’s thesis, Seton Hall University: South Orange, NJ.Google Scholar
  34. Garcia, L. (2004). Escaping the Bonferroni iron claw in ecological studies. Oikos, 105(3), 657–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gill, M., & Hemming, M. (2004). Evaluation of CCTV in the London borough of Lewisham. Leicester: Perpetuity Research & Consultancy International (PRCI).Google Scholar
  36. Gill, M., & Loveday, K. (2003). What do offenders think about CCTV? Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal, 5(3), 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gill, M., & Spriggs, A. (2005). Assessing the impact of CCTV (p. 292). London: Home Office Research Study No.Google Scholar
  38. Gill, M., & Turbin, V. (1998). CCTV and shop theft: towards a realistic evaluation. In N. Clive, M. Jade, & A. Gary (Eds.), Surveillance, closed circuit television and social control. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  39. Gill, M., Spriggs, A., Allen, J., Hemming, M., Jessiman, P., & Kara, D. (2005). Control room operation: findings from control room observations. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  40. Grant, S., Mayo-Wilson, E., Hopewell, S., MacDonald, S., Moher, D., & Montgomery, P. (2013). Developing a reporting guideline for social and psychological intervention trials. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(3), 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Guerette, R. (2009). Analyzing crime displacement and diffusion. Problem-oriented guides for police. Problem-solving tools series. No. 10. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Center for Problem-Oriented Policing.Google Scholar
  42. Guerette, R., Steinus, V., & McGloin, M. (2005). Understanding offending specialization and versatility: a re-application of the rational choice perspective. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(1), 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Halford, G., Baker, R., McCredden, J., & Bain, J. (2005). How many variables can humans process? Psychological Science, 16(1), 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Harocopos, A., & Hough, M. (2005). Drug dealing in open air markets (Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. Problem-Specific Guides Series: No. 31). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.Google Scholar
  45. Hipp, J., Bauer, D., Curran, P., & Bollen, K. (2004). Crimes of opportunity or crimes of emotion? Testing two explanation of seasonal change in crime. Social Forces, 82, 1333–1372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.Google Scholar
  47. Kennedy, D. (2006). Old wine in new bottles: policing and the lessons of pulling levers. In D. Weisburd & B. Anthony (Eds.), Police innovation. Contrasting perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Kennedy, D., & Wong, S. (2009). The high point drug market intervention strategy. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  49. Keval, H., & Sasse, M. (2010). “Not the usual suspects”: a study of factors reducing the effectiveness of CCTV. Security Journal, 23(2), 134–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. King, J., Mulligan, D., & Raphael, S. (2008). CITRIS report: the San Francisco community safety camera program. An evaluation of the effectiveness of San Francisco’s community safety cameras. Research in the interest of society. Berkeley: Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society. University of California.Google Scholar
  51. Klinger, D., & Bridges, G. (1997). Measurement error in calls-for-service as an indicator of crime. Criminology, 35, 705–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. La Vigne, N., Lowry, S., Markman, J., & Dwyer, A. (2011). Evaluating the use of public surveillance cameras for crime control and prevention. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.Google Scholar
  53. Law Enforcement Information Technology Standards Council [LEITSC] (2008). Standard functional specifications for law enforcement computer aided dispatch (CAD) systems. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, and the National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  54. Lipsey, M. (1990). Design sensitivity. Statistical power for experimental research. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Lomell, H. (2004). Targeting the unwanted: video surveillance and categorical exclusion in Oslo, Norway. Surveillance & Society, 2, 346–360.Google Scholar
  56. Luck, S., & Vogel, E. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390, 279–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lum, C., Koper, C., & Telep, C. (2011). The evidence-based policing matrix. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(3), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mazerolle, L., Hurley, D., & Chamlin, M. (2002). Social behavior in public space: an analysis of behavioral adaptations to CCTV. Security Journal, 15(3), 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McDowall, D., Loftin, C., & Pate, M. (2012). Seasonal cycles in crime, and their vulnerability. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28, 389–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McLean, S., Worden, R., & Kim, M. (2013). Here’s looking at you: an evaluation of public CCTV cameras and their effects on crime and disorder. Criminal Justice Review, 38(3), 303–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nagin, D., & Weisburd, D. (2013). Evidence and public policy. The example of evaluation research in policing. Criminology & Public Policy, 12(4), 651–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Norris, C. (2003). From personal to digital: CCTV, the panopticon, and the technological mediation of suspicion and social control. In L. David (Ed.), Surveillance as social sorting: privacy, risk and digital discrimination. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Norris, C., & Armstrong, G. (1999a). CCTV and the social structuring of surveillance. In T. Nick & P. Kate (Eds.), Surveillance of public space: CCTV, street lighting and crime prevention (Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 157–178). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  64. Norris, C., & Armstrong, G. (1999b). The maximum surveillance society. The rise of CCTV. Berg: Oxford.Google Scholar
  65. Norris, C., & McCahill, M. (2006). CCTV: beyond penal modernism? British Journal of Criminology, 46, 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Olds, D. (2009). In support of disciplined passion. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(2), 201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Olejnik, S., Li, J., Supattathum, S., & Huberty, C. (1997). Multiple testing and statistical power with modified Bonferroni procedures. Journal of Education and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 389–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pease, K. (1999). A review of street lighting evaluations: crime reduction effects. In N. Tilley & K. Painter (Eds.), Surveillance of public space: CCTV, street lighting and crime prevention. Crime prevention studies (Vol. 10). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  69. Perneger, T. (1998). What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments? British Medical Journal, 316(7139), 1236–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Perneger, T. (1999). Multiple testing. British Medical Journal, 322, 226–231.Google Scholar
  71. Piza, E. (2012). Identifying the ideal context for CCTV camera placement: an analysis of micro-level features. Doctoral Dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-Newark, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.Google Scholar
  72. Piza, E., & O’Hara, B. (2014). Saturation foot-patrol in a high-violence area: a quasi-experimental evaluation. Justice Quarterly, 31(4), 693–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Piza, E., Caplan, J., & Kennedy, L. (2012). Is the punishment more certain? An analysis of CCTV detections and enforcement. Justice Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2012.723034.
  74. Piza, E., Caplan, J., & Kennedy, L. (2014a). Analyzing the influence of micro-level factors on CCTV camera effect. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30(2), 237–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Piza, E., Caplan, J., & Kennedy, L. (2014b). CCTV as a tool for early police intervention: preliminary lessons from nine case studies. Security Journal. doi: 10.1057/sj.2014.17.Google Scholar
  76. Ratcliffe, J. (2006). Video surveillance of public places. Problem-oriented guides for police. Response guide series. Guide No. 4. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Center for Problem-Oriented Policing.Google Scholar
  77. Ratcliffe, J., & Breen, C. (2008). Spatial evaluation of police tactics in context (SEPTIC) spreadsheet, version 3 (spring 2010). Downloaded from
  78. Ratcliffe, J., Taniguchi, T., & Taylor, R. (2009). The crime reduction effects of public CCTV cameras: a multi-method spatial approach. Justice Quarterly, 26(4), 746–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ratcliffe, J., Taniguchi, T., Groff, E., & Wood, J. (2011). The Philadelphia foot patrol experiment: a randomized controlled trial of police patrol effectiveness in violent crime hotspots. Criminology, 49(3), 795–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Reid, A., & Andresen, M. (2014). An evaluation of CCTV in a car park using police and insurance data. Security Journal, 27, 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sankoh, A., Huque, M., & Dubey, S. (1997). Some comments on frequently used multiple endpoint adjustment methods in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 16(22), 2529–3542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sarno, C., Hough, M., & Bulos, M. (1999). Developing a picture of CCTV in Southwark Town Centres: final report. London: Criminal Policy Research Unit, South Bank University.Google Scholar
  83. Sasse, M. (2010). Not seeing the crime for the cameras? Why it is difficult but essential to monitor the effectiveness of security technologies. Communications of the ACM, 53(2), 22–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010). CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. British Medical Journal, 340, 698–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sherman, L. (1990). Police crackdowns: initial and residual deterrence. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: a review of research (Vol. 12, pp. 1–48). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  86. Sherman, L. (2010). An introduction to experimental criminology. In A. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 399–436). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sherman, L., & Eck, J. (2002). Policing for crime prevention. In L. Sherman, D. Farrington, B. Welsh, & D. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidence-based crime prevention (pp. 295–329). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  88. Sherman, L., Buerger, M., & Gartin, P. (1989). Repeat call address policing: the Minneapolis RECAP experiment. Washington, DC: Crime Control Institute.Google Scholar
  89. Skogan, W., & Frydl, K. (eds) (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: the evidence. Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices. Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  90. Smith, S., & Bruce, C. (2008). CrimeStat III user workbook. Washington, DC: The National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  91. Snijders, T. (2005). Power and sample size in multilevel linear models. In B. Everitt & D. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science (Vol. 3, pp. 1570–1573). Chicester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  92. Sorg, E., Haberman, C., Ratcliffe, J., & Groff, E. (2013). Foot patrol in violent crime hot spots: the longitudinal impact of deterrence and posttreatment effects of displacement. Criminology, 51(1), 65–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Star Ledger, The (2010). Newark finalizes 167 police layoffs after union refuses Booker’s plea to return to negotiating table. Tuesday, November 30th. Retrieved at:
  94. Taylor, E. (2010). Evaluating CCTV: why the findings are inconsistent, inconclusive and ultimately irrelevant. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal, 12(4), 209–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Taylor, B., Koper, C., & Woods, D. (2011). A randomized controlled trial of different policing strategies at hot spots of violent crime. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(2), 149–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Telep, C., Mitchell, R., & Weisburd, D. (2012). How much time should the police spend at crime hot spots? Answers from a police agency directed randomized field trial in Sacramento, California. Justice Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2012.710645.Google Scholar
  97. Tilley, N. (1993). Understanding car parks, crime and CCTV. London: Crime Prevention Unit Series Paper 42 Home Office.Google Scholar
  98. Tuttle, B. (2009). How Newark became Newark. Piscataway: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  99. U.S. Census Bureau (2010). State and county quick facts. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau. Accessed 9 Sept 2013.
  100. Uitenbroek, D. (1997). SISA binomial. Southampton. Accessed 5 May 2014.
  101. Waples, S., & Gill, M. (2006). The effectiveness of redeployable CCTV. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 8, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Warner, B., & Pierce, G. (1993). Reexamining social disorganization theory using calls to the police as a measure of crime. Criminology, 31, 493–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Weisburd, D. (2008). Place-based policing (Ideas in Policing Series). Washington, DC: Police Foundation.Google Scholar
  104. Weisburd, D., & Eck, J. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 42–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Weisburd, D., & Gill, C. (2014). Block randomized trials at places: rethinking the limitations of small n experiments. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30(1), 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Weisburd, D., & Green, L. (1995). Policing drug hot spots: the Jersey City drug market analysis experiment. Justice Quarterly, 12, 711–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Weisburd, D., Petrosino, A., & Mason, G. (1993). Design sensitivity in criminal justice experiments. In T. Michael (Ed.), Crime and justice: an annual review of research (Vol. 17). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  108. Weisburd, D., Wyckoff, L., Ready, J., Eck, J., Hinkle, J., & Gajewski, F. (2006). Does crime just move around the corner? A controlled study of spatial displacement and diffusion of crime control benefits. Criminology, 44(3), 549–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Welsh, B., & Farrington, D. (2002). Crime prevention effects of closed circuit television: a systematic review. London: Home Office (Research Study No. 25).Google Scholar
  110. Welsh, B., & Farrington, D. (2007). Closed-circuit television surveillance and crime prevention: a systematic review. Stockholm: National Council for Crime Prevention.Google Scholar
  111. Welsh, B., & Farrington, D. (2009). Public area CCTV and crime prevention: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 26(4), 716–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Welsh, B., Braga, A., & Hollis-Peel, M. (2012). Can “disciplined passion” overcome the cynical view? An empirical inquiry of evaluator influence on police crime prevention program outcomes. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(4), 415–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Wilson, O. W. (1963). Police administration. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  114. Wyant, B., Taylor, R., Ratcliffe, J., & Wood, J. (2012). Deterrence, firearm arrests, and subsequent shootings: a micro-level spatio-temporal analysis. Justice Quarterly, 29(4), 524–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric L. Piza
    • 1
  • Joel M. Caplan
    • 2
  • Leslie W. Kennedy
    • 2
  • Andrew M. Gilchrist
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Law and Police ScienceJohn Jay College of Criminal JusticeNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.School of Criminal JusticeRutgers UniversityNewarkUSA
  3. 3.School of Criminal JusticeUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations