Center for Problem-Oriented Policing


1 Usher (2003a).

2 Goold (2004: 12).

3 A pixel is an abbreviation of picture element. Pixel resolution refers to the quality of an image. For example, a digital camera with a resolution of 640 x 480 pixels (640 pixels wide by 480 pixels high) will record a better quality image than a camera with a resolution of 320 x 240 pixels. Higher resolution images are generally of better quality, but increased storage capacity is required for better quality recording.

4 Leman-Langlois (2002).

5 Surette (2005).

6 Clarke and Cornish (1985).

7 Ditton, Short, Phillips, Norris, and Armstrong (1999: 24).[Research Findings]

8 Honess and Charman (1992: 6).[Full Text]

9 Short and Ditton (1998).[Abstract Available]

10 Usher (2003b).

11 See Makkai, Ratcliffe, Veraar, and Collins (2004). It could also be argued that this worked only in a city that was geographically isolated, such that a rapid replacement of prolific offenders was not possible.[Full Text]

12 Edmunds, Hough, and Urquia (1996).

13 Poyner (1988).

14 Welsh and Farrington (2004).

15 Squires (2000).[Full Text]

16 Brown (1995: 7). [Full Report]

17 Brown (1995: 14). [Full Report]

18 Harris, Jones, Hillier, and Turner (1998).

19 For example, see Clarke and Weisburd (1994)[Full Text], Green (1995), Ratcliffe and Makkai (2004)[Full Text].

20 For example, see Ratcliffe (2002).

21 Edmunds et al (1996: 16-17).[Full Text]

22 Honess and Charman (1992: 17)[Full Text]

23 Winge and Knutsson (2003).

24 For example, see Honess and Charman (1992).[Full Text]

25 Edmunds et al. (1996: 27).

26 McCoppin (2002)

27 48.4% said they had reported the crime to the police. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002, Criminal Victimization in the United States, Table 91.

28 Brown (1995: 59) [Full Report]; Short and Ditton (1998)[Abstract Available].

29 Phillips (1999) [Full text].

30 Welsh and Farrington (2002, 2004).[Full Text]

31 Gill and Spriggs (2005) and see Appendix B. [Full Text]

32 And as the report authors, note, "in one of these cases the change could be explained by the presence of confounding variables".

33 See for more information on the SARA model.

34 Bennett and Gelsthorpe (1996: 87).

35 You should consider the potential liability issues in the section "How CCTV aims to prevent crime".

36 Davies (1996).

37 For example, see (Cavoukian, 2001). [Full Text]

38 Mazerolle, Hurley, and Chamlin (2002).

39 For readers unaware of crime mapping, the website of the National Institute of Justice Mapping and Analysis for Public Safety (MAPS) program offers a good introduction to the concept ( The reader is also directed to (Chainey and Ratcliffe, 2005).

40 Bodipo-Memba (2004).

41 When a system is monitored by the police officer in charge of a station front desk, the system is not monitored when the officer attends to a police station visitor (Leman-Langlois, 2002).

42 Bodipo-Memba (2004).

43 Smithson (2004).

44 Ditton et al. (1999: 8).[Research Findings]

45 Gill and Loveday (2003).

46 Goold (2004).

47 Goold (2004: 180).

48 See Tilley (1997).

49 Norris and Armstrong (1999).

50 Orwell, G (1949).

51 House of Representatives (2002).

52 Goold (2004: 86).

53 389 U.S. 347.

54 For a detailed discussion of various cases, see Hickey, Capsambelis, and LaRose (2003: 549).

55 Harris et al. (1998).

56 Hamilton (2004).

57 Leman-Langlois (2002).

58 Surette (2005).

59 The authors of a recent UK Home Office study said "The most obvious conclusion to be drawn from the analysis in this chapter is that CCTV is an ineffective tool if the aim is to reduce overall crime rates and make people feel safer. The CCTV systems installed in 14 areas mostly failed to reduce crime (with a single exception), mostly failed to allay public fear of crime (with three exceptions) and the vast majority of specific aims set for the various CCTV schemes were not achieved. Despite all this we are reluctant to draw the simple conclusion that it failed." (Gill and Spriggs, 2005, page 61). [Full Text]

60 Ditton et al. (1999: 61).[Research Findings]

61 Home Office (1994).

62 Koskela (2000).

63 This is not to suggest or imply an inappropriate behavior on the evaluator's part. Simply, the evaluator's impartiality cannot be guaranteed and, therefore, the evaluation was excluded.