With regard to the three cities, impact analysis in Baltimore, MD, found that camera implementation, maintenance, and monitoring were beginning to pay off in the form of reduced crime rates in the city; impact analysis in Chicago, IL, found that the use of surveillance cameras in one area of the city yielded significant reductions in crime, while camera use in the other area showed little to no changes; and impact analysis in Washington, DC, found that the use of surveillance cameras alone did not have a significant impact on the decrease in crime rates in the city. This evaluation, conducted by the Urban Institute, examined the impact of the implementation and use of public surveillance cameras for crime control purposes in three major U.S. cities. The evaluation looked at four specific issues: the decisionmaking processes involved in camera implementation and use in each of the cities; the degree to which camera implementation coincided with a reduction in crime, and whether there was a coinciding displacement of crime to nearby areas; the costs associated with camera implementation and use; and how the costs associated with the use of public surveillance systems compared to the monetized societal benefits associated with reductions in crime rates following implementation of the surveillance systems. The major findings from the evaluation indicate that while public surveillance systems are generally viewed as useful tools for preventing crime, aiding in arrests, and supporting investigations, they do have their limitations, and in some cases the crime reduction benefits are not realized by the communities using the systems. Tables, figures, appendixes, and bibliography