Advertisement

Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 403–429 | Cite as

The financial implications of merging proactive CCTV monitoring and directed police patrol: a cost–benefit analysis

  • Eric L. PizaEmail author
  • Andrew M. Gilchrist
  • Joel M. Caplan
  • Leslie W. Kennedy
  • Brian A. O’Hara
Article

Abstract

Objectives

This study presents a cost–benefit analysis of an intervention pairing proactive CCTV monitoring with directed police patrol in Newark, NJ. A recent randomized control trial found that the strategy generated significant crime reductions in treatment areas relative to control areas. The current study focuses on the financial implications of the experimental strategy through a cost–benefit analysis.

Methods

The study begins by measuring the costs and benefits associated with the experimental strategy, the findings of which can inform agencies with existing CCTV infrastructure. Follow-up analyses measure the costs and benefits of the intervention for agencies absent existing CCTV infrastructure, meaning a CCTV system would have to be funded in addition to the intervention outputs. Alongside overall benefits, this study presents the tangible cost savings afforded to the Criminal Justice system as well as to each of the separate criminal justice (CJ) system components: Policing, Courts, and Corrections.

Results

We found the experimental strategy to be highly cost effective for agencies with existing CCTV infrastructure. However, when the cost of the CCTV system is considered, the strategy is largely cost prohibitive. While the cumulative societal and criminal justice findings suggest some evidence of a modest cost savings, the strategy is highly cost prohibitive for each of the individual CJ system components when CCTV system costs are included.

Conclusions

Results suggest that the experimental strategy is a worthwhile investment for agencies with existing CCTV infrastructure. Agencies absent CCTV may want to consider whether funds would be better allocated towards alternate strategies.

Keywords

Cost–benefit analysis CCTV Situational crime prevention Directed patrol Policing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Institute of Justice, Grant Number 2010-IJCX-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 (retired) Phil Gonzalez, Lieutenant (retired) Joseph Alferi, Lieutenant Angelo Zamora, Sergeant Marvin Carpenter, and Sergeant Catherine Gasavage. Early versions of this paper were presented at the 2015 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and American Society of Criminology annual meetings. We thank those in attendance for their insightful questions and feedback. 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 Cynthia Lum, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

References

  1. Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., & Lieb, R. (2001). The comparative costs and benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime (Version 4.0). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
  2. Babwin, D. (2007). Chicago video surveillance gets smarter. USA Today. Originally published September 27, 2007. Retrieved 5/25/15 at: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2007-09-27-4171345706_x.htm.
  3. Barnett, W., & Escobar, C. (1987). The economics of early educational intervention: A review. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 387–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowers, K., Johnson, S., & Hirschield, A. (2004). Closing off opportunities for crime: An evaluation of alley-gating. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 10, 285–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braga, A., & Bond, B. (2008). Policing crime and disorder hot spots: A randomized controlled trial. Criminology, 46(3), 577–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS]. (2015). Occupational employment statistics. Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2014. 33–3051 Police and Sheriff’s Patrol Officers. United States Department of Labor: Washington, DC. Retrieved 2/15/16 at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes333051.htm.
  7. Burgdorf, J., & Kilmer, B. (2015). Police costs of the drug market intervention: Insights from two cities. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 9(2), 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameron, A., Kolodinski, E., May, H., and 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
  9. 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
  10. U.S. Census Bureau (2010). State and county quick facts. Washington DC: United States Census Bureau. http://quickfacts.census.gov. Accessed 4 April 2015.
  11. Chisholm, J. (2000). Benefit-cost analysis and crime prevention. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, M. (1988). Pain, suffering, and jury awards: A study of the cost of crimes to victims. Law and Society Review, 22(3), 537–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, M. (1994). The costs and consequences of violent behavior in the United States. In A. Reiss & J. Roth (Eds.), Consequences and Control of Understanding and Preventing Violence (Vol. 4, pp. 67–166). Washington: National Research Council, National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, M., & Bowles, R. (2010). Estimating costs of crime. In A. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of Quantitative Criminology (pp. 143–162). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, M., & Piquero, A. (2009). New evidence on the monetary value of saving a high risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25(1), 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen, M., Rust, T., Steen, S., & Tidd, S. (2004). Willingness-to-pay for crime control programs? Criminology, 42(1), 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Community Oriented Policing Services, Office of. (2011). The impact of the economic downturn on American police agencies. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  18. Cordero, J. (2011). Reducing the cost of quality policing: Making community safety cost effective and sustainable. NJLM Educational Foundation, Friends of Local Government Services. The Cordero Group: Trenton, NJ.Google Scholar
  19. Dhiri, S., & Brand, S. (1999). Analysis of costs and benefits: Guidance for evaluators. London: Home Office. Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.Google Scholar
  20. Dominguez, P., & Raphael, S. (2015). The role of cost-of-crime literature in bridging the gap between social science research and policy making. Criminology and Public Policy, 14(4), 589–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Durlauf, S., & Nagin, S. (2011). Imprisonment and crime. Can both be reduced? Criminology and Public Policy, 10(1), 13–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Durose, P. and Langan, P. (2004). Felony sentences in state courts, 2002. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin NCJ 1206916. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Goldstein, S. and Eiserer, T. (2012). Crime hot spots may get high-tech help. The Dallas Morning News. Originally published April 3, 2012.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Hilal, S., & Olsen, D. (2010). Police reserve officers: Essential in today’s economy and an opportunity to increase diversity in the law enforcement profession. Police Chief, 77(10), 92–94.Google Scholar
  27. Horowitz, J., & Zedlewski, E. (2006). Applying cost-benefit analysis to policing innovations. Justice Research and Policy, 8(1), 52–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Howard, G. (2013). Discounting for personal and social payments. Patience for others, impatience for ourselves. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 66(3), 583–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. King, J., Mulligan, D., and 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. Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  31. Kleiman, M., Caulkins, J., and Gehred, P. (2014). Measuring the costs of crime. Final reported submitted to the National Institute of Justice in partial fulfillment of award number 2011-IJ-CX-K059.Google Scholar
  32. Kolb, J., & Scheraga, J. (1990). Discounting the benefits and costs of environmental regulations. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 9(3), 381–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuklinski, M., Fagan, A., Hawkins, J., Briney, J., & Catalano, R. (2015). Benefit-cost analysis of a randomized evaluation of communities that care: Monetizing intervention effects on the initiation of delinquency and substance use through grade 12. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(2), 165–192.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. La Vigne, N., Lowry, S., Markman, J., and Dwyer, A. (2011). Evaluating the use of public surveillance cameras for crime control and prevention. US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  35. Lauria, D. (2007). Cost-benefit analysis of Tacoma’s assigned vehicle program. Police Quarterly, 10(2), 192–217.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  37. Leman-Langlois, S. (2002). The myopic panopticon: The social consequences of policing through the lens. Policing and Society, 13(1), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lomell, H. (2004). Targeting the unwanted: Video surveillance and categorical exclusion in Oslo, Norway. Surveillance & Society, 2, 346–360.Google Scholar
  39. McCollister, K., French, M., & Feng, H. (2010). The cost of crime to society: New crime-specific estimates for policy and program evaluation. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 108(1–2), 98–109.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Miller, T., Cohen, M., and Wiserma, B. (1996). Victim costs and consequences: A new look. US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  42. Norris, C. (2003). From personal to digital: CCTV, the panopticon, and the technological mediation of suspicion and social control. In D. Lyon (Ed.), Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk and digital discrimination. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Painter, K. and Farrington, D. (1999). Street lighting and crime: Diffusion of benefits in the Stroke-on-Trent project. In Painter, K. and Tilley, N. (eds.) Surveillance of Public Space: CCTV, Street Lighting and Crime Prevention: 77–122. Crime Prevention Studies, Volume 10. Criminal Justice Press: Monsey, NY.Google Scholar
  44. Painter, K., & Farrington, D. (2001). The financial benefits of improved street lighting, based on crime reduction. Lighting Research and Technology, 33(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pease, K. (1999). A review of street lighting evaluations: Crime reduction effects. In Tilley, N. & Painter, K. (eds.), Surveillance of public space: CCTV, street lighting and crime prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, (Vol. 10). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  46. Phillips, C. (1999). A review of CCTV evaluations: Crime reduction effects and attitudes towards its use. In Tilley, N. and Painter, K. (eds.) Surveillance of Public Space: CCTV, Street Lighting and Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies Vol. 10. Criminal Justice Press: Monsey, NY.Google Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Piza, E., Caplan, J., & Kennedy, L. (2014b). Is the punishment more certain? An Analysis of CCTV Detections and Enforcement. Justice Quarterly, 31(6), 1015–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Piza, E., Caplan, J., & Kennedy, L. (2014c). CCTV as a tool for early police intervention: Preliminary lessons from nine case studies. Security Journal. doi: 10.1057/sj.2014.17.Google Scholar
  50. Piza, E., Caplan, J., Kennedy, L., & Gilchrist, A. (2015). The effects of merging proactive CCTV monitoring with directed police patrol: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(1), 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  52. Ratcliffe, J. (2015). Towards an index for harm-focused policing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 9(2), 164–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ratcliffe, J. and Breen, C. (2008). Spatial evaluation of police tactics in context (SEPTIC) spreadsheet, version 3. Downloaded from www.jratcliffe.net.
  54. Ratcliffe, J. and Groff, E. (2011). Preliminary findings from the Philadelphia CCTV study. Presentation at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Reaves, B. (2015). Local police departments, 2013: Equipment and Technology. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  57. Reid, A., & Andersen, M. (2014). An evaluation of CCTV in a car park using police and insurance data. Security Journal, 27, 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rice, D. (1966). Estimating the cost of illness. Volume 1. US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  59. Roman, J. (2009). What is the price of crime? New estimates of the cost of criminal victimization. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  60. Roman, J. and Chalfin, A. (2006). Does it pay to invest in reentry programs for jail inmates? Washington DC: Urban Institute. www.urban.org/ReentryRoundtable/roman_chalfin.pdf.
  61. Roman, J., Woodard, J., Harrell, A., and Riggs, S. (1998). Relative costs and benefits of the superior court drug intervention program. Washington DC: The Urban Institute. www.urban.org/publications/407753.html.
  62. Roman, J., Sundquist, A., & Knight, C. (2008). Cost-benefit analysis of reclaiming futures. Washington: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  63. Sherman, L. (1990). Police crackdowns: Initial and residual deterrence. In Tonry, M. and Morris, N. (eds.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 12: 1–48. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.Google Scholar
  64. Sherman, L. (2010). An introduction to experimental criminology. In A. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of Quantitative Criminology: 399–436. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  65. Sherman, L., Buerger, M., and Gartin, P. (1989). Beyond dial-a-cop. A randomized test of repeat call policing (RECAP). Crime Control Institute: Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  66. Star Ledger. (2010, November 30). Newark finalizes 167 police layoffs after union refuses Booker’s plea to return to negotiating table. Retrieved 5/30/15 at: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/union_head_expects_167_newark.html.
  67. Stephan, J. (2004). State prison expenditures, 2001 (NCJ Publication No. 202949). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  68. Telep, C., Mitchell, R., & Weisburd, D. (2014). 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, 31(5), 905–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tonry, M. (2015). The fog around cost-of-crime studies may finally be clearing. Prisoners and their kids suffer too. Criminology and Public Policy, 14(4), 653–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tuttle, B. (2009). How Newark became Newark. Piscataway: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Wayson, B., & Funke, G. (1989). What price justice? A handbook for the analysis of criminal justice costs. Washington: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  72. Weimer, D. (2008). Introduction: cost-benefit analysis and public policy. In D. Weimer (Ed.), Cost-benefit analysis and public policy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Somerset: Wiley Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Welsh, B. and Farrington, D. (2002). Crime prevention effects of closed circuit television: A systematic review. London: Home Office (Research Study No. 25).Google Scholar
  74. Welsh, B., & Farrington, D. (2004). Surveillance for crime prevention in public space: Results and policy choices in Britain and America. Criminology and Public Policy, 3(3), 497–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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
  76. Welsh, B., van der Laan, P., & Hollis, M. (2013). Systematic reviews and cost-benefit analysis: Toward evidence-based crime policy. In B. Welsh, A. Braga, & G. Bruinsma (Eds.), Experimental criminology. Prospects for advancing science and public policy (pp. 253–276). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wickramasekera, N., Wright, J., Elsey, H., Murray, J., & Tubeuf, S. (2015). Cost of crime: A systematic review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(3), 218–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wiseman, J. (2011). Strategic cutback management: Law enforcement leadership for lean times. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  79. 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
  80. Zedlewski, E. (2009). Conducting cost benefit analyses in criminal justice evaluations: Do we dare? European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15(4), 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric L. Piza
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrew M. Gilchrist
    • 2
  • Joel M. Caplan
    • 3
  • Leslie W. Kennedy
    • 3
  • Brian A. O’Hara
    • 4
  1. 1.John Jay College of Criminal JusticeCity University of New YorkNew York CityUSA
  2. 2.School of Criminal JusticeUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA
  3. 3.School of Criminal JusticeRutgers UniversityNewarkUSA
  4. 4.Newark Police DepartmentNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations