The Detection of Crime, Resource Deployment, and Predictors of Success: A Multi-Level Analysis of Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) in Newark, NJ collection represents the findings of a multi-level analysis of the Newark, New Jersey Police Department's video surveillance system. This collection contains multiple quantitative data files (Datasets 1-14) as well as spatial data files (Dataset 15 and Dataset 16). The overall project was separated into three components: Component 1 (Dataset 1, Individual CCTV Detections and Calls-For-Service Data and Dataset 2, Weekly CCTV Detections in Newark Data) evaluates CCTV's ability to increase the "certainty of punishment" in target areas; Component 2 (Dataset 3, Overall Crime Incidents Data; Dataset 4, Auto Theft Incidents Data; Dataset 5, Property Crime Incidents Data; Dataset 6, Robbery Incidents Data; Dataset 7, Theft From Auto Incidents Data; Dataset 8, Violent Crime Incidents Data; Dataset 9, Attributes of CCTV Catchment Zones Data; Dataset 10, Attributes of CCTV Camera Viewsheds Data; and Dataset 15, Impact of Micro-Level Features Spatial Data) analyzes the context under which CCTV cameras best deter crime. Micro-level factors were grouped into five categories: environmental features, line-of-sight, camera design and enforcement activity (including both crime and arrests); and Component 3 (Dataset 11, Calls-for-service Occurring Within CCTV Scheme Catchment Zones During the Experimental Period Data; Dataset 12, Calls-for-service Occurring Within CCTV Schemes During the Experimental Period Data; Dataset 13, Targeted Surveillances Conducted by the Experimental Operators Data; Dataset 14, Weekly Surveillance Activity Data; and Dataset 16, Randomized Controlled Trial Spatial Data) was a randomized, controlled trial measuring the effects of coupling proactive CCTV monitoring with directed patrol units. Over 40 separate four-hour tours of duty, an additional camera operator was funded to monitor specific CCTV cameras in Newark. Two patrol units were dedicated solely to the operators and were tasked with exclusively responding to incidents of concern detected on the experimental cameras. Variables included throughout the datasets include police report and incident dates, crime type, disposition code, number of each type of incident that occurred in a viewshed precinct, number of CCTV detections that resulted in any police enforcement, and number of schools, retail stores, bars and public transit within the catchment zone.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. Researchers compiled datasets on prison admissions and releases that would be comparable across places and geocoded and mapped those data onto crime rates across those same places. The data used were panel data. The data were quarterly or annual data, depending on the location, from a mix of urban (Boston, Newark and Trenton) and rural communities in New Jersey covering various years between 2000 and 2010. The crime, release, and admission data were individual level data that were then aggregated from the individual incident level to the census tract level by quarter (in Boston and Newark) or year (in Trenton). The analyses centered on the effects of rates of prison removals and returns on rates of crime in communities (defined as census tracts) in the cities of Boston, Massachusetts, Newark, New Jersey, and Trenton, New Jersey, and across rural municipalities in New Jersey. There are 4 Stata data files. The Boston data file has 6,862 cases, and 44 variables. The Newark data file has 1,440 cases, and 45 variables. The Trenton data file has 66 cases, and 32 variables. The New Jersey Rural data file has 1,170 cases, and 32 variables.

These data were prepared in conjunction with a project using Bureau of Labor Statistics data (not provided with this collection) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program data to examine the relationship between unemployment and violent crime. Three separate time-series data files were created as part of this project: a national time series (Part 1), a state time series (Part 2), and a time series of data for 12 selected cities: Baltimore, Buffalo, Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Newark, New York City, Paterson (New Jersey), and Philadelphia (Part 3). Each data file was constructed to include 82 monthly time series: 26 series containing the number of Part I (crime index) offenses known to police (excluding arson) by weapon used, 26 series of the number of offenses cleared by arrest or other exceptional means by weapon used in the offense, 26 series of the number of offenses cleared by arrest or other exceptional means for persons under 18 years of age by weapon used in the offense, a population estimate series, and three date indicator series. For the national and state data, agencies from the 50 states and Washington, DC, were included in the aggregated data file if they reported at least one month of information during the year. In addition, agencies that did not report their own data (and thus had no monthly observations on crime or arrests) were included to make the aggregated population estimate as close to Census estimates as possible. For the city time series, law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over the 12 central cities were identified and the monthly data were extracted from each UCR annual file for each of the 12 agencies. The national time-series file contains 82 time series, the state file contains 4,083 time series, and the city file contains 963 time series, each with 228 monthly observations per time series. The unit of analysis is the month of observation. Monthly crime and clearance totals are provided for homicide, negligent manslaughter, total rape, forcible rape, attempted forcible rape, total robbery, firearm robbery, knife/cutting instrument robbery, other dangerous weapon robbery, strong-arm robbery, total assault, firearm assault, knife/cutting instrument assault, other dangerous weapon assault, simple nonaggravated assault, assaults with hands/fists/feet, total burglary, burglary with forcible entry, unlawful entry-no force, attempted forcible entry, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, auto theft, truck and bus theft, other vehicle theft, and grand total of all actual offenses.

Correctional facilities have suffered from a mixture of policy changes at the federal and local levels, coupled with broader support for rehabilitative solutions to the broader issue of crime. The implementation of a ban on private prison contract renewals with the DOJ in 2021 cut off a considerable revenue stream across BOP and USMS clientele. While the order was reversed in January 2025, facilities were forced to pivot to alternative revenue streams, namely community centers and rehabilitative service provision. Demand is uniquely separate from the broader economic climate, since revenue growth is primarily influenced by crime and incarceration rates. Falling approval of for-profit prisons also influenced statewide restrictions on private correctional facilities. Revenue fell at a CAGR of 3.6% to an estimated $9.0 billion, including an estimated 3.5% decline in 2025 alone, as profit reached an estimated 12.4%. Decreasing national crime and incarceration rates have been the primary contributing factors influencing revenue. A sharp 7.6% collapse in the national incarceration rate over the past five years was influenced by a conscious effort by the US government to reduce prison overcrowding. Since private correctional facilities charge fixed, per-diem rates based on occupancy, a reduction in the inmate population not only lowers demand for facility, but also raises fixed costs that eat into their profit margin. However, stricter immigration enforcement, caused agencies such as ICE to contract correctional facilities to provide detention and processing centers for new arrivals. In February 2025, major company GEO Group signed off on a contract with ICE for a new processing facility in Newark, New Jersey, providing a crucial revenue stream that offset larger losses. Moving forward, correctional facilities face an uncertain future. Continued slippage in public opinion regarding for-profit prison systems will force facilities to invest capital in rehabilitative services aimed at reentry and reduction of recidivism. Reputational problems stemming from reports of inadequate medical care, excessive use of solitary confinement and unsanitary conditions may lead to financial penalties or full-on closures. A continued retreat in national incarceration and crime rates will continue shrinking the potential marketplace for correctional facilities. Revenue is expected to sink at a CAGR of 3.6% to an estimated $7.5 billion over the next five years.