TY - JOUR
T1 - The financial implications of merging proactive CCTV monitoring and directed police patrol
T2 - a cost–benefit analysis
AU - Piza, Eric L.
AU - Gilchrist, Andrew M.
AU - Caplan, Joel M.
AU - Kennedy, Leslie W.
AU - O’Hara, Brian A.
N1 - Funding Information:
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.
Funding Information:
Table displays the cost of the CCTV system. Donations and grant funding provided to the Newark Police Foundation, the fundraising arm of the NPD, paid for the installation of the CCTV system. The bulk of the funding came from a $3.2 million grant from the Newark Community Foundation in 2007. This grant directly funded the hardware, camera mounting, network connectivity, and software configuration for the first 109 camera sites. Therefore, we estimated the cost associated with installing a single camera in 2007 as $29,357.80 ($3.2 million/109), which translates to $31,849.38 in 2011 dollars. With 32 cameras in the experiment target area, we estimated the installation cost as $1,019,180.16
Publisher Copyright:
© 2016, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
PY - 2016/9/1
Y1 - 2016/9/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - CCTV
KW - Cost–benefit analysis
KW - Directed patrol
KW - Policing
KW - Situational crime prevention
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84976320635&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84976320635&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11292-016-9267-x
DO - 10.1007/s11292-016-9267-x
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84976320635
SN - 1573-3750
VL - 12
SP - 403
EP - 429
JO - Journal of Experimental Criminology
JF - Journal of Experimental Criminology
IS - 3
ER -