Neighborhood watch programs
Neighborhood watch programs are community-based initiatives designed to enhance local safety and reduce crime through citizen involvement. Originating in the late 1960s and early 1970s as a grassroots response to rising burglary rates, these programs emerged from concerns that traditional law enforcement methods were insufficient. They encourage collaboration among neighbors, who act as the "eyes and ears" for police, sharing information about local crime issues and suspicious activities.
Programs typically involve organized meetings facilitated by law enforcement, where community members receive training in crime prevention techniques, such as home security measures and effective communication strategies. Participants often create communication networks, including telephone trees and online platforms, to quickly disseminate information within the neighborhood.
While these initiatives have been linked to improved community ties and a reduction in fear associated with crime, their effectiveness remains a topic of debate. Some studies suggest that neighborhood watch programs can foster citizen engagement and informal social control, while others indicate that their success may be limited to more affluent areas, raising questions about their applicability in diverse socioeconomic contexts. Overall, neighborhood watch programs represent a collective effort to enhance community safety through proactive citizen involvement.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Neighborhood watch programs
SIGNIFICANCE: Since the 1970s, citizen involvement in crime prevention has increased, but questions about the effectiveness of citizen participation in reducing crime remain unanswered.
The modern movement of community crime prevention grew out of the realization that government institutions represented by the police and courts were failing in their efforts to reduce crime and restore social order. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the neighborhood watch movement began as a grassroots effort to reduce burglaries in residential homes,. It quickly became linked with other urban police programs.
Neighborhood watch programs are grounded in two theoretical crime prevention models: informal social control and opportunity reduction. Informal social control assumes that maintaining public peace is not the primary responsibility of the police. Order should be maintained by networks of voluntary controls and standards among members of communities and enforced by the people themselves. The opportunity reduction model emphasizes the value of deterrence through modifying physical environments to improve security and maintain an informed group of citizens who adapt certain techniques to reduce criminal victimization.
Neighborhood watch programs involve small groups of people connected by their neighborhoods who share information provided by local law-enforcement agencies on local crime problems. Block meetings are organized by police officers who are trained in crime prevention techniques. The meetings offer training in crime strategies, surveillance, home security surveys, internal communications, and property markings or signage.
Neighborhood residents help provide surveillance by becoming the “eyes and ears” of the police, to whom they report suspicious activities. They also establish communication networks by setting up telephone trees with which to disseminate information quickly, utilizing computer communications, and holding periodic meetings. Individual residents improve their own home security by creating written, photographic, and electronic records of their assets. Residents participating in the programs post permanent signs in their yards advertising the fact that neighborhood watch programs are at work.
Effectiveness of the Programs
Citizen involvement in crime prevention began increasing rapidly during the mid-1990s and early twenty-first century. Neighborhood watch programs have forged partnerships between the police and communities and helped to reduce the isolation and fear that criminal activity fosters within communities. In 2008, several law enforcement organizations, including the National Sheriffs' Association, the National Crime Prevention Council, and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, joined together with local communities to celebrate Crime Prevention Month in October.
However, questions remain whether the programs are effective tools in reducing crime. Two types of empirical studies have been used to support the concept of neighborhood watch; neighborhood surveys on citizen participation, and reactions to crime and the evaluation of crime prevention programs.
Neighborhood watch studies have garnered varied responses. Some studies have confirmed that citizen participation and informal social control mechanisms such as neighborhood watch can be implanted in communities where they do not already exist. However, some researchers find that citizen participation is a middle-class phenomenon and that neighborhood watch programs do not work in poor neighborhoods.
Bibliography
Garofalo, James, and Maureen McLeod. Improving the Use and Effectiveness of Neighborhood Watch Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 1988, www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/improving-use-and-effectiveness-neighborhood-watch-programs. Accessed 8 July 2024.
Hawkins, Janet. "Long Live Neighborhood Watch!" Sheriff 66.6 (2014): 42–45. Print.
Holloway, Katy, Trevor Bennett, and David P. Farrington. “Does Neighborhood Watch Reduce Crime?” Crime Prevention Research Review, 2013, portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter/RIC/Publications/cops-p145-pub.pdf. Accessed 8 July 2024.
Mann, Stephanie, and M. C. Blakeman. Safe Homes, Safe Neighborhoods: Stopping Crime Where You Live, U.S. Department of Justice, 1993, www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/safe-homes-safe-neighborhoods-stopping-crime-where-you-live. Accessed 8 July 2024.
Monson, Thomas N., et al. Community Watch Administration Manual. 3rd ed. Medford: Crime Prevention Resources, 2003. Print.
Tonry, Michael, and David P. Farrington. Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1995. Print.