. 1.

CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION

Surveillance Camera are video cameras used for the purposed ofobserving an area.
They are often connected to a recording device, IPnetwork, and/or watched by a
security personnel/law enforcement officer.Video Surveillance Systems consist of
cameras placed in areas wherethey can monitor activity as it takes place. These
cameras may includefeatures like pan, tilt, and zoom; may be placed in outdoor or
indoorlocations; and may include infrared recording options. Most cameras areused
with recording systems, either VCRs or digital recorders. Using adigital recorder is the
preferred option for easy storage, easy recall, andeasy viewing over different monitors.
The first Video Surveillance System was installed by Siemens AGat Test Stand VII in
Peenemunde, Germany in 1942, for observing thelaunch of V-2 rockets. The noted
German engineer Walter Bruch wasresponsible for the design and installation of the
system. Outside government special facilities, Video Surveillance wasdeveloped
initially as a means of increasing security in banks.Experiments in the UK during the
1970s and 1980s led to several largertrial programs later that decade. 4
. 2. These were deemed successful in the government report and pavedthe way for a
massive increase in the number of Video Surveillancesystems installed. Today,
systems cover most town and city centers, andmany stations, car-parks and estates.
Video Surveillance recording systems are still often used atmodern launch sites to
record the flight of the rockets, in order to find thepossible causes of malfunctions.
Video Surveillance System is one of themost effective devices that can be used for
monitoring the behavioractivities or other changing information, usually of the people
and oftenin surreptitious manner. In our school, it is important to increased safety and
security forthe students as well its’ personnel. The schools are the place
wherestudents should feel safe from harm, outside stimulus, and other threats.Sadly
to say, in the past few years, there are some instances whereschools are not the safe
haven we thought they were, take for instancewhat happened at Philippine Maritime
Institute (PMI), where one of theprofessors was gun shot at the head inside the
campus by one of thestudents. If only the management of the school strengthen its
securitysystem, none of this would happen. Base on the above mentionedsituation,
the researcher come up with an idea that could improve thesecurity system not only for
schools and universities but for all theentities and establishment in the Philippines.
That is: The incorporationof a surveillance camera to its security system. One of the
features of thisresearch is that, an embedded system is incorporated by integrating a 4
. 3. thermal scanner and an X-ray in the security system (for futureexpansion). One of
the most popular Surveillance tools for Schools is theSecure View System. The
system transmits images from cameras to adigital hard drive storage system. Output
can be seen on a monitor thatdisplays four frames of video or on desktop computer
monitors, whichare networked to receive video feeds from the cameras. 4
. 4. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY Student behavior is a problem that cannot be
regarded as trivial.The problem of students bringing weapons to school is an issue that
willnot go away by itself. School children are harming each other withregularity. The
problems are particularly acute and are complicated bytheir connection to the
prevalence of poverty, crime, and despair. Installing video surveillance system will
help students focus ontheir studies and not make them worry about outside violence.
Theseinstallations represent a huge amount of video to transmit, view andarchive,
making it impossible for a human monitor to analyze all of thesevideo recordings in
order to detect suspicious behavior or events. This isespecially true since security
control centre personnel are also required tomanage other tasks, such as access
control, issuance ofbadges/keys/permits, handling emergency calls, following up on
firealarms, radio communications control, etc. Over the past decade, the security of
individuals and property, andthe security of information have become major global
issues. Faced withproblems such as the fight against terrorism, enhanced national
 securityand the rapid development of cyber crime, our societies are
increasinglyinvesting in protection. This sector therefore offers great opportunities
forbusinesses, both with respect to technological development and
services.Information and communications technologies in particular provide newand
sophisticated solutions for physical and IT security. 4
. 5. Among the solutions proposed, video surveillance is one of theoldest and most
widespread security technologies. Although still mostlyanalogical, it is undergoing a
digital revolution with the ongoingtransition to videos on IP networks. Sometimes
integrating hundreds ofcameras, these new systems create a huge amount of video
informationthat cannot be processed only by security agent screen surveillance.
Toresolve this issue, intelligent video surveillance, by video analytic, canprocess the
information by software analysis in order to keep only thedata relevant to security.
Video Surveillance should be place at dedicated viewing areassuch as entrances,
hallways, stairwells or even classroom environments,so that the best possible view
can be achieved in relation to what thecameras primary focus should be. Schools can
feature multiple entrancesor exits and may span multiple buildings. It can soon
become hard tokeep track of where potential security risks may occur at any given
time.It is important to note that all video surveillance will remain in a fixedposition thus
providing a dedicated view of what is most important. It canbe repositioned which may
result in the camera looking in the wrongdirection at the wrong time. Video
Surveillance cameras should only beused in school campus environments as a
secondary means of security. A school campus may include a single building at one
location upto hundreds of buildings spanning multiple locations. One of the
manybenefits of video surveillance technology is the ability for
centralizedmanagement. No longer is surveillance limited to a building by building 4
. 6. configuration. Also avoided is the cost of trying to bring all camerasvideo feeds to a
centralized location. Video Quality and Video Frame Rates Schools can become
verybusy places rather quickly. It is important that video quality be at a levelhigh
enough so that identification of persons can be made easily.Cameras need both high
video quality and a reasonable video frame ratefor this to occur. This was once difficult
due to cost and bandwidthlimitations. With video surveillance applications over school
campuses it isimportant to focus on areas that are of key importance. These are the
keysecurity risk areas that should be monitored at all times without changingcamera
position. It is also important that video surveillance cameras usedin these areas are of
high quality so that proper identification can bemade easily. With the added benefits of
video surveillance includingcentralized management capabilities and high resolution
capablecameras, a safe and secure environment can be created where studentsand
faculty can focus on education without the worry of feeling unsafe orunprotected. 4
. 7. OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study is to achieve a general understanding
ofthe technology implicated in using Video Surveillance System in School. This study
identifies the security threats and concerns of aparticular place. This study can
address possible actions with regards to the problemand to understand that video
technology has benefits but at the same timecan have an effect on the privacy of
individuals. 4
. 8. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The research paradigm that guided this study is
shown in Figure.It follows the Input-Process-Output approach. INPUT PROCESS
OUPUT Installation of Immediate Video response to a Surveillance possible/ actual
Equipment incident Analysis after Observation Video an incident through Evidentiary
Surveillance surveillance analysis after equipment an incident equipment Survey
Conducive Questionnaire place for Distribution and teaching and retrieval of the
learning survey process. Assessment of questionnaire the survey’s outcome Analysis
and computation of 4
. 9. The input of the study consisted of the typical Video SurveillanceEquipment like
Video Cameras, Monitor and a trap. This study alsoconsists of a Survey
Questionnaires. The process composed of Installation of Video
SurveillanceEquipment, an observation through the Video Surveillance Equipment,the
distribution and retrieval of Survey Questionnaires then the analysisand computation
of all the data gathered. The output consisted of the immediate response to a possible
/actual incident, analysis after an incident, evidentiary analysis after anincident,
conducive place for teaching and learning process and theassessment/evaluation on
the survey’s outcome. 4
. 10. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM This study aims to evaluate how video
surveillance system helps tosecure the school. Specifically, it sought answer the
following questions: 1. What are the specific security threats and concerns of the
school attempting to address by using a video surveillance system. 2. How will it help
address those threats and how will the school actually use it on a day-to-day basis. 3.
How does the school management accept and interpret data produce by the system?
4. How does the student accept the new system if implemented? 5. Is there a
significant difference between the security personnel officer and the video surveillance
system? 4
. 11. SCOPE AND DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY This study focused on the security
system of the individuals inschools by having a defense security system using video
surveillance. This study, intended for a non-expert audience, discusses the insand
outs of this technology and tries to characterize the market itrepresents, not for
different places, but more specifically in schools. Itcontains information on video
surveillance technology, its application,and leading edge video analytic techniques
applicable to it, its needs, thedevelopments and trends in this field, the issues it raises,
and the supplyand demand it generates. Furthermore it only attempted to identify the
needs of the groupconcerned, explanations or reasons for these needs were not
concerns ofthis study. 4
. 12. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDYStudents This analysis/ research will help the
students to feel safe inside theschool; they can concentrate/focus on their studies
without bothering onwhat could possibly happen to them while they are in the school
vicinity. With the help of this study the security of the students inside thecampus will be
intensively monitored by the use of the security systeminstalled within the school
campus. Students may be less inclined tocause trouble because of the solid
documentation that the videorecordings provide.School Administrators / Universities
When school campuses provide a video surveillance system fortheir security, it will
become a peaceful, conducive and friendly schoolenvironment. It will maintain the
peace of mind of the Schooladministrators or staff inside the school campus. School
will easilysecure the safety of the students enrolled. Another thing is videosurveillance
security system will help the school officials to find theperformance evaluation of their
employee. This system will also use tolessen or decrease the property damages such
as vandalism and theft; fartoo often the administration can only react to vandalism with
time-consuming, seldom successful and often fruitless attempts to identify
theperpetrators. 4
. 13. Researcher This study serves as a major part of the course requirement as ithas
developed their skills in terms of self-esteem, time management,practicality, strategic
planning and patience. Hence, they are able toobtain the necessary information on
time and reporting it in the mostpresentable manner they can. This study can be
effective tool forreference to know how to make the schools safer. 4
. 14. DEFINITION OF TERMS To understand and clarify the terms used in the study,
thefollowing are hereby defined:Video Surveillance - is the monitoring of the behavior,
activities, orother changing information, usually of people and often in a
 surreptitiousmanner. It most usually refers to observation of individuals or groups
bygovernment organizations.Security System - a system that enforces boundaries
between computernetworks. It is an electrical devise that sets off an alarm when
someonetries to break inIP Network - is a computer network made of devices that
support theInternet Protocol.Monitor - a device that displays images or symbols
generated bycomputers.Law Enforcement Officer - is any public-sector employee or
agentwhose duties involve the enforcement of laws.Vandalism - is the behavior
attributed originally to the Vandals, by theRomans, in respect of culture: ruthless
destruction or spoiling of anythingbeautiful or venerable. Such action includes
defacement, graffiti andcriminal damage.Theft - is the illegal taking of another persons
property without thatpersons freely-given consent. The word is also used as an
informalshorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, 4
. 15. embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, fraud andsometimes criminal
conversion.Digital Video Recorder - is a device that records video in a digitalformat to
a disk drive, USB flash drive, SD memory card or other massstorage device. The term
includes set-top boxes with recording facility,portable media players (PMP) with
recording facility, recorders (PMR ascamcorders that record onto memory cards) and
software for personalcomputers which enables video capture and playback to and
from disk.Archived - is a collection of historical records, as well as the place theyare
located. Archives contain primary source documents that haveaccumulated over the
course of an individual or organizations lifetime.Algorithm - is an effective method for
solving a problem expressed as afinite sequence of instructions. Algorithms are used
for calculation, dataprocessing, and many other fields.Thermal Scanner - a thermal
scanner takes a measurement of thereflection of electromagnetic energy emitted in
the infrared spectrum. Ithas the ability to sense differences in temperatures of known
objects.X-ray - is a form of electromagnetic radiation. It can penetrate solidobjects and
their largest use is to take images of the inside of objects indiagnostic radiography and
crystallography.HYPOTHESISThe hypothesis pursued and tested in this study was 4
. 16. 1. There is no significant difference between the Security Personnel officer and
the Video Surveillance Security System. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED
LITERATUREForeign Studies Many European countries now employ public video
surveillance asa primary tool to monitor population movements and to
preventterrorism. The United Kingdom (UK) in particular relies extensively onvideo
surveillance as a tool to fight crime and prevent terrorism.According to some
researchers, the camera surveillance systems in theUK are discouraging and thus
preventing crime. Public video surveillance in the UK began very unassumingly in1986,
on a single square mile industrial estate outside the English town ofKings Lynn. Three
CCTV video surveillance cameras were used andtheir impact was immediate. In the
years before the cameras wereinstalled, there had been 58 crimes (mostly vandalism)
recorded on theestate. In the two years following the installation, there were no
crimesreported. Subsequently, cities and towns across Great Britain began usingthis
crime prevention measure. By 1994, over 300 jurisdictions in thecountry had installed
some form of public video surveillance. 4
. 17. In 1995, the national government made available up to $3.1 millionin matching
grants available to cities and towns to establish CCTV videosurveillance programs.
According to the police superintendent of a largemetropolitan area, "public video
surveillance has been very helpful inmaking arrests, and perhaps more important,
helping to allocate resourcesto where theyre most necessary." Although most
municipal systems havebeen operational since 1990, there is little longitudinal data
indicatinghow effective CCTV surveillance systems actually have been in
reducingcrime rates. Recent British government reports cite CCTV surveillance asa
major reason for declining crime rates: in the small town of Berwickburglaries fell by 69
percent; in Northampton overall crime decreased by57 percent; and in Glasgow,
 Scotland crime decreased by 68 percent.25What Criminologists and Others Studying
Cameras Have FoundNoam Biale, Advocacy Coordinator, ACLU Technology and
LibertyProgramEXECUTIVE SUMMARY An increasing number of American cities and
towns are currentlyinvesting millions of taxpayer dollars in surveillance camera
systems. Butfew are closely examining the costs and benefits of those investments,
orcreating mechanisms for measuring those costs and benefits over time.There is
extensive academic literature on the subject—studies carried out 4
. 18. over many years—and that research strongly indicates that videosurveillance has
no statistically significant effect on crime rates. The principle studies on video
surveillance have been conducted inthe UK, where surveillance cameras are
pervasive. Those studies, whichhave been commissioned by the British Home Office,
have found varyingresults when they look at individual camera sites in isolation.
However,the best studies combine results from multiple camera sites in a
meta-analysis, which eliminates anomalies. The two main meta-analysesconducted
for the British Home Office show that video surveillance hasno impact on crime
whatsoever. Video surveillance systems are more disparate and at variouslevels of
operability in the United States. As such, fewer independent studies of their efficacy
exist.However, preliminary studies of surveillance cameras in California showsimilar
results to studies conducted in the UK: Cameras having little tono effect on crime
reduction. This White Paper is based on a literature review of major studies ofvideo
surveillance from 2000 to 2008. It examines the key meta-analyses from the UK,
discusses themajor difficulties in determining the impact of video surveillance oncrime,
and describes preliminary studies conducted in the US. The major findings of these
studies should, at a minimum, be partof the debate around surveillance cameras. An
increasing number of American cities and towns are currentlyinvesting millions of
taxpayer dollars in surveillance camera systems. But 4
. 19. few are closely examining the costs and benefits of those investments, orcreating
mechanisms for measuring those costs and benefits over time.There is extensive
academic literature on the subject—studies carried outover many years—and that
research strongly indicates the following: • Meta-analyses (studies that average the
results of multiplestudies) in the UK show that video surveillance has no
statisticallysignificant impact on crime. • Preliminary studies on video surveillance
systems in the US showlittle to no positive impact on crime. This White Paper is based
upon a literature review of independentstudies on the effect of video surveillance on
crime rates from 2000 to2008, particularly meta-analyses that aggregate data from
several studies.It surveys what these meta-analyses have found, the
methodologicaldifficulties of studying video surveillance systems in isolation,
andpreliminary results from studies in the US. The major findings of these studies
should, at a minimum, be partof the debate around surveillance
cameras.DIFFICULTIES OF STUDYING SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS Measuring the
success of public video surveillance systems iscomplex, because there are always
innumerable factors that can explain arise or fall in crime rates. Simply showing an
increase or decrease inreported crime in an area under surveillance does not take into
accountgeneral trends in crime and crime reporting, additional police in the areas 4
. 20. under surveillance, better lighting, and perhaps most importantly, thepossible
displacement of crime to other areas not under surveillance. Several factors in
particular make it difficult to assess theeffectiveness of surveillance cameras:•
Displacement. Displacement complicates attempts to measure theimpact of
surveillance cameras on crime rates, because it means that thecontrol area cannot be
too close in proximity to the cameras. Forexample, in looking at a downtown district
and comparing the number ofmuggings on particular blocks, one might reasonably
assume that if therate of muggings increase near an area that is being monitored
bycameras, and decrease in the area being directly monitored, then thecameras have
 been effective in reducing muggings. However, it couldalso be reasonably assumed
that the placement of the cameras on aparticular block in fact pushed the muggings
into surrounding areas, anddid not reduce crime overall. This is really a problem of
interpretation,not data, and as a result, displacement can be extraordinarily difficult
toshow.• Confounding variables. It can be inaccurate to extrapolate successfrom
specific locations to general areas. For example, enclosed placessuch as parking lots
tend to produce better outcomes than outdoor areas.In addition, other factors such as
increased police presence and betterlighting in areas under surveillance make it
difficult to conclude whichintervention is most effective. It is unclear in many studies
that appear toshow success whether surveillance cameras had a positive impact
incombination with improved lighting, or whether the improved lighting 4
. 21. might accomplish the positive outcome on its own. Studies vary on thedegree to
which they take confounding factors into account. Because of these problems,
individual video surveillance studiesmay not be reliable on their own. In evaluating the
merits of videosurveillance it is important to look at the overall trend of multiple
studiesand place particular reliance on studies with rigorous methodology. Forthis
reason, the UK Home Office has adopted the meta-analysis as thebest statistical tool
for studying the efficacy of surveillance cameras.META-ANALYSES OF UNITED
KINGDOM SURVEILLANCESYSTEMS The efficacy of public video surveillance as a
crime-fighting toolhas been analyzed in a wide range of studies over the last decade.
Themajority of research has been conducted in the United Kingdom, whichmore than
any other country has embraced the widespread use ofcameras. The UK’s network of
public surveillance cameras is the largestin the world (although China is quickly
outpacing it).1 The number ofsurveillance cameras in England and Wales increased
from 100 in 1990to 40,000 in 2002,2 and now stands above 4.2 million, or one for
every14 persons.3 The center of London is surrounded by a “ring of steel,” anetworked
video surveillance system that is intended to allow lawenforcement to track individuals
moving through the city, observepatterns of behavior and respond immediately to
threats. 4
. 22. The British Home Office, the agency in charge of security, spent78% of its criminal
justice budget in the 1990’s on surveillancecameras,4 and is estimated to have spent
over £500 million(approximately a $1 billion) in between 1995 and 2005.5 The Home
Office has commissioned several key studies on theeffectiveness of these systems
around the UK using meta-analysis. Meta-analysis combines the results of multiple
studies that all have similarhypotheses and methodological criteria. This is important
because itweeds out anomalies. For example, one installation of a videosurveillance
system might coincide with a sharp drop in crime, but wecannot know whether it
caused the drop without comparing it to otherscenarios (further explanation of the
difficulty of measuring success fromisolated studies is below). A meta-analysis can
provide a clearer sense ofthe impact of surveillance cameras by taking a variety of
studies andaveraging their results. The individual studies show moderate successes in
some sites,usually in parking lots, and for certain types of crimes, usually
vehiclecrimes. However, the majority of studies show no effect on overall crime,and
when combined in a meta-analysis, CCTV is shown to have nostatistically significant
impact on crime rates at all. The following is a summary of the Home Office
studies.Home Office Study, 2002 In the first Home Office study in August 2002,
Brandon C. Welshand David P. Farrington6 surveyed 22 studies of CCTV (both in the
UK 4
. 23. and the USA) for a meta-analysis, and found that, taken together, thecameras had
no significant impact on crime. Welsh and Farrington began with 46 studies, but
whittled thenumber down to 18 based on the criteria for inclusion in the
meta-analysis.7 Of the 18 studies, half showed some reduction in crime in thearea
under surveillance, about a quarter showed an increase in crime, andthe remaining
 studies showed a null effect. Welsh and Farrington thencreated a meta-analysis for the
included studies, by determining an odds-ratio for each study and then combining
these ratios. An odds-ratio is anumerical expression of the net effect of an intervention,
calculated bycomparing results in the experimental area with the control. An odds-ratio
of 1 shows that there is no difference in crime rates between theexperimental
(surveilled) area and the control. An odds-ratio greater than1 shows that the areas with
cameras are experiencing less crime than thecontrol areas. An odds-ratio of less than
1 show that the areas withcameras are experiencing more crime than the control.
When Welsh and Farrington combined odd-ratios for all 18 studiesincluded in the
meta-analysis, they found that the average was just over1, showing a very small
impact on crime, and when measured against thestandard deviation, this impact was
shown to be statistically insignificant.The areas with cameras did not perform better
than the areas without. It is worth noting that the two areas included in which
cameraswere the only intervention used (no added police presence, increasedlighting,
etc.) showed no effect on crime in one case,8 and an increase incrime in the other.9
Five of the eleven studies that showed reductions in 4
. 24. crime looked at camera systems located in enclosed parking lots. Thesestudies
showed an overall odds-ratio of 1.7, but included otherinterventions, such as improved
lighting, fencing, notices about CCTV,and increased security personnel. This suggests
that cameras can beeffective when used in specific environments and combined with
otherpreventative measures.Home Office Study, 2005 Criminologists Martin Gill and
Angela Spriggs published acomprehensive analysis of fourteen individual sites in the
UK for theHome Office in 2005,10 which found, again through the use of meta-analysis,
that the cameras had “no overall effect” on crime rates. Gill and Spriggs concluded that
only one of 13 sites showed astatistically significant reduction in crime (one site was
excluded forfailing to meet the crime statistics recording criteria). This site showed
areduction far larger than any others—an odds-ratio of 3.34, indicating areduction in
crime of over 300%, compared with the second-largest odds-ratio of 1.38, or just under
40%—and was also the most expensive site, ata cost of over £3 million (about $6
million) for the camera system. Thisarea also experienced several confounding factors
including increasedfencing and improvements to security, though these were
implementedonce the video surveillance system was fully installed and thus may
nothave had a distorting impact on the outcome. Although Gill and Spriggs analysis
found "that CCTV schemesproduced no overall effect on all relevant crime viewed
collectively,"11 4
. 25. the study did show overall better outcomes for vehicle crimes in seven ofthe sites.
Violent crimes were different. In the four urban city centersincluded in the study,
violence against persons increased in three sites.Gill and Spriggs hypothesize that
these crimes may be impulsive andmore often influenced by alcohol.12 They also
acknowledge that changesto parking regulations in at least one site may have
contributed to thereduction in vehicle crime, by simply reducing the number of vehicles
onthe street.13 In addition, burglary, a property crime that did showreductions in one
site, showed the highest rate of displacement in an areaadjacent to the target area.14
Gill and Spriggs additionally found that fear of being victimized bycrime did not change
significantly from before the cameras were installedand after, though 69-96% of
individuals surveyed in the 14 sitesresponded favorably to plans to install camera
systems.PRELIMINARY USA STUDIES SHOW LITTLE POSITIVEIMPACT Fewer
studies of video surveillance have been conducted in theUnited States, where
cameras have been erected in a piecemeal manner,and have not undergone an
extensive process of networking (though Chicago15 and New York16 are beginning
this process). Studiesare, at this point, insufficient to conduct meta-analyses based
solely onstudies in the US. However, Welsh and Farrington’s 2002
 meta-analysiscompared UK and US sites, and the two revisited this comparison in
a2004 follow-up.17 4
. 26. The American studies that met the criteria for the meta-analysisgenerally showed
worse outcomes that those in the UK, showing anundesirable or null effect on crime.
Welsh and Farrington point out a fewkey differences between the UK and US systems
that might explain this.One possibility is a difference in reporting time, with the UK
studiesgenerally taking longer to report findings. However, as Welsh and Farrington
report, what is likely an even more important factor, isthat the surveillance sites in the
US lack the confounding elements of theBritish sites. While nine of the 14 UK sites
used several differentinterventions simultaneously, such as improved lighting and
increasedfoot patrols, none of the US schemes used any intervention besidescameras.
Thus, these studies provide a more unadulterated look at theeffect of surveillance
cameras on crime rates than their UK counterpartsand show that cameras on their
own have virtually no impact on crime.18 The following are two initial independent
studies of small-scalesystems, both in California,19 that offer a preliminary view of the
impactof video surveillance on crime in US cities.UC Berkeley Preliminary Study The
city of San Francisco’s 68 cameras appear to have had a smallimpact on property
crimes, but no impact on violent crimes. Jennifer King and colleagues at Center for
Information TechnologyResearch in the Interest of Society (CITRIS) and the
Samuelson Clinic atthe University of California, Berkeley, are currently in the process
ofstudying the impact of San Franciscos small video surveillance system. 4
. 27. In March 2008, they published preliminary findings.20 Looking ataggregate
statistics on serious violent crime and serious property crimesbefore and after
installation of cameras in high-crime neighborhoods,Kings group found a 22% decline
in property crime occurring within 100feet of the cameras, but no statistically significant
changes between 100and 500 feet from the cameras. This would seem to suggest that
thecameras are, in fact, working to reduce property crimes. However,without the
benefit of aggregated multiple studies in a meta-analysis, wecannot know whether this
reduction is a fluke or not. Regarding violent crime, there appeared to be no
statisticallysignificant change in the level of crime anywhere in the 500 foot
rangearound the cameras. When violent crimes were disaggregated, a declinein
homicide was observed within 250 feet of the cameras, however thisreduction was
offset completely by an equal increase in homicidesbetween 250 and 500 feet from the
cameras, suggesting displacement. The study also did preliminary analysis of crime
statistics500-1000 feet away from the cameras, and thus, based on
informationavailable from the San Francisco Police Department, out of the range
ofsurveillance, and found an increase in property crime between 500 to 750feet from
the cameras. This might suggest displacement from the areas directly monitoredby the
cameras, though an off setting decline in property crimes in thearea 750 to 1,000 feet
away makes a determination of displacementinconclusive. 4
. 28. Notably when the preliminary findings of the UC Berkeley studywere reported in
the San Francisco Chronicle, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who heads the boardspublic
safety committee, responded to the apparent null effect on violentcrime by asserting
that the cameras provided “psychological relief” tocitizens, and were thus justified.21
The city has so far spent $900,000 onthe 68 cameras currently up and has budgeted
an additional $200,000 for25 more cameras intended to target violent gang
activity.22USC Study Preliminary studies of camera systems in Los Angeles show
noimpact on crime. Students at the University of Southern California School of
Policy,Planning and Development released a report to the California ResearchBureau
in May 2008 on the effects of video surveillance on crime in twoareas of Los
Angeles.23 The group looked at five out of 14 camerasalong a high-traffic section of
Hollywood Blvd. and six cameras at theJordan Downs Public Housing Project in Watts.
The study notes that,unlike San Franciscos public video surveillance system, cameras
 in LosAngeles have not been analyzed by the city or some other official body
todetermine their efficacy. This may be because while San Francisco hasincurred
substantial costs for installation and upkeep of the cameras,many of LAs cameras,
including the clusters that the USC groupexamined, were installed through private
donations (on Hollywood Blvd,for example, the cameras were donated to the city by
the film industry) or 4
. 29. federal grants through the US Department of Homeland Securitys GrantProgram.
Another important distinction between the camera systems inLos Angeles and those in
San Francisco is active monitoring of LAscameras “in real time,” vs. a decision by the
San Francisco City Councilto allow only passive monitoring of the cameras for the
purposes ofsafeguarding citizens privacy. Looking at the LAPDs COMPSTAT figures
to determine pre andpost installation crime rates, as well as arrest records, the study
found nosignificant impact on crime in either area. Violent crime went down inboth
areas, but that reduction was offset by an overall crime reduction insurrounding control
areas (though in the case of the Jordan DownsHousing Project, the group
hypothesized that the cameras may haveplayed a role in preventing a substantial
escalation of crime relative tosurrounding areas, since the housing project was the site
of a gang warduring the period of the study). The group was not able to findstatistically
significant evidence of displacement in either area.Local Literature The Philippines is
known as the Pearl of the Orient, with its exoticand tropical islands, rare and valuable
natural resources, stunning naturalwonders, warm and hospitable people, and rising
national status in theworld. But with all these raves, the country is not exempt from the
terrorsof the rest of the world. Despite its beauty, the country is also in dangerof
relentless terrorist threats and terrorism incidences. Communications 4
. 30. and Information Technology industries are also booming and theworkplace is
getting larger and more complex as time progresses. Thecountry is not bereft of
crimes, in the cities, suburbs, and rural areas. Thefact is that this is the harsh reality
that goes hand in hand with thewonders and delight the country can offer. But the good
side to this is that we are not left helpless to theselooming possibilities of insecurity.
You have the choice of taking aproactive stance when it comes to securing your
homes, your businesses,your country, and your future. Philippine Security brings you
the latestand most reliable storage and security system technologies that can takeyour
safety and security confidence to a higher level. Only PhilippineSecurity offers the
complete set of security solutions that can meet thesecurity needs of various types of
clients – from the government, to thebusiness sector, to academic institutions, to
individual homes and to theschools and campuses. Our line-up of products and
solutions include thetop-of-the-line surveillance cameras, access control and alarm
systems. 4
. 31. CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGYRESEARCH DESIGN This study will
use the descriptive method of the survey type ofresearch which describe and interpret
data and characteristics about thepopulation or phenomenon being studied. It involves
some type ofcomparison or contrast and attempts to discover relationships
betweenexisting and non manipulative variables. Moreover, Aquino describes the
descriptive research as fact-finding methodology with adequate interpretation. He
further claims thatthe descriptive method is something more and beyond just data
gathering.He believes that the discussions of those data are carried up to the levelof
adequate interpretation. The data must be subjected to terms of
orderedreasoning.POPULATION, SAMPLE AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES The
purposive sampling will be used in the selection of therespondents only in EARIST,
Nagtahan, Sampaloc, Manila will beutilized to answer the questionnaires. 4
. 32. In this regard, Pagoso emphasized that purposive sampling wasbased on certain
criteria laid down by the research such that therespondents within the population have
meaning for the data that will begathered. The respondents of the study will be the
 students and faculties ofEARIST, Manila.RESEARCH INSTRUMENT The survey
questionnaire was used as the main data-gatheringinstrument for this study. The
questionnaire was divided into two mainsections: a personal data sheet or the profile
and the survey proper. Theprofile contains socio-demographic characteristics of the
respondents suchas age, gender, and the respondent’s knowledge about video
surveillancesystem. The questions were structure using the Likert format. In thissurvey
type, five choices are provided for every question or statement. Thechoices represent
the degree of agreement each respondent has on thegiven question. The Likert survey
was the selected questionnaire type as thisenabled the respondents to answer the
survey easily. In addition, thisresearch instrument allowed the research to carry out the
quantitativeapproach effectively with the use of statistics for data interpretation 4
. 33. DATA GATHERING PROCEDURE Permission to conduct the study will be
secured by the researcherfrom the school administrator of Eulogio “Amang” Rodriguez
Institute ofScience and Technology, Nagtahan, Sampaloc, Manila. After which,
theresearcher will go to the school under study to personally distribute
thequestionnaire to the students and employees who has a knowledge orfamiliarity
about the Video Surveillance System. The questionnaire willbe scored, tallied and
tabulated.STATISTICAL TREATMENT OF DATA The information gathered were
tabulated and processed manuallyand with the aid of computer to determine the
precise interpretation of theresults. Matrix tables were made to organize, summarize,
and analyze thedata gathered for easy determination of its difference from each other.
Data were collated, tabulated, and analyzed. The followingstatistical tools were used
in the analysis of data:1. Percentage 4
. 34. To describe the profile of the respondents, the percentage will be computed. The
measure of dominant quantity was utilized to determine the most probable scenario.
Formula: P = F/N x 100 where: P = Percentage (%) F = Frequency N = Total Number of
Population2. The responses to questions in the given variables were scaled using the
“five-point-scale” or Likert Scale system and given weight as follows: Rate Verbal
Interpretation Range 5 Strongly Agree 4.6 – 5.0 4 Agree 3.6 – 4.5 3 Moderately Agree
2.6 – 3.5 2 Disagree 1.6 – 2.5 1 Strongly Disagree 1.0 – 1.53. The process of finding
the “Weighted Mean,” which is referred to as the central tendency was used, The
formula is given below: WM X = ∑---------- 4
. 35. N where: X = weighted mean w = weighted factor Σ = summation N = total number
of respondents x = score4. To test the level of significance between the assessments
of the respondents the Chi-Square were employed to determine the relationship of
factors as given. The formula of chi-square is presented as follows: Where: X2 = Chi –
Square f (a) = Actual Frequency or number of observations in a cell f (e) = Expected
Frequency or number of observations in a cell in the theoretical distribution ∑ = Symbol
for “summation”5. Rank Method 4
. 36. Rank consists of arranging number of decreasing or increasing order of size. The
highest occurrences of behavior or the class with the greater number was given the
highest rank. CHAPTER IV Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data This
Chapter presents, analyzes and interprets the data gatheredbased on the questions
posited in the study.DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE For the profile of the respondents, the
questionnaire asked for theparticipants’ age, gender and their Knowledge in Video
SurveillanceSystem. Below are the tables summarizing the gathered values for
eachprofile category: TABLE 1 Age Distribution of 50 Respondents AGE
FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE21 years old and below 20 40%21-25 years old 23
46%26-30 years old 4 8%31-35 years old 2 4%35 years old & above 1 2% TOTAL 50
100% It can be seen in table 1 that majority of the respondents belong tothe age
bracket of 21 – 25 years old with the frequency of 23 or 46% 4
. 37. followed by the age bracket of 21 years old and below with thefrequency of 20 or
40%. 4 or 8% of the respondents are in the age bracketof 26 – 30 years old. TABLE 2
 Gender Distribution of 50 Respondents GENDER FREQUENCY PERCENTAGEMale
32 64%Female 18 36% TOTAL 50 100% Table 2 shows the Distribution of
respondents by age. Based on thedata in the table, majority of the respondents are
male with the frequencyof 32 or 64% and only 18 or 36% are female. TABLE
3Knowledge in Video Surveillance System Distribution of 50 RespondentsKnowledge
in Video FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE 4
. 38. Surveillance SystemAdvance 5 10%Moderate 32 64%Knowledgeable 11
22%New 2 4% TOTAL 50 100% All of the respondents are separated according to
their Knowledgein Video Surveillance System. Almost 32 out of 50 respondents or
64%of the respondents have a moderate knowledge in video surveillancesystem.
While 11of them or 22% are moderately knowledgeable aboutthis system; 5 or 10% of
the respondents have advance knowledge andthe 2 or 4% left are new or not familiar
about this system. SURVEY ANALYSIS Likert Scale System Rate Verbal
Interpretation Range Strongly Agree 5 4.6 – 5.0 (SA) Agree 4 3.6 – 4.5 (A) 3 Uncertain
2.6 – 3.5 4
. 39. (U) Disagree 2 1.6 – 2.5 (D) Strongly Disagree 1 1.0 – 1.5 (SD) Chi-square
formula and degrees of freedom table Where: X2 = Chi – Square f (a) = Actual
Frequency or number of observations in a cell f (e) = Expected Frequency or number
of observations in a cell in the theoretical distribution ∑ = Symbol for
“summation”SURVEY RESULTS TABLE 4 4
. 40. Specific security threats and concerns of the school attempting to address by
using a video surveillance system W.M V.I. RANKa. EARIST Security Personnel has
less security 3.96 A 5 gadgetsb. Most of the EARIST Security Personnel 3.4 U 1
doesn’t know how to use a security camerac. Most of the EARIST Security Personnel
doesn’t know how to install and operate 3.5 U 3 video surveillanced. EARIST Security
Office doesn’t fit the installation area of the Video Surveillance 3.54 U 4 Systemd.
Security threats are not address properly 3.44 U 2 3.56 Total A 8 Based on my
computation using weighted mean, table 4 shows thatletter A got the highest rank
among the five problems with the weightedmean of 3.96. It could be noted that majority
of the respondents agreethat EARIST Security Personnel has less security gadgets.
TABLE 5Video Surveillance System will ease threats and will help the school on a
day-to-day basis W.M V.I. RANK 4
. 41. a. EARIST Security Personnel cannot actually determine threats inside or outside
school 3.78 A 1 premises.b. A routine check to all students and visitors 3.9 A 4 going in
and out of the institutec. A routine check on all vehicles going in and 3.88 A 3 out of the
Instituted. A real time monitoring of all the Students 3.88 A 2 and visitors of the
Schoole. A real time recording of what is happening 3.94 A 5 beyond the scope of the
surveillance camera 3.87 Total A 6 As shown in the table, majority of the respondents
says agree that areal time recording of what is happening beyond the scope of the
videosurveillance camera are one of the most important benefits of videosurveillance
in school campus with the weighted mean of 3.94. A routinecheck to all students and
visitors going in and out of the institute wasranked fourth with the weighted mean of 3.9.
Ranked third and secondhas an equal weighted mean of 3.88 and 3.78 of the weighted
mean alsoagree that EARIST Security Personnel cannot actually determine
threatsinside or outside school premises. TABLE 6 Accepting and interpreting of data
produce by the system W.M V.I. RANK 4
. 42. a. Student database will be used in monitoring 3.88 A 4 the students b. A faculty
and employees database will be 3.98 A 5 used in monitoring faculty and employees c.
A print out will produce for manual 3.76 A 2 checking d. An automatic logging system
will be 3.82 A 3 adopted e. On the spot data report can be easily 3.5 U 1 produce. 3.78
Total A 8 It can be seen that 3.98 is the highest computed weighted mean onhow does
the school management accept and interpret produce by thesystem. Based on the
table, letter (b) got the highest rank followed byletter (a) with the weighted mean of
 3.88, the third ranked has a weightedmean of 3.82. Letter (d) got the second rank with
the computed weightedmean of 3.76 while the calculated weighted mean for the first
ranked is3.5 for letter (e) TABLE 7 Students’ acceptance on the system W.M V.I.
RANK a. Accredited Students organizations will be 3.92 A 4 consulted before applying
the system b. Institute student government will be the first to summon on proper
orientation of the 3.92 A 3 system c. Comments and suggestions will be properly 3.96
A54
. 43. entertainedd. A survey on the entire students will be 3.9 A 2 conducted to get their
pulsee. A computational analysis will be conducted 3.82 A 1 to determine the
acceptability of the system Total 3.904 A Based on Table 7, it could be seen that 3.96
of weighted meanagree that comments and suggestions will be properly entertained
for theacceptance of the system; respondents agree that accredited
Studentsorganizations will be consulted before applying system and also theInstitute
Student Government will be the first to summon on properorientation of the system
with a weighted mean of 3.92; a weighted meanof 3.9 also AGREE that a survey on
the entire students will be conductedto get their pulse; Moreover, 3.82 of the computed
weighted mean agreefor the computational analysis that will be conducting to
determine theacceptability of the system. 4
. 44. CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION The tables below are the distribution of the data
gathered from thesurvey questions. Each of the table consists of the Actual Frequency
ornumber of observations in a cell, the Expected Frequency or number ofobservations
in a cell in the theoretical distribution and the values for (O- E)2/E under its Verbal
Interpretation. (5) Strongly Agree; (4) Agree; (3)Uncertain; (2) Disagree; (1) Strongly
Disagree. The tabular chi-square is attained by computing the degree offreedom (df)
with the formula df = (C - 1) (R - 1) which is equal to 16 at0.05 level of significance. The
computed chi-square value is thencompared to the tabular chi-square value which is
equal to 26.30. 4
. 45. Note, that if the computed chi-square value is greater than thetabular chi-square,
the null hypothesis - there is no significant differencebetween the old and the new
system - is rejected. 4
. 46. TABLE 7 Specific security threats and concerns of the school attempting to
address by using a video surveillance system 5 4 3 2 1 (O-E)^2/E O E chi O E chi O E
chi O E chi O E chi Totala 11 7.2 2.006 27 21 1.714 11 15.8 1.458 1 5 3.2 0 1 1 9.378b
4 7.2 1.422 21 21 0.000 16 15.8 0.003 9 5 3.2 0 1 1 5.625c 5 7.2 0.672 23 21 0.190 15
15.8 0.041 6 5 0.2 1 1 0 1.103d 6 7.2 0.200 19 21 0.190 21 15.8 1.711 4 5 0.2 0 1 1
3.302e 10 7.2 1.089 15 21 1.714 16 15.8 0.003 5 5 0 4 1 9 11.806 Total 31.214 4
. 47. From the table we can see that: = 9.378+5.625+1.103+3.302+11.806 =
31.214and df = (C - 1)(R - 1) (5 - 1)(5 - 1) = (4)(4) = 16 Our null, for the chi-square test,
states that there are no differencesbetween the observed and the expected
frequencies. The alternatehypothesis states that there are significant differences
between theobserved and expected frequencies As usual we will set our alpha level
at.05. = 31.214 df = (C - 1)(R - 1) (5 - 1)(5 - 1) = (4)(4) = 16 Reject H0 if >= 26.3. Since
our calculated value of (31.214) is greater than 26.3, we reject the null hypothesis and
accept the alternative hypothesis. 4
. 48. 4
. 49. TABLE 8 Video Surveillance will ease the threats and help the school on the
day-to-day basis 5 4 3 2 1 (O-E)^2/E O E chi O E chi O E chi O E chi O E chi chia 10
10.2 0.004 24 27.2 0.376 12 9.6 0.6 3 2.2 0.2909 1 0.8 0.05 1.321b 10 10.2 0.004 29
27.2 0.119 8 9.6 0.2667 2 2.2 0.0182 1 0.8 0.05 0.458c 11 10.2 0.063 26 27.2 0.053 10
9.6 0.0167 2 2.2 0.0182 1 0.8 0.05 0.201d 11 10.2 0.063 27 27.2 0.001 8 9.6 0.2667 3
2.2 0.2909 1 0.8 0.05 0.672e 9 10.2 0.141 30 27.2 0.288 10 9.6 0.0167 1 2.2 0.6545 0
0.8 0.8 1.901 Total 4.552 4
. 50. From the table we can see that: = 1.321+0.458+0.201+0.672+1.901 = 4.552and
df = (C - 1)(R - 1) (5 - 1)(5 - 1) = (4)(4) = 16 Our null, for the chi-square test, states that
there are no differencesbetween the observed and the expected frequencies. The
alternatehypothesis states that there are significant differences between theobserved
and expected frequencies As usual we will set our alpha level at.05. = 4.552 df = (C -
1)(R - 1) (5 - 1)(5 - 1) = (4)(4) = 16 Reject H0 if >= 26.3. Since our calculated value of
(4.552) is less than 26.3, we accept the null hypothesis and reject the alternative
hypothesis. 4
. 51. 4
. 52. TABLE 9 Accepting and Interpreting of data produce by the system 5 4 3 2 1
(O-E)^2/E O E O E O E O E O E chia 13 9.4 1.379 20 23.6 0.5492 15 14.6 0.011 2 1.8
0.0222 0 0.6 0.6 2.561b 11 9.4 0.272 27 23.6 0.4898 12 14.6 0.463 0 1.8 1.8 0 0.6 0.6
3.625c 9 9.4 0.017 21 23.6 0.2864 19 14.6 1.326 1 1.8 0.3556 0 0.6 0.6 2.585d 7 9.4
0.613 30 23.6 1.7356 10 14.6 1.4493 3 1.8 0.8 0 0.6 0.6 5.198e 7 9.4 0.613 20 23.6
0.5492 17 14.6 0.3945 3 1.8 0.8 3 0.6 9.6 11.956 Total 25.925 4
. 53. From the table we can see that: = 2.561+3.625+2.585+5.198+11.956= 25.925and
df = (C - 1)(R - 1) (5 - 1)(5 - 1) = (4)(4) = 16 Our null, for the chi-square test, states that
there are no differencesbetween the observed and the expected frequencies. The
alternatehypothesis states that there are significant differences between theobserved
and expected frequencies As usual we will set our alpha level at.05. = 25.925 df = (C -
1)(R - 1) (5 - 1)(5 - 1) = (4)(4) = 16 Reject H0 if >= 26.3. Since our calculated value of
(25.925) is less than 26.3, we accept the null hypothesis and reject the alternative
hypothesis. 4
. 54. 4
. 55. TABLE 10 Students’ Acceptance on the System 5 4 3 2 1 (O-E)^2/E O E O E O E
O E O E chia 11 12 0.083 26 24.2 0.134 11 11.2 0.004 2 2.2 0.018 0 0.4 0.4 0.639b 11
12 0.083 27 24.2 0.324 9 11.2 0.432 3 2.2 0.291 0 0.4 0.4 1.530c 11 12 0.083 28 24.2
0.597 9 11.2 0.432 2 2.2 0.018 0 0.4 0.4 1.530d 14 12 0.333 21 24.2 0.423 12 11.2
0.057 2 2.2 0.018 1 0.4 0.9 1.732e 13 12 0.083 19 24.2 1.117 15 11.2 1.289 2 2.2
0.018 1 0.4 0.9 3.408 Total 8.840 4
. 56. From the table we can see that: = 0.639+1.530+1.530+1.732+3.408= 8.840and df
= (C - 1)(R - 1) (5 - 1)(5 - 1) = (4)(4) = 16 Our null, for the chi-square test, states that
there are no differencesbetween the observed and the expected frequencies. The
alternatehypothesis states that there are significant differences between theobserved
and expected frequencies As usual we will set our alpha level at.05. = 8.840 df = (C -
1)(R - 1) (5 - 1)(5 - 1) = (4)(4) = 16 Reject H0 if >= 26.3. Since our calculated value of
(8.840) is less than 26.3, weaccept the null hypothesis and reject the alternative
hypothesis. 4
. 57. 4
. 58. CHAPTER V Summary, Conclusion, RecommendationSUMMARY The main
objective of this research study was to make adescriptive survey about the technology
implicated in using VideoSurveillance System in Eulogio “AMANG” Rodriguez Institute
ofScience and Technology. Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions.
What are the specific security threats and concerns of the school attempting to
address by using a video surveillance system. How will it help address those threats
and how will the school actually use it on a day-to-day basis. How does the school
management accept and interpret data produce by the system? How does the
student accept the new system if implemented? Is there a significant difference
between the security personnel officer and the video surveillance system? 4
. 59. The descriptive method of the survey type of research was used inthis study.
Students and employees of EARIST served as the respondents,out of (50) fifty
respondents, (32) thirty-two of them are male while theother 18 are female. To analyze
 and interpret the data, the study utilized the followingstatistical tools: Percentage,
Likert Scale System, Weighted Mean, Chi-Square and Rank Method. The study
reveals the following findings: Majority or 64 percent ofthe respondents are male and
36 percent are females. Most of therespondents belong to the 21-25 age brackets with
a moderate knowledgeabout the video surveillance system. 4
. 60. 4
. 61. Below is the table summarizing the results of the survey responses given by the
selected respondents: TABLE A 1. Specific security threats and concerns of the school
attempting to address by using a video surveillance 5 4 3 2 1 W.M CHI system a.
EARIST Security Personnel has less security gadgets 11 27 11 1 0 3.96 9.378 b. Most
of the EARIST Security Personnel doesn’t know 4 21 16 9 0 3.4 how to use a security
camera 5.625 c. Most of the EARIST Security Personnel doesn’t know 5 23 15 6 1 3.5
how to install and operate video surveillance 1.103 d. EARIST Security Office doesn’t
fit the installation 6 19 21 4 0 3.54 area of the Video Surveillance System 3.302 d.
Security threats are not address properly 10 15 16 5 4 3.44 11.806 3.56 Total 36 105
79 25 5 8 31.214 4
. 62. Based on my computation using chi square, it is evident that letter (e) on table A
shows the highest rank and clearly visible that securitythreats are not address properly,
while using the weighted mean computation, letter (a) on the said table shows the
highest rank that EARISTSecurity Personnel has less security gadgets. TABLE B 2.
Video Surveillance System will ease threats and will 5 4 3 2 1 W.M CHI help the school
on a day-to-day basis. a. EARIST Security Personnel cannot actually determine 10 24
12 3 1 3.78 1.321 threats inside or outside school premises. b. A routine check to all
students and visitors going in 10 29 8 2 1 3.9 0.458 and out of the institute c. A routine
check on all vehicles going in and out of the 11 26 10 2 1 3.88 0.201 Institute d. A real
time monitoring of all the Students and visitors 11 27 8 3 1 3.88 0.672 of the School e.
A real time recording of what is happening beyond the 9 30 10 1 0 3.94 1.901 scope of
the surveillance camera 3.87 Total 51 136 48 11 4 4.552 6 4
. 63. As gleaned in the table, the respondents gave almost the same highest rank for
letter (e) using the computation for weightedmean and chi-square. It can be noted that
a real time recording of what is happening beyond the scope of the surveillance
camera will easethe threats and will help the school on a day-to-day basis. TABLE C 3.
Accepting and interpreting of data produce by the 5 4 3 2 1 W.M CHI system a. Student
database will be used in monitoring the 13 20 15 2 0 3.88 2.561 students b. A faculty
and employees database will be used in 11 27 12 0 0 3.98 3.625 monitoring faculty
and employees c. A print out will produce for manual checking 9 21 19 1 0 3.76 2.585
d. An automatic logging system will be adopted 7 30 10 3 0 3.82 5.198 e. On the spot
data report can be easily produce. 7 20 17 3 3 3.5 11.956 3.78 Total 47 118 73 9 3 8
25.925 4
. 64. Looking at the table, it can be seen that letter (b) is considered the highest ranked
in computing the weighted mean, it reveals that afaculty and employees database will
be used in monitoring faculty and employees. The same table also reveals that on the
spot data can beeasily produce as it computed using chi square. TABLE D 4. Students
acceptance on the system 5 4 3 2 1 W.M CHI a. Accredited Students organizations will
be consulted 11 26 11 2 0 3.92 0.639 before applying the system b. Institute student
government will be the first to 11 27 9 3 0 3.92 1.530 summon on proper orientation of
the system c. Comments and suggestions will be properly entertained 11 28 9 2 0 3.96
1.530 d. A survey on the entire students will be conducted to get 14 21 12 2 1 3.9 1.732
their pulse e. A computational analysis will be conducted to 13 19 15 2 1 3.82 3.408
determine the acceptability of the system 3.90 Total 60 121 56 11 2 8.839 4 4
. 65. Based on the weighted mean computation, letter (c) got the highest rank with the
average of 3.96; it was worth noting that commentsand suggestions should be
 properly entertained in the acceptance of the video surveillance system. While on the
chi-square computationletter (e) was ranked first that in determining acceptability of
the system, a computational analysis will be conducted. 4
. 66. CONCLUSION Due to increased terrors and crimes, the use of the
videosurveillance camera system is increasing. It has been operated for publicinterest
such as prevention of crimes and fly-tipping by the police andlocal government, but
private information such as faces or behaviorpatterns can be recorded in CCTV. When
the recorded video data isexposed, it may cause an invasion to privacy and crimes.
This paperanalyses conventional methods of privacy protection in surveillancecamera
systems and applied scrambling and RFID system to existingsurveillance systems to
prevent privacy exposure in monitoringsimultaneously for both privacy protection and
surveillance. Theproposed system adjusts the intensities of privacy according to
accesslevels to reduce invasion of privacy by people who are not concerned. 4
. 67. RECOMMENDATION Video surveillance should only be considered where less
intrusivemeans of deterrence, such as increased monitoring by teachers, haveshown
to be ineffective or unworkable. In its consultation with the schoolcommunity, the
school administration should outline the less intrusivemeans that have been
considered and the reason why they are noteffective. Before implementing a video
surveillance program, a schoolshould be able to demonstrate. Video surveillance
programs should only be adopted wherecircumstances have shown that it is
necessary for the purposes ofproviding the safety of students and staff, or for the
deterrence ofdestructive acts, such as vandalism. The school administration should
provide justification for the useand extent of a video surveillance program on the basis
of addressingspecific and significant concerns about safety and/or the theft
ordestruction of property. They should also conduct an assessment into the effects
that thesurveillance system will have on personal privacy and the ways in whichsuch
adverse effects may be mitigated. They should consult openly withparents, staff,
students and the broader school community as to thenecessity of the proposed video
surveillance program and its 4
. 68. acceptability to the school community. Consultation should providestakeholders
with an opportunity to comment on the actual location ofcameras on school property,
should the project proceed and they shouldensure that the proposed design and
operation of the video surveillancesystem minimizes privacy intrusion to that which is
necessary to achieveappropriate goals through lawful activities. 4
. 69. BIBLIOGRAPHYInternet www.yahoo.com www.google.com
www.wikipedia.com http://www.qualityadvisor.com/sqc/formulas/chi_square_f.php
http://www.mnstate.edu/wasson/ed602quiz14.htm 4
. 70. APPENDICES SURVEY QUESTIONNAIREPart 1: PERSONAL DATA
SHEETAge: 21 years old and below 21-25 years old 26-30 years old 31-35 years old
35years old and above Rate Verbal Interpretation Range 5 Strongly Agree 4.6 – 5.0 4
Agree 3.6 – 4.5 3 Uncertain 2.6 – 3.5 2 Disagree 1.6 – 2.5 1 Strongly Disagree 1.0 –
1.5Sex: Female Male Knowledge in Video Surveillance System Advance Moderate
Knowledgeable NewPart 2: Check the appropriate box, which you believe applicable
to the givenvariables. LEGEND 4
. 71. A. Specific security threats and concerns of the school attempting to address by
using a video surveillance system 5 4 3 2 1a. EARIST Security Personnel has less
security gadgetsb. Most of the EARIST Security Personnel doesn’t know how to use a
security camerac. Most EARIST Security personnel doesn’t know how to install and
operate video surveillance.d. EARIST Security Office doesn’t fit the installation area of
the Video Surveillance Systeme. Security threats are not address properlyB. Video
Surveillance System will ease threats and will help the school on a day-to-day basis. 5
4 3 2 1a. EARIST Security Personnel cannot actually determine threats inside or
 outside school premises.b. A routine check to all students and visitors going in and out
of the institutec. A routine check on all vehicles going in and out of the Instituted. A real
time monitoring of all the Students and visitors of the Schoole. A real time recording of
what is happening beyond the scope of the surveillance camera 4
. 72. C. Accepting and interpreting of data produce by the system 5 4 3 2 1a. Student
database will be used in monitoring the studentsb. A faculty and employees database
will be used in monitoring faculty and employeesc. A print out will produce for manual
checkingd. An automatic logging system will be adoptede. On the spot data report can
be easily produce.D. Students acceptance on the system 5 4 3 2 1a. Accredited
Students organizations will be consulted before applying the systemb. Institute student
government will be the first to summon on proper orientation of the systemc.
Comments and suggestions will be properly entertainedd. A survey on the entire
students will be conducted to get their pulsee. A computational analysis will be
conducted to determine the acceptability of the systemE. Significant difference
between the security personnel officer and thevideo surveillance system 5 4 3 2 1a.
There is no significant difference between the old and the new system
. 73. APPENDIX BEQUIVALENT FOR THE DEGREE OF FREEDOM Alpha value =
Alpha value = 1% 5% DF Value DF Value 1 3.84 1 6.63 2 5.99 2 9.21 3 7.82 3 11.3 4
9.49 4 13.3 5 11.1 5 15.1 6 12.6 6 16.8 7 14.1 7 18.5 8 15.5 8 20.1 9 16.9 9 23.2 10
18.3 10 24.7 11 19.7 11 26.2 12 21 12 27.7 13 22.4 13 29.1 14 23.7 14 30.6 15 25 15
30.6 16 26.3 16 32 17 27.6 17 33.4 18 28.9 18 34.8 19 30.1 19 36.2 20 31.4 20 37.6 21
32.7 21 38.9 22 33.9 22 40.3 23 35.2 23 41.6 24 36.4 24 43 25 37.7 25 44.3 26 38.9 26
45.6 27 40.1 27 47 28 41.3 28 48.3 29 42.6 29 49.6 30 43.8 30 50.9
. 74. CURRICULUM VITAEPERSONAL DATAName : Anna Marie Magallanes
LuceroDate of birth : February17, 1990Place of birth : San Juan CityAddress : 4929
r-32 Pina St. Old Sta. Mesa, ManilaAge : 20Height : 4’11Weight : 49 kilosNationality :
FilipinoCivil Status : SingleReligion : Roman CatholicFathers Name : Federico L.
LuceroMothers Name : Dolores M. LuceroEDUCATIONAL BACKGROUNDCOLLEGE
Eulogio “Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology Computer
Engineering 2006 – PresentSECONDARY Bagong Silangan High School
2002-2006ELEMENTARY San Juan Elementary School 1996-2002