CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

INTRODUCTION

Surveillance Camera are video cameras used for the purposed of observing an area. They are often connected to a recording device, IP network, and/or watched by a security personnel/law enforcement officer. Video Surveillance Systems consist of cameras placed in areas where they can monitor activity as it takes place. These cameras may include features like pan, tilt, and zoom; may be placed in outdoor or indoor locations; and may include infrared recording options. Most cameras are used with recording systems, either VCR's or digital recorders. Using a digital recorder is the preferred option for easy storage, easy recall, and easy viewing over different monitors. The first Video Surveillance System was installed by Siemens AG at Test Stand VII in Peenemunde, Germany in 1942, for observing the launch of V-2 rockets. The noted German engineer Walter Bruch was responsible for the design and installation of the system. Outside government special facilities, Video Surveillance was developed initially as a means of increasing security in banks. Experiments in the UK during the 1970s and 1980s led to several larger trial programs later that decade.

These were deemed successful in the government report and paved the way for a massive increase in the number of Video Surveillance systems installed. Today, systems cover most town and city centers, and many stations, car-parks and estates. Video Surveillance recording systems are still often used at modern launch sites to record the flight of the rockets, in order to find the possible causes of malfunctions. Video Surveillance System is one of the most effective devices that can be used for monitoring the behavior activities or other changing information, usually of the people and often in surreptitious manner. In our school, it is important to increased safety and security for the students as well its personnel. The schools are the place where students should feel safe from harm, outside stimulus, and other threats. Sadly to say, in the past few years, there are some instances where schools are not the safe haven we thought they were, take for instance what happened at Philippine Maritime Institute (PMI), where one of the professors was gun shot at the head inside the campus by one of the students. If only the management of the school strengthen its security system, none of this would happen. Base on the above mentioned situation, the researcher come up with an idea that could improve the security system not only for schools and universities but for all the entities and establishment in the Philippines. That is: The incorporation of a surveillance camera to its security system. One of the features of this research is that, an embedded system is incorporated by integrating a

thermal scanner and an X-ray in the security system (for future expansion). One of the most popular Surveillance tools for Schools is the Secure View System. The system transmits images from cameras to a digital hard drive storage system. Output can be seen on a monitor that displays four frames of video or on desktop computer monitors, which are networked to receive video feeds from the cameras.

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 will not go away by itself. School children are harming each other with regularity. The problems are particularly acute and are complicated by their connection to the prevalence of poverty, crime, and despair. Installing video surveillance system will help students focus on their studies and not make them worry about outside violence. These installations represent a huge amount of video to transmit, view and archive, making it impossible for a human monitor to analyze all of these video recordings in order to detect suspicious behavior or events. This is especially true since security control centre personnel are also required to manage other tasks, such as access control, issuance of

badges/keys/permits, handling emergency calls, following up on fire alarms, radio communications control, etc. Over the past decade, the security of individuals and property, and the security of information have become major global issues. Faced with problems such as the fight against terrorism, enhanced national security and the rapid development of cyber crime, our societies are increasingly investing in protection. This sector therefore offers great opportunities for businesses, both with respect to technological development and services. Information and communications technologies in particular provide new and sophisticated solutions for physical and IT security.

Among the solutions proposed, video surveillance is one of the oldest and most widespread security technologies. Although still mostly analogical, it is undergoing a digital revolution with the ongoing transition to videos on IP networks. Sometimes integrating hundreds of cameras, these new systems create a huge amount of video information that cannot be processed only by security agent screen surveillance. To resolve this issue, intelligent video surveillance, by video analytic, can process the information by software analysis in order to keep only the data relevant to security. Video Surveillance should be place at dedicated viewing areas such as entrances, hallways, stairwells or even classroom environments, so that the best possible view can be achieved in relation to what the camera's primary focus should be. Schools can feature multiple entrances or exits and may span multiple buildings. It can soon become hard to keep 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 fixed position thus providing a dedicated view of what is most important. It can be repositioned which may result in the camera looking in the wrong direction at the wrong time. Video Surveillance cameras should only be used in school campus environments as a secondary means of security. A school campus may include a single building at one location up to hundreds of buildings spanning multiple locations. One of the many benefits of video surveillance technology is the ability for centralized management. No longer is surveillance limited to a building by building

configuration. Also avoided is the cost of trying to bring all cameras video feeds to a centralized location. Video Quality and Video Frame Rates Schools can become very busy places rather quickly. It is important that video quality be at a level high enough so that identification of persons can be made easily. Cameras need both high video quality and a reasonable video frame rate for this to occur. This was once difficult due to cost and bandwidth limitations. With video surveillance applications over school campuses it is important to focus on areas that are of key importance. These are the key security risk areas that should be monitored at all times without changing camera position. It is also important that video surveillance cameras used in these areas are of high quality so that proper identification can be made easily. With the added benefits of video surveillance including centralized management capabilities and high resolution capable cameras, a safe and secure environment can be created where students and faculty can focus on education without the worry of feeling unsafe or unprotected.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to achieve a general understanding of the technology implicated in using Video Surveillance System in School. This study identifies the security threats and concerns of a particular place. This study can address possible actions with regards to the problem and to understand that video technology has benefits but at the same time can have an effect on the privacy of individuals.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The research paradigm that guided this study is shown in Figure. It follows the Input-Process-Output approach. INPUT PROCESS Installation of Video Surveillance Equipment Observation Video Surveillance equipment Survey Questionnaire through surveillance equipment Distribution and retrieval of the survey questionnaire Analysis and computation of data gathered Immediate response to a possible/ actual incident Analysis after an incident Evidentiary analysis after an incident Conducive place for teaching and learning process. Assessment of the surveys outcome OUPUT

The input of the study consisted of the typical Video Surveillance Equipment like Video Cameras, Monitor and a trap. This study also consists of a Survey Questionnaires. The process composed of Installation of Video Surveillance Equipment, an observation through the Video Surveillance Equipment, the distribution and retrieval of Survey Questionnaires then the analysis and 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 an incident, conducive place for teaching and learning process and the assessment/evaluation on the surveys outcome.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This study aims to evaluate how video surveillance system helps to secure 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?

SCOPE AND DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY

This study focused on the security system of the individuals in schools by having a defense security system using video surveillance. This study, intended for a non-expert audience, discusses the ins and outs of this technology and tries to characterize the market it represents, not for different places, but more specifically in schools. It contains information on video surveillance technology, its application, and leading edge video analytic techniques applicable to it, its needs, the developments and trends in this field, the issues it raises, and the supply and demand it generates. Furthermore it only attempted to identify the needs of the group concerned, explanations or reasons for these needs were not concerns of this study.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Students This analysis/ research will help the students to feel safe inside the school; they can concentrate/focus on their studies without bothering on what could possibly happen to them while they are in the school vicinity. With the help of this study the security of the students inside the campus will be intensively monitored by the use of the security system installed within the school campus. Students may be less inclined to cause trouble because of the solid documentation that the video recordings provide.

School Administrators / Universities When school campuses provide a video surveillance system for their security, it will become a peaceful, conducive and friendly school environment. It will maintain the peace of mind of the School administrators or staff inside the school campus. School will easily secure the safety of the students enrolled. Another thing is video surveillance security system will help the school officials to find the performance evaluation of their employee. This system will also use to lessen or decrease the property damages such as vandalism and theft; far too often the administration can only react to vandalism with timeconsuming, seldom successful and often fruitless attempts to identify the perpetrators. 4

Researcher This study serves as a major part of the course requirement as it has developed their skills in terms of self-esteem, time management, practicality, strategic planning and patience. Hence, they are able to obtain the necessary information on time and reporting it in the most presentable manner they can. This study can be effective tool for reference to know how to make the schools safer.

DEFINITION OF TERMS To understand and clarify the terms used in the study, the following are hereby defined: Video Surveillance - is the monitoring of the behavior, activities, or other changing information, usually of people and often in a surreptitious manner. It most usually refers to observation of individuals or groups by government organizations. Security System - a system that enforces boundaries between computer networks. It is an electrical devise that sets off an alarm when someone tries to break in IP Network - is a computer network made of devices that support the Internet Protocol. Monitor - a device that displays images or symbols generated by computers. Law Enforcement Officer - is any public-sector employee or agent whose duties involve the enforcement of laws. Vandalism - is the behavior attributed originally to the Vandals, by the Romans, in respect of culture: ruthless destruction or spoiling of anything beautiful or venerable. Such action includes defacement, graffiti and criminal damage. Theft - is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary,

embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, fraud and sometimes criminal conversion. Digital Video Recorder - is a device that records video in a digital format to a disk drive, USB flash drive, SD memory card or other mass storage device. The term includes set-top boxes with recording facility, portable media players (PMP) with recording facility, recorders (PMR as camcorders that record onto memory cards) and software for personal computers which enables video capture and playback to and from disk. Archived - is a collection of historical records, as well as the place they are located. Archives contain primary source documents that have accumulated over the course of an individual or organization's lifetime. Algorithm - is an effective method for solving a problem expressed as a finite sequence of instructions. Algorithms are used for calculation, data processing, and many other fields. Thermal Scanner - a thermal scanner takes a measurement of the reflection of electromagnetic energy emitted in the infrared spectrum. It has the ability to sense differences in temperatures of known objects. X-ray - is a form of electromagnetic radiation. It can penetrate solid objects and their largest use is to take images of the inside of objects in diagnostic radiography and crystallography.

HYPOTHESIS

The hypothesis pursued and tested in this study was

1. There is no significant difference between the Security Personnel officer and the Video Surveillance Security System.

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Foreign Studies Many European countries now employ public video surveillance as a primary tool to monitor population movements and to prevent terrorism. The United Kingdom (UK) in particular relies extensively on video surveillance as a tool to fight crime and prevent terrorism. According to some researchers, the camera surveillance systems in the UK are discouraging and thus preventing crime. Public video surveillance in the UK began very unassumingly in 1986, on a single square mile industrial estate outside the English town of King's Lynn. Three CCTV video surveillance cameras were used and their impact was immediate. In the years before the cameras were installed, there had been 58 crimes (mostly vandalism) recorded on the estate. In the two years following the installation, there were no crimes reported. Subsequently, cities and towns across Great Britain began using this crime prevention measure. By 1994, over 300 jurisdictions in the country had installed some form of public video surveillance.

In 1995, the national government made available up to $3.1 million in matching grants available to cities and towns to establish CCTV video surveillance programs. According to the police superintendent of a large metropolitan area, "public video surveillance has been very helpful in making arrests, and perhaps more important, helping to allocate resources to where they're most necessary." Although most municipal systems have been operational since 1990, there is little longitudinal data indicating how effective CCTV surveillance systems actually have been in reducing crime rates. Recent British government reports cite CCTV surveillance as a major reason for declining crime rates: in the small town of Berwick burglaries fell by 69 percent; in Northampton overall crime decreased by 57 percent; and in Glasgow, Scotland crime decreased by 68 percent.25

What Criminologists and Others Studying Cameras Have Found

Noam Biale, Advocacy Coordinator, ACLU Technology and Liberty Program

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An increasing number of American cities and towns are currently investing millions of taxpayer dollars in surveillance camera systems. But few are closely examining the costs and benefits of those investments, or creating mechanisms for measuring those costs and benefits over time. There is extensive academic literature on the subjectstudies carried out

over many yearsand that research strongly indicates that video surveillance has no statistically significant effect on crime rates. The principle studies on video surveillance have been conducted in the UK, where surveillance cameras are pervasive. Those studies, which have been commissioned by the British Home Office, have found varying results when they look at individual camera sites in isolation. However, the best studies combine results from multiple camera sites in a metaanalysis, which eliminates anomalies. The two main meta-analyses conducted for the British Home Office show that video surveillance has no impact on crime whatsoever. Video surveillance systems are more disparate and at various levels of operability in the United States. As such, fewer independent studies of their efficacy exist. However, preliminary studies of surveillance cameras in California show similar results to studies conducted in the UK: Cameras having little to no effect on crime reduction. This White Paper is based on a literature review of major studies of video surveillance from 2000 to 2008. It examines the key meta-analyses from the UK, discusses the major difficulties in determining the impact of video surveillance on crime, and describes preliminary studies conducted in the US. The major findings of these studies should, at a minimum, be part of the debate around surveillance cameras. An increasing number of American cities and towns are currently investing millions of taxpayer dollars in surveillance camera systems. But 4

few are closely examining the costs and benefits of those investments, or creating mechanisms for measuring those costs and benefits over time. There is extensive academic literature on the subjectstudies carried out over many yearsand that research strongly indicates the following: Meta-analyses (studies that average the results of multiple studies) in the UK show that video surveillance has no statistically significant impact on crime. Preliminary studies on video surveillance systems in the US show little to no positive impact on crime. This White Paper is based upon a literature review of independent studies on the effect of video surveillance on crime rates from 2000 to 2008, particularly meta-analyses that aggregate data from several studies. It surveys what these meta-analyses have found, the methodological difficulties of studying video surveillance systems in isolation, and preliminary results from studies in the US. The major findings of these studies should, at a minimum, be part of the debate around surveillance cameras.

DIFFICULTIES OF STUDYING SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS Measuring the success of public video surveillance systems is complex, because there are always innumerable factors that can explain a rise or fall in crime rates. Simply showing an increase or decrease in reported crime in an area under surveillance does not take into account general trends in crime and crime reporting, additional police in the areas

under surveillance, better lighting, and perhaps most importantly, the possible displacement of crime to other areas not under surveillance. Several factors in particular make it difficult to assess the effectiveness of surveillance cameras: Displacement. Displacement complicates attempts to measure the impact of surveillance cameras on crime rates, because it means that the control area cannot be too close in proximity to the cameras. For example, in looking at a downtown district and comparing the number of muggings on particular blocks, one might reasonably assume that if the rate of muggings increase near an area that is being monitored by cameras, and decrease in the area being directly monitored, then the cameras have been effective in reducing muggings. However, it could also be reasonably assumed that the placement of the cameras on a particular block in fact pushed the muggings into surrounding areas, and did not reduce crime overall. This is really a problem of interpretation, not data, and as a result, displacement can be extraordinarily difficult to show. Confounding variables. It can be inaccurate to extrapolate success from specific locations to general areas. For example, enclosed places such as parking lots tend to produce better outcomes than outdoor areas. In addition, other factors such as increased police presence and better lighting in areas under surveillance make it difficult to conclude which intervention is most effective. It is unclear in many studies that appear to show success whether surveillance cameras had a positive impact in combination with improved lighting, or whether the improved lighting 4

might accomplish the positive outcome on its own. Studies vary on the degree to which they take confounding factors into account. Because of these problems, individual video surveillance studies may not be reliable on their own. In evaluating the merits of video surveillance it is important to look at the overall trend of multiple studies and place particular reliance on studies with rigorous methodology. For this reason, the UK Home Office has adopted the meta-analysis as the best statistical tool for studying the efficacy of surveillance cameras.

META-ANALYSES OF UNITED KINGDOM SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS

The efficacy of public video surveillance as a crime-fighting tool has been analyzed in a wide range of studies over the last decade. The majority of research has been conducted in the United Kingdom, which more than any other country has embraced the widespread use of cameras. The UKs network of public surveillance cameras is the largest in the world (although China is quickly outpacing it).1 The number of surveillance cameras in England and Wales increased from 100 in 1990 to 40,000 in 2002,2 and now stands above 4.2 million, or one for every 14 persons.3 The center of London is surrounded by a ring of steel, a networked video surveillance system that is intended to allow law enforcement to track individuals moving through the city, observe patterns of behavior and respond immediately to threats.

The British Home Office, the agency in charge of security, spent 78% of its criminal justice budget in the 1990s on surveillance cameras,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 the effectiveness of these systems around the UK using meta-analysis. Metaanalysis combines the results of multiple studies that all have similar hypotheses and methodological criteria. This is important because it weeds out anomalies. For example, one installation of a video surveillance system might coincide with a sharp drop in crime, but we cannot know whether it caused the drop without comparing it to other scenarios (further explanation of the difficulty of measuring success from isolated studies is below). A meta-analysis can provide a clearer sense of the impact of surveillance cameras by taking a variety of studies and averaging their results. The individual studies show moderate successes in some sites, usually in parking lots, and for certain types of crimes, usually vehicle crimes. However, the majority of studies show no effect on overall crime, and when combined in a meta-analysis, CCTV is shown to have no statistically 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. Welsh and David P. Farrington6 surveyed 22 studies of CCTV (both in the UK 4

and the USA) for a meta-analysis, and found that, taken together, the cameras had no significant impact on crime. Welsh and Farrington began with 46 studies, but whittled the number down to 18 based on the criteria for inclusion in the metaanalysis.7 Of the 18 studies, half showed some reduction in crime in the area under surveillance, about a quarter showed an increase in crime, and the remaining studies showed a null effect. Welsh and Farrington then created a meta-analysis for the included studies, by determining an oddsratio for each study and then combining these ratios. An odds-ratio is a numerical expression of the net effect of an intervention, calculated by comparing results in the experimental area with the control. An oddsratio of 1 shows that there is no difference in crime rates between the experimental (surveilled) area and the control. An odds-ratio greater than 1 shows that the areas with cameras are experiencing less crime than the control areas. An odds-ratio of less than 1 show that the areas with cameras are experiencing more crime than the control. When Welsh and Farrington combined odd-ratios for all 18 studies included in the meta-analysis, they found that the average was just over 1, showing a very small impact on crime, and when measured against the standard 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 cameras were the only intervention used (no added police presence, increased lighting, etc.) showed no effect on crime in one case,8 and an increase in crime in the other.9 Five of the eleven studies that showed reductions in 4

crime looked at camera systems located in enclosed parking lots. These studies showed an overall odds-ratio of 1.7, but included other interventions, such as improved lighting, fencing, notices about CCTV, and increased security personnel. This suggests that cameras can be effective when used in specific environments and combined with other preventative measures.

Home Office Study, 2005 Criminologists Martin Gill and Angela Spriggs published a comprehensive analysis of fourteen individual sites in the UK for the Home Office in 2005,10 which found, again through the use of metaanalysis, that the cameras had no overall effect on crime rates. Gill and Spriggs concluded that only one of 13 sites showed a statistically significant reduction in crime (one site was excluded for failing to meet the crime statistics recording criteria). This site showed a reduction far larger than any othersan odds-ratio of 3.34, indicating a reduction in crime of over 300%, compared with the second-largest oddsratio of 1.38, or just under 40%and was also the most expensive site, at a cost of over 3 million (about $6 million) for the camera system. This area also experienced several confounding factors including increased fencing and improvements to security, though these were implemented once the video surveillance system was fully installed and thus may not have had a distorting impact on the outcome. Although Gill and Spriggs' analysis found "that CCTV schemes produced no overall effect on all relevant crime viewed collectively,"11 4

the study did show overall better outcomes for vehicle crimes in seven of the sites. Violent crimes were different. In the four urban city centers included in the study, violence against persons increased in three sites. Gill and Spriggs hypothesize that these crimes may be impulsive and more often influenced by alcohol.12 They also acknowledge that changes to parking regulations in at least one site may have contributed to the reduction in vehicle crime, by simply reducing the number of vehicles on the street.13 In addition, burglary, a property crime that did show reductions in one site, showed the highest rate of displacement in an area adjacent to the target area.14 Gill and Spriggs additionally found that fear of being victimized by crime did not change significantly from before the cameras were installed and after, though 69-96% of individuals surveyed in the 14 sites responded favorably to plans to install camera systems.

PRELIMINARY USA STUDIES SHOW LITTLE POSITIVE IMPACT Fewer studies of video surveillance have been conducted in the United 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). Studies are, at this point, insufficient to conduct meta-analyses based solely on studies in the US. However, Welsh and Farringtons 2002 meta-analysis compared UK and US sites, and the two revisited this comparison in a 2004 follow-up.17 4

The American studies that met the criteria for the meta-analysis generally showed worse outcomes that those in the UK, showing an undesirable or null effect on crime. Welsh and Farrington point out a few key differences between the UK and US systems that might explain this. One possibility is a difference in reporting time, with the UK studies generally taking longer to report findings. However, as Welsh and Farrington report, what is likely an even more important factor, is that the surveillance sites in the US lack the confounding elements of the British sites. While nine of the 14 UK sites used several different interventions simultaneously, such as improved lighting and increased foot patrols, none of the US schemes used any intervention besides cameras. Thus, these studies provide a more unadulterated look at the effect of surveillance cameras on crime rates than their UK counterparts and show that cameras on their own have virtually no impact on crime.18 The following are two initial independent studies of small-scale systems, both in California,19 that offer a preliminary view of the impact of video surveillance on crime in US cities.

UC Berkeley Preliminary Study The city of San Franciscos 68 cameras appear to have had a small impact on property crimes, but no impact on violent crimes. Jennifer King and colleagues at Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society (CITRIS) and the Samuelson Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley, are currently in the process of studying the impact of San Francisco's small video surveillance system. 4

In March 2008, they published preliminary findings.20 Looking at aggregate statistics on serious violent crime and serious property crimes before and after installation of cameras in high-crime neighborhoods, King's group found a 22% decline in property crime occurring within 100 feet of the cameras, but no statistically significant changes between 100 and 500 feet from the cameras. This would seem to suggest that the cameras are, in fact, working to reduce property crimes. However, without the benefit of aggregated multiple studies in a meta-analysis, we cannot know whether this reduction is a fluke or not. Regarding violent crime, there appeared to be no statistically significant change in the level of crime anywhere in the 500 foot range around the cameras. When violent crimes were disaggregated, a decline in homicide was observed within 250 feet of the cameras, however this reduction was offset completely by an equal increase in homicides between 250 and 500 feet from the cameras, suggesting displacement. The study also did preliminary analysis of crime statistics 5001000 feet away from the cameras, and thus, based on information available from the San Francisco Police Department, out of the range of surveillance, and found an increase in property crime between 500 to 750 feet from the cameras. This might suggest displacement from the areas directly monitored by the cameras, though an off setting decline in property crimes in the area 750 to 1,000 feet away makes a determination of displacement inconclusive.

Notably when the preliminary findings of the UC Berkeley study were reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who heads the board's public safety committee, responded to the apparent null effect on violent crime by asserting that the cameras provided psychological relief to citizens, and were thus justified.21 The city has so far spent $900,000 on the 68 cameras currently up and has budgeted an additional $200,000 for 25 more cameras intended to target violent gang activity.22

USC Study Preliminary studies of camera systems in Los Angeles show no impact on crime. Students at the University of Southern California School of Policy, Planning and Development released a report to the California Research Bureau in May 2008 on the effects of video surveillance on crime in two areas of Los Angeles.23 The group looked at five out of 14 cameras along a high-traffic section of Hollywood Blvd. and six cameras at the Jordan Downs Public Housing Project in Watts. The study notes that, unlike San Francisco's public video surveillance system, cameras in Los Angeles have not been analyzed by the city or some other official body to determine their efficacy. This may be because while San Francisco has incurred substantial costs for installation and upkeep of the cameras, many of LA's cameras, including the clusters that the USC group examined, were installed through private donations (on Hollywood Blvd, for example, the cameras were donated to the city by the film industry) or 4

federal grants through the US Department of Homeland Security's Grant Program. Another important distinction between the camera systems in Los Angeles and those in San Francisco is active monitoring of LA's cameras in real time, vs. a decision by the San Francisco City Council to allow only passive monitoring of the cameras for the purposes of safeguarding citizens' privacy. Looking at the LAPD's COMPSTAT figures to determine pre and post installation crime rates, as well as arrest records, the study found no significant impact on crime in either area. Violent crime went down in both areas, but that reduction was offset by an overall crime reduction in surrounding control areas (though in the case of the Jordan Downs Housing Project, the group hypothesized that the cameras may have played a role in preventing a substantial escalation of crime relative to surrounding areas, since the housing project was the site of a gang war during the period of the study). The group was not able to find statistically significant evidence of displacement in either area.

Local Literature

The Philippines is known as the Pearl of the Orient, with its exotic and tropical islands, rare and valuable natural resources, stunning natural wonders, warm and hospitable people, and rising national status in the world. But with all these raves, the country is not exempt from the terrors of the rest of the world. Despite its beauty, the country is also in danger of relentless terrorist threats and terrorism incidences. Communications 4

and Information Technology industries are also booming and the workplace is getting larger and more complex as time progresses. The country is not bereft of crimes, in the cities, suburbs, and rural areas. The fact is that this is the harsh reality that goes hand in hand with the wonders and delight the country can offer.

But the good side to this is that we are not left helpless to these looming possibilities of insecurity. You have the choice of taking a proactive stance when it comes to securing your homes, your businesses, your country, and your future. Philippine Security brings you the latest and most reliable storage and security system technologies that can take your safety and security confidence to a higher level. Only Philippine Security offers the complete set of security solutions that can meet the security needs of various types of clients from the government, to the business sector, to academic institutions, to individual homes and to the schools and campuses. Our line-up of products and solutions include the top-of-the-line surveillance cameras, access control and alarm systems.

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH DESIGN

This study will use the descriptive method of the survey type of research which describe and interpret data and characteristics about the population or phenomenon being studied. It involves some type of comparison or contrast and attempts to discover relationships between existing and non manipulative variables. Moreover, Aquino describes the descriptive research as factfinding methodology with adequate interpretation. He further claims that the descriptive method is something more and beyond just data gathering. He believes that the discussions of those data are carried up to the level of adequate interpretation. The data must be subjected to terms of ordered reasoning.

POPULATION, SAMPLE AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES

The purposive sampling will be used in the selection of the respondents only in EARIST, Nagtahan, Sampaloc, Manila will be utilized to answer the questionnaires. 4

In this regard, Pagoso emphasized that purposive sampling was based on certain criteria laid down by the research such that the respondents within the population have meaning for the data that will be gathered. The respondents of the study will be the students and faculties of EARIST, Manila.

RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

The survey questionnaire was used as the main data-gathering instrument for this study. The questionnaire was divided into two main sections: a personal data sheet or the profile and the survey proper. The profile contains socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents such as age, gender, and the respondents knowledge about video surveillance system. The questions were structure using the Likert format. In this survey type, five choices are provided for every question or statement. The choices represent the degree of agreement each respondent has on the given question. The Likert survey was the selected questionnaire type as this enabled the respondents to answer the survey easily. In addition, this research instrument allowed the research to carry out the quantitative approach effectively with the use of statistics for data interpretation

DATA GATHERING PROCEDURE

Permission to conduct the study will be secured by the researcher from the school administrator of Eulogio Amang Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology, Nagtahan, Sampaloc, Manila. After which, the researcher will go to the school under study to personally distribute the questionnaire to the students and employees who has a knowledge or familiarity about the Video Surveillance System. be scored, tallied and tabulated. The questionnaire will

STATISTICAL TREATMENT OF DATA

The information gathered were tabulated and processed manually and with the aid of computer to determine the precise interpretation of the results. Matrix tables were made to organize, summarize, and analyze the data gathered for easy determination of its difference from each other. Data were collated, tabulated, and analyzed. The following statistical tools were used in the analysis of data:

1. Percentage

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 Population

2.

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 5 4 3 2 1 Verbal Interpretation Strongly Agree Agree Moderately Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Range 4.6 5.0 3.6 4.5 2.6 3.5 1.6 2.5 1.0 1.5

3.

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

where: X w N x = weighted mean = weighted factor = summation = total number of respondents = score

4.

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 f (a) = Chi Square = 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

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 gathered based on the questions posited in the study.

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE For the profile of the respondents, the questionnaire asked for the participants age, gender and their Knowledge in Video Surveillance System. Below are the tables summarizing the gathered values for each profile category:

TABLE 1 Age Distribution of 50 Respondents AGE 21 years old and below 21-25 years old 26-30 years old 31-35 years old 35 years old & above TOTAL FREQUENCY 20 23 4 2 1 50 PERCENTAGE 40% 46% 8% 4% 2% 100%

It can be seen in table 1 that majority of the respondents belong to the age bracket of 21 25 years old with the frequency of 23 or 46%

followed by the age bracket

of 21 years old and below with the

frequency of 20 or 40%. 4 or 8% of the respondents are in the age bracket of 26 30 years old.

TABLE 2 Gender Distribution of 50 Respondents GENDER Male Female TOTAL FREQUENCY 32 18 50 PERCENTAGE 64% 36% 100%

Table 2 shows the Distribution of respondents by age. Based on the data in the table, majority of the respondents are male with the frequency of 32 or 64% and only 18 or 36% are female.

TABLE 3 Knowledge in Video Surveillance System Distribution of 50 Respondents Knowledge in Video FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Surveillance System Advance Moderate Knowledgeable New TOTAL

5 32 11 2 50

10% 64% 22% 4% 100%

All of the respondents are separated according to their Knowledge in Video Surveillance System. Almost 32 out of 50 respondents or 64% of the respondents have a moderate knowledge in video surveillance system. While 11of them or 22% are moderately knowledgeable about this system; 5 or 10% of the respondents have advance knowledge and the 2 or 4% left are new or not familiar about this system.

SURVEY ANALYSIS

Likert Scale System Rate 5 4 3 Verbal Interpretation Strongly Agree (SA) Agree (A) Uncertain 4 Range 4.6 5.0 3.6 4.5 2.6 3.5

2 1

(U) Disagree (D) Strongly Disagree (SD)

1.6 2.5
1.0

1.5

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

Specific security threats and concerns of the school attempting to address by using a video surveillance system W.M a. EARIST Security Personnel has less security 3.96 gadgets b. Most of the EARIST Security Personnel 3.4 doesnt know how to use a security camera c. Most of the EARIST Security Personnel doesnt know how to install and operate video surveillance d. EARIST Security Office doesnt fit the installation area of the Video Surveillance System d. Security threats are not address properly Total 8 Based on my computation using weighted mean, table 4 shows that letter A got the highest rank among the five problems with the weighted mean of 3.96. It could be noted that majority of the respondents agree that EARIST Security Personnel has less security gadgets. 3.54 U 4 3.5 U 3 U 1 A 5 V.I. RANK

3.44 3.56

U A

TABLE 5 Video Surveillance System will ease threats and will help the school on a day-to-day basis W.M V.I. RANK

a. EARIST Security Personnel cannot actually determine threats inside or outside school premises. b. A routine check to all students and visitors 3.9 going in and out of the institute c. A routine check on all vehicles going in and 3.88 out of the Institute d. A real time monitoring of all the Students 3.88 and visitors of the School e. A real time recording of what is happening 3.94 beyond the scope of the surveillance camera 3.87 Total 6 As shown in the table, majority of the respondents says agree that a real time recording of what is happening beyond the scope of the video surveillance camera are one of the most important benefits of video surveillance in school campus with the weighted mean of 3.94. A routine check to all students and visitors going in and out of the institute was ranked fourth with the weighted mean of 3.9. Ranked third and second has an equal weighted mean of 3.88 and 3.78 of the weighted mean also agree that EARIST Security Personnel cannot actually determine threats inside or outside school premises. A A 5 A 2 A 3 A 4 3.78 A 1

TABLE 6 Accepting and interpreting of data produce by the system W.M V.I. RANK

a. Student database will be used in monitoring 3.88 the students b. A faculty and employees database will be 3.98 used in monitoring faculty and employees c. A print out will produce for manual 3.76 checking d. An automatic logging system will be 3.82 adopted e. On the spot data report can be easily 3.5 produce. 3.78 Total 8 It can be seen that 3.98 is the highest computed weighted mean on how does the school management accept and interpret produce by the system. Based on the table, letter (b) got the highest rank followed by letter (a) with the weighted mean of 3.88, the third ranked has a weighted mean of 3.82. Letter (d) got the second rank with the computed weighted mean of 3.76 while the calculated weighted mean for the first ranked is 3.5 for letter (e) TABLE 7 Students acceptance on the system W.M V.I. RANK a. Accredited Students organizations will be 3.92 consulted before applying the system b. Institute student government will be the first to summon on proper orientation of the system c. Comments and suggestions will be properly 4 3.92 3.96 A A 3 5 A 4 A U 1 A 3 A 2 A 5 A 4

entertained d. A survey on the entire students will be 3.9 conducted to get their pulse e. A computational analysis will be conducted 3.82 to determine the acceptability of the system Total 3.904 A A 1 A 2

Based on Table 7, it could be seen that 3.96 of weighted mean agree that comments and suggestions will be properly entertained for the acceptance of the system; respondents agree that accredited Students organizations will be consulted before applying system and also the Institute Student Government will be the first to summon on proper orientation of the system with a weighted mean of 3.92; a weighted mean of 3.9 also AGREE that a survey on the entire students will be conducted to get their pulse; Moreover, 3.82 of the computed weighted mean agree for the computational analysis that will be conducting to determine the acceptability of the system.

CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION

The tables below are the distribution of the data gathered from the survey questions. Each of the table consists of the Actual Frequency or number of observations in a cell, the Expected Frequency or number of observations 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 of freedom (df) with the formula df = (C - 1) (R - 1) which is equal to 16 at 0.05 level of significance. The computed chi-square value is then compared to the tabular chi-square value which is equal to 26.30. 4

Note, that if the computed chi-square value is greater than the tabular chi-square, the null hypothesis - there is no significant difference between the old and the new system - is rejected.

TABLE 7 Specific security threats and concerns of the school attempting to address by using a video surveillance system 5 a b c d e O 11 4 5 6 10 E 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 chi 2.006 1.422 0.672 0.200 1.089 O 27 21 23 19 15 E 21 21 21 21 21 4 chi 1.714 0.000 0.190 0.190 1.714 O 11 16 15 21 16 E 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 3 chi 1.458 0.003 0.041 1.711 0.003 O 1 9 6 4 5 E 5 5 5 5 5 2 chi 3.2 3.2 0.2 0.2 0 O 0 0 1 0 4 E 1 1 1 1 1 1 chi 1 1 0 1 9 Total (O-E)^2/E Total 9.378 5.625 1.103 3.302 11.806 31.214

From the table we can see that:

= 9.378+5.625+1.103+3.302+11.806 = 31.214 and df = (C - 1)(R - 1) (5 - 1)(5 - 1) = (4)(4) = 16

Our null, for the chi-square test, states that there are no differences between the observed and the expected frequencies. The alternate hypothesis states that there are significant differences between the observed 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 Since our calculated value of

>= 26.3. (31.214) is greater than 26.3, we

reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.

TABLE 8 Video Surveillance will ease the threats and help the school on the day-to-day basis 5 a b c d e O 10 10 11 11 9 E 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 chi 0.004 0.004 0.063 0.063 0.141 O 24 29 26 27 30 E 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 4 chi 0.376 0.119 0.053 0.001 0.288 O 12 8 10 8 10 E 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 3 chi 0.6 0.2667 0.0167 0.2667 0.0167 O 3 2 2 3 1 E 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2 chi 0.2909 0.0182 0.0182 0.2909 0.6545 O 1 1 1 1 0 E 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1 chi 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.8 Total (O-E)^2/E chi 1.321 0.458 0.201 0.672 1.901 4.552

From the table we can see that:

= 1.321+0.458+0.201+0.672+1.901 = 4.552 and df = (C - 1)(R - 1) (5 - 1)(5 - 1) = (4)(4) = 16

Our null, for the chi-square test, states that there are no differences between the observed and the expected frequencies. The alternate hypothesis states that there are significant differences between the observed 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 Since our calculated value of

>= 26.3. (4.552) is less than 26.3, we

accept the null hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis.

TABLE 9 Accepting and Interpreting of data produce by the system 5 a b c d e O 13 11 9 7 7 E 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 1.379 0.272 0.017 0.613 0.613 O 20 27 21 30 20 E 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 4 0.5492 0.4898 0.2864 1.7356 0.5492 O 15 12 19 10 17 E 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 3 0.011 0.463 1.326 1.4493 0.3945 O 2 0 1 3 3 E 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 2 0.0222 1.8 0.3556 0.8 0.8 O 0 0 0 0 3 1 E 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 9.6 Total (O-E)^2/E chi 2.561 3.625 2.585 5.198 11.956 25.925

From the table we can see that:

= 2.561+3.625+2.585+5.198+11.956= 25.925 and df = (C - 1)(R - 1) (5 - 1)(5 - 1) = (4)(4) = 16

Our null, for the chi-square test, states that there are no differences between the observed and the expected frequencies. The alternate hypothesis states that there are significant differences between the observed 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 Since our calculated value of

>= 26.3. (25.925) is less than 26.3, we

accept the null hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis.

TABLE 10 Students Acceptance on the System 5 a b c d e O 11 11 11 14 13 E 12 12 12 12 12 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.333 0.083 O 26 27 28 21 19 E 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2 4 0.134 0.324 0.597 0.423 1.117 O 11 9 9 12 15 E 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 3 0.004 0.432 0.432 0.057 1.289 O 2 3 2 2 2 E 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2 0.018 0.291 0.018 0.018 0.018 O 0 0 0 1 1 1 E 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.9 Total (O-E)^2/E chi 0.639 1.530 1.530 1.732 3.408 8.840

From the table we can see that:

= 0.639+1.530+1.530+1.732+3.408= 8.840 and df = (C - 1)(R - 1) (5 - 1)(5 - 1) = (4)(4) = 16

Our null, for the chi-square test, states that there are no differences between the observed and the expected frequencies. The alternate hypothesis states that there are significant differences between the observed 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, we

accept the null hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis.

CHAPTER V Summary, Conclusion, Recommendation

SUMMARY

The main objective of this research study was to make a descriptive survey about the technology implicated in using Video Surveillance System in Eulogio AMANG Rodriguez Institute of Science 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?

The descriptive method of the survey type of research was used in this study. Students and employees of EARIST served as the respondents, out of (50) fifty respondents, (32) thirty-two of them are male while the other 18 are female.

To analyze and interpret the data, the study utilized the following statistical tools: Percentage, Likert Scale System, Weighted Mean, ChiSquare and Rank Method.

The study reveals the following findings: Majority or 64 percent of the respondents are male and 36 percent are females. Most of the respondents belong to the 21-25 age brackets with a moderate knowledge about the video surveillance system.

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 system a. EARIST Security Personnel has less security gadgets b. Most of the EARIST Security Personnel doesnt know how to use a security camera c. Most of the EARIST Security Personnel doesnt know how to install and operate video surveillance d. EARIST Security Office doesnt fit the installation area of the Video Surveillance System d. Security threats are not address properly Total 5 11 4 5 6 10 36 4 27 21 23 19 15 105 3 11 16 15 21 16 79 2 1 9 6 4 5 25 1 0 0 1 0 4 5 W.M 3.96 3.4 3.5 3.54 3.44 3.56 8 CHI 9.378 5.625 1.103 3.302 11.806 31.214

Based on my computation using chi square, it is evident that letter (e) on table A shows the highest rank and clearly visible that security threats are not address properly, while using the weighted mean computation, letter (a) on the said table shows the highest rank that EARIST Security Personnel has less security gadgets. TABLE B 2. Video Surveillance System will ease threats and will help the school on a day-to-day basis. a. 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 institute c. A routine check on all vehicles going in and out of the Institute d. A real time monitoring of all the Students and visitors of the School e. A real time recording of what is happening beyond the scope of the surveillance camera Total 5 10 10 11 11 9 51 4 24 29 26 27 30 136 3 12 8 10 8 10 48 2 3 2 2 3 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 0 4 W.M 3.78 3.9 3.88 3.88 3.94 3.87 6 CHI 1.321 0.458 0.201 0.672 1.901 4.552

As gleaned in the table, the respondents gave almost the same highest rank for letter (e) using the computation for weighted mean and chi-square. It can be noted that a real time recording of what is happening beyond the scope of the surveillance camera will ease the threats and will help the school on a day-to-day basis. TABLE C 3. Accepting and interpreting of data produce by the system a. Student database will be used in monitoring the students b. A faculty and employees database will be used in monitoring faculty and employees c. A print out will produce for manual checking d. An automatic logging system will be adopted e. On the spot data report can be easily produce. Total 5 13 11 9 7 7 47 4 20 27 21 30 20 118 3 15 12 19 10 17 73 2 2 0 1 3 3 9 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 W.M 3.88 3.98 3.76 3.82 3.5 3.78 8 CHI 2.561 3.625 2.585 5.198 11.956 25.925

Looking at the table, it can be seen that letter (b) is considered the highest ranked in computing the weighted mean, it reveals that a faculty and employees database will be used in monitoring faculty and employees. The same table also reveals that on the spot data can be easily produce as it computed using chi square.

TABLE D 4. Students acceptance on the system a. Accredited Students organizations will be consulted before applying the system b. Institute student government will be the first to summon on proper orientation of the system c. Comments and suggestions will be properly entertained d. A survey on the entire students will be conducted to get their pulse e. A computational analysis will be conducted to determine the acceptability of the system Total 5 11 11 11 14 13 60 4 26 27 28 21 19 121 3 11 9 9 12 15 56 2 2 3 2 2 2 11 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 W.M 3.92 3.92 3.96 3.9 3.82 3.90 4 CHI 0.639 1.530 1.530 1.732 3.408 8.839

Based on the weighted mean computation, letter (c) got the highest rank with the average of 3.96; it was worth noting that comments and suggestions should be properly entertained in the acceptance of the video surveillance system. While on the chi-square computation letter (e) was ranked first that in determining acceptability of the system, a computational analysis will be conducted.

CONCLUSION

Due to increased terrors and crimes, the use of the video surveillance camera system is increasing. It has been operated for public interest such as prevention of crimes and fly-tipping by the police and local government, but private information such as faces or behavior patterns can be recorded in CCTV. When the recorded video data is exposed, it may cause an invasion to privacy and crimes. This paper analyses conventional methods of privacy protection in surveillance camera systems and applied scrambling and RFID system to existing surveillance systems to prevent privacy exposure in monitoring simultaneously for both privacy protection and surveillance. The proposed system adjusts the intensities of privacy according to access levels to reduce invasion of privacy by people who are not concerned.

RECOMMENDATION

Video surveillance should only be considered where less intrusive means of deterrence, such as increased monitoring by teachers, have shown to be ineffective or unworkable. In its consultation with the school community, the school administration should outline the less intrusive means that have been considered and the reason why they are not effective. Before implementing a video surveillance program, a school should be able to demonstrate.

Video surveillance programs should only be adopted where circumstances have shown that it is necessary for the purposes of providing the safety of students and staff, or for the deterrence of destructive acts, such as vandalism.

The school administration should provide justification for the use and extent of a video surveillance program on the basis of addressing specific and significant concerns about safety and/or the theft or destruction of property.

They should also conduct an assessment into the effects that the surveillance system will have on personal privacy and the ways in which such adverse effects may be mitigated. They should consult openly with parents, staff, students and the broader school community as to the necessity of the proposed video surveillance program and its 4

acceptability to the school community. Consultation should provide stakeholders with an opportunity to comment on the actual location of cameras on school property, should the project proceed and they should ensure that the proposed design and operation of the video surveillance system minimizes privacy intrusion to that which is necessary to achieve appropriate goals through lawful activities.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Internet

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

APPENDICES

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Part 1: PERSONAL DATA SHEET Age: 21 years old and below 21-25 years old 26-30 years old 31-35 years old 35years old and above Rate 5 4 3 2 1 Sex: Female Male Knowledge in Video Surveillance System Advance Moderate Knowledgeable New Part 2: Check the appropriate box, which you believe applicable to the given variables. LEGEND Verbal Interpretation Strongly Agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly Disagree Range 4.6 5.0 3.6 4.5 2.6 3.5 1.6 2.5 1.0 1.5

Specific security threats and concerns of the school attempting to address by using a video surveillance system 5 a. EARIST Security Personnel has less security gadgets b. Most of the EARIST Security 4 3 2 1

Personnel doesnt know how to use a security camera c. Most EARIST Security personnel doesnt know how to install and operate video surveillance. d. EARIST Security Office doesnt fit the installation area of the Video Surveillance System e. Security threats are not address properly

B. Video Surveillance System will ease threats and will help the school on a day-to-day basis. 5 a. 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 institute c. A routine check on all vehicles going in and out of the Institute d. A real time monitoring of all the Students and visitors of the School e. A real time recording of what is happening beyond the scope of the surveillance camera 4 3 2 1

C. Accepting and interpreting of data produce by the system 5 4 3 a. Student database will be used in monitoring the students b. A faculty and employees database will be used in monitoring faculty and employees c. A print out will produce for manual checking d. An automatic logging system will be adopted e. On the spot data report can be easily produce.

D. Students acceptance on the system 5 a. Accredited Students organizations will be consulted before applying the system b. Institute student government will be the first to summon on proper orientation of the system c. Comments and suggestions will be properly entertained d. A survey on the entire students will be conducted to get their pulse e. A computational analysis will be conducted to determine the acceptability of the system 4 3 2 1

E. Significant difference between the security personnel officer and the video surveillance system 5 4 3 2 1 a. There is no significant difference between the old and the new system

APPENDIX B EQUIVALENT FOR THE DEGREE OF FREEDOM

Alpha value = 5% DF Value 1 3.84 2 5.99 3 7.82 4 9.49 5 11.1 6 12.6 7 14.1 8 15.5 9 16.9 10 18.3 11 19.7 12 21 13 22.4 14 23.7 15 25 16 26.3 17 27.6 18 28.9 19 30.1 20 31.4 21 32.7 22 33.9 23 35.2 24 36.4 25 37.7 26 38.9 27 40.1 28 41.3 29 42.6 30 43.8

Alpha value = 1% DF 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Value 6.63 9.21 11.3 13.3 15.1 16.8 18.5 20.1 23.2 24.7 26.2 27.7 29.1 30.6 30.6 32 33.4 34.8 36.2 37.6 38.9 40.3 41.6 43 44.3 45.6 47 48.3 49.6 50.9

CURRICULUM VITAE PERSONAL DATA Name Date of birth Place of birth Address Age Height Weight Nationality Civil Status Religion Fathers Name Mothers Name : : : : : : : : : : : : Anna Marie Magallanes Lucero February17, 1990 San Juan City 4929 r-32 Pina St. Old Sta. Mesa, Manila 20 411 49 kilos Filipino Single Roman Catholic Federico L. Lucero Dolores M. Lucero

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND COLLEGE Eulogio Amang Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology Computer Engineering 2006 Present SECONDARY Bagong Silangan High School 2002-2006 ELEMENTARY San Juan Elementary School 1996-2002