Crime Watch Will Reduce Crime in Your Town

Neighborhood Watch is one of the oldest and best-known crime prevention concepts in North America. In the late 1960s, an increase in crime heightened the need for a crime prevention initiative focused on residential areas and involving local citizens. The National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) responded, creating the National Neighborhood Watch Program in 1972 to assist citizens and law enforcement. In 2002, the NSA in partnership with USA Freedom Corps, Citizen Corps and the U.S. Department of Justice launched USAonWatch, the face of the revitalized Neighborhood Watch initiative, which represents the expanded role of watch programs throughout the United States.

USAonWatch empowers citizens to become active in homeland security efforts through participation in Neighborhood Watch groups. Many neighborhoods already have established watch groups that are vibrant, effective, and can take on this expanded role with ease. For neighborhoods without thriving groups, the renewed emphasis on emergency preparedness and response may provide the right incentive for citizens to participate in Neighborhood Watch in their community.

To learn more, visit www.usaonwatch.org and browse the site.

How Is Neighborhood Watch Supposed to Work?

The most frequently suggested mechanism by which Neighborhood Watch is supposed to reduce crime is by residents looking out for and reporting suspicious activities to the police (Bennett, 1990). The link between reporting and crime reduction usually is not elaborated in the literature. It has been argued, however, that visible surveillance might reduce crime because of its deterrent effect on the perceptions and decision-making of potential offenders (Rosenbaum, 1987). Hence, watching and reporting might deter offenders if they are aware of the likelihood of local residents reporting suspicious behavior and if they perceive this as increasing their risks of being caught.

Neighborhood Watch might also lead to a reduction in crime by reducing the opportunities for crime. One method discussed in the literature is the creation of signs of occupancy, such as removing newspapers from outside neighbors’ homes when they are away, mowing the lawn, and filling up trash cans. Some of the methods were discussed in the report of the Seattle program (Cirel et al., 1977). Such signs of occupancy might reduce crime through the effect this has on potential offenders’ perceptions of the likelihood of their getting caught.

Conclusions

The results of previous systematic reviews of Neighborhood Watch are divided according to the conclusions drawn. Titus (1984) concluded that Neighborhood Watch was effective, but noted that the research methods were weak. Husain (1990) concluded that there was little evidence that Neighborhood Watch worked. Based on the four studies meeting their selection criteria, Sherman and Eck (2002) concluded that Neighborhood Watch was ineffective in reducing crime.

The strongest finding of this review relates to the mean effect size estimate produced by the meta-analysis. This indicated that, across all eligible studies combined, Neighborhood Watch was associated with a reduction in crime. It is not immediately clear why Neighborhood Watch is associated with a reduction in crime; however, it is possible that the reductions were associated with some of the essential features of the Neighborhood Watch programs as discussed earlier. Neighborhood Watch might serve to increase surveillance, reduce opportunities, and enhance informal social control. Unfortunately, this kind of information is not provided in the majority of evaluations and the precise reasons for the reduction cannot be determined.

Discuss this in the Save Shenandoah Forum