Neighborhood Watch Prevention Program - Research Paper Example

? Neighborhood Watch Prevention Program Michael Cox Columbia College Criminology Neighborhood Watch Prevention Program Background and Effectiveness Community crime prevention programs encompass a wide range of community ­based strategies or initiatives to prevent residential crime (Mawby, 2007; Rosenbaum, 1994). Included within the rubric of community crime prevention are programs such as Neighborhood Watch. According to Rosenbaum (1987), Neighborhood Watch is the most prominent of such programs in the United States and has "been recommended as a feasible and attractive solution to crime-related neighborhood conditions" (p. 105). Neighborhood Watch, subsumed within a broad classification of community crime prevention programs, has historical beginnings in the most primitive and olden crime prevention schemes. Undoubtedly, the prevention of crime has been a preoccupation of civilizations spanning the course of time (Lab, 2004). Although crime prevention has been an invariable concern throughout history, the methods used to prevent crime have differed not only in strategic complexity but also with respect to the staff relegated to perform crime prevention tasks (Lab, 2004; Vago, 2003). For instance, quite notable distinctions among historic crime prevention schemes include the exclusive reliance on the informal social control of primitive kin groups, which had no formal system of jurisprudence, versus the utilization of a semi-formal and/or paid obligatory police force, existing within a more complex legal system (Vago, 2003). Regardless of the strategic complexity, crime prevention schemes of past have relied to a large extent on a familial (kin) and/or a neighborhood watch-style of policing- a style of policing which is congruent with the basic tenets of Neighborhood Watch and a style of policing which is being hailed as a crucial remedy to resolve neighborhood crime and disorder problems (Lab, 2004). This style of policing however does not absolve formal agents of social control from also being responsible for the prevention of crime (Bowers & Johnson, 2005). Since the 1970s, empirical studies have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of Neighborhood Watch (Rosenbaum, Lewis, & Grant, 1986; Lindsay & McGillis, 1986). These studies have focused on finding a relationship between Neighborhood Watch and reductions in (1) residential burglary, (2) fear of crime, and (3) victimizations. Other studies have also assessed the relationship between community crime prevention programs, including Neighborhood Watch and collective efficacy; informal social control; and attachment to the neighborhood (Rosenbaum et al., 1986). Early studies on Neighborhood Watch revealed the most promising findings. For instance, studies conducted in Seattle and Portland showed that the implementation of watch programs led to a significant reduction in self-reported burglary victimizations (Lindsay & McGillis, 1986). Also, program participants in Seattle were found to incorporate elements of Neighborhood Watch into their daily routines (e.g. personal protection behaviors) and incorporate elements of the program to defend their home from being burglarized (Clarke & Newman, 2006). In Portland, program participants were more apt to engage in protection behaviors that benefited them and their neighborhood. Thus, it showed that residents were engaging in personal and collective protection behaviors (Schneider, 1986). In Hartford, Connecticut, a test of Newman's (1972) notions of defensible space and territoriality also revealed promising findings. Two years after the implementation of watch programs and after the implementation of changes in the neighborhood's traffic flow, residents reported lower burglary and robbery victimizations. The study also showed an increase in resident's ability to exert informal social control- they were more willing to protect their neighborhood from intruders and more likely to interact with their neighbors (Fowler & Mangoine, 1986). Evaluations conducted in the 1980s shattered the promising findings accumulated a decade earlier (Clarke & Newman, 2006). For instance, in Chicago, the residents were provided with federal funds to implement programs, one of which was Neighborhood Watch, in an attempt to increase feelings of efficacy, improve the social cohesion of the neighborhood and, improve residents' attachment to the neighborhood. The findings showed no significant changes in these behaviors. Thus, program participants were not able to increase feelings of collective efficacy, improve the social cohesion among neighbors, or improve resident's attachment to the neighborhood. The implementation of the various programs actually increased fear of crime (Rosenbaum et al., 1986). In 1982, Bennett and Lavrakas conducted a similar evaluation in 10 different communities. Their findings were also discouraging. Although there was a decrease in fear of crime, there was no significant reduction in reported victimizations by program participants (Bennett & Lavrakas, 1989). In London, Bennett (1989) evaluated the effectiveness of Neighborhood Watch only to find that residents' fear of crime had increased after the implementation of the program and the level of crime had increased in treatment areas. In 1989, Garofalo and McLeod reported findings from a national study of watch programs in the United States. This was the first study to capture the operational characteristics of watch programs. Garofalo and McLeod (1989) did not conduct an empirical evaluation of Neighborhood Watch but hypothesized, based on interviews with watch captains, that watch programs may be unable to achieve success because very few residents attend meetings and very few residents are willing to engage in intentional surveillance. Since the late 1980s, very few studies on Neighborhood Watch have been conducted. One of the few and most recent studies was conducted in 1997. Smith, Novak, and Hurley (1997) however found that Neighborhood Watch had no impact on crime. Instead, they found that structural factors such as poverty, the mobility of residents, population density, and racial heterogeneity were significant predictors of crime. Criminological theories behind the program Neighborhood Watch is one of several community crime prevention programs which assimilate elements of informal and formal social control. Neighborhood Watch's unique blending of informal and formal social control has underpinnings in several crime prevention models and theoretical perspectives. For instance, Neighborhood Watch is grounded in two primary crime prevention models: (1) opportunity reduction and (2) informal social control (Rosenbaum, 1987; Mawby, 2007). An opportunity reduction crime prevention strategy may require residents to engage in personal (e.g. taking self-defense courses), household (e.g. installing burglar bars, alarms, and locks) and/or neighborhood (collective) protection behaviors (e.g. engaging in active surveillance) in an effort to reduce and/or prevent residential crime. Although there are differing opportunity reduction crime prevention strategies, Neighborhood Watch is the most prominent (Rosenbaum, 1987). Neighborhood Watch not only requires residents to engage in personal and household protection behaviors but requires that they engage in collective action in order to reduce the opportunities for victimization and crime. As the "eyes and ears" of the police, residents are to remain vigilant of suspicious behavior and alert the police whenever they observe such behavior or a violation of the law (Bennett,1989). Residents must also engage in collective, intentional, and visible surveillance in order to remind potential offenders that the likelihood of apprehension is high. Thus, one of the basic tenets of Neighborhood Watch is that vigilance coupled with visibility reduces opportunities for victimization and crime (Lab, 2004). Conversely, an informal social control crime prevention strategy (which is also referred to as the social problem crime prevention strategy or the social disorganization strategy), focuses on the "root causes" of crime and therefore neighborhood collective action is channeled toward the identification of social conditions that cause crime as well as the identification of viable solutions (Rosenbaum, 1987). Though there may be numerous different informal social control crime prevention strategies, Neighborhood Watch may also be used to address the root causes of crime. For instance, a neighborhood watch program may prioritize the efforts of its residents toward identifying the root causes of juvenile delinquency. Once the cause of such problem has been identified, efforts may be redirected toward viable and feasible solutions such as athletic programs, employment programs, job training, counseling, and/or drug prevention programs (Rosenbaum, 1987). Neighborhood Watch programs aimed at identifying and finding possible solutions to problems may also concentrate on strengthening the ability of residents to reduce and/or prevent crime. Thus, watch groups may find that the root cause of crime may be attributable to a weakened or non-existent informal social control network among residents and consequently focus on strengthening or building the neighborhood's defensive capacity to protect itself from victimization and crime (Rosenbaum, 1987). The opportunity reduction crime prevention strategies, which may include Neighborhood Watch, are consistent with deterrence and modern choice theories, such as rational choice theory and routine activities theory. As such, opportunity reduction prevention strategies have an implicit element of offender rationality and can therefore be categorized as falling within the realm of classical criminology. However, opportunity reduction prevention strategies can also be construed as belonging to a class of theories known as social ecological theories of crime causation. This is especially true when considering the work of Oscar Newman (1972) and his notion of defensible space. The informal social control crime prevention strategies, which may also include Neighborhood Watch, are more consistent with social ecological theories of crime causation, especially when considering the work of Shaw and McKay (1942) and their explanation of social disorganization. Informal social control crime prevention strategies fall within the realm of positivistic criminology. The fusion of these various perspectives constitutes the theoretical basis of Neighborhood Watch and sets forth a micro and macro-level crime prevention scheme. For instance, modern choice theories, such as rational choice and routine activities, which focus on manipulating the environmental opportunities and situations for crime, provide a micro-level strategy that requires residents to engage in personal and household protection behaviors. Additionally, design ecology proposed by Oscar Newman (1972), which also focuses on changing the physical and social environment to lessen opportunities for crime, constitutes a micro-level crime prevention scheme. However, it also represents a macro-level strategy since it calls for residents to engage in neighborhood protection behaviors such as defending their residential area by conducting intentional surveillance and developing a sense of territoriality or ownership over their neighborhood. It may also require careful planning of neighborhood structures as well as a neighborhood's egress and ingress (Lab, 2004). Informal social control and social disorganization underscore the importance of enhancing a neighborhood's self-regulatory behavior and thus also constitutes a macro-level crime prevention strategy. Conclusion and Personal Perspective Regarded as one of the most effective tools within the arsenal of community policing, Neighborhood Watch programs affirm a commitment to a partnership between the police and the community. As co-producers in crime prevention efforts, citizens are to alert the police about neighborhood crime and disorder while actively working with the police in protection activities in an effort to reduce crime, fear of crime and victimizations (Rosenbaum, 1987). From the viewpoint of many practitioners Neighborhood Watch programs have been successful in achieving their goals (Stegenga, 2000). Literature however has not extended such promising results to Neighborhood Watch programs. Findings indicate that watch programs have modest or no effect on the (1) reportability of crime, (2) reduction in crime, and (3) reduction in fear of crime. The unfortunate predicament of watch programs may be attributable to many reasons such as complacency, the inability to solicit and maintain the active participation of community members, the narrow focus of specified goals, or the inability to "implant" informal social control mechanism. However, such a predicament may be also be attributable to the problems associated with community policing- of which neighborhood watch programs are nestled. In addition, its troublesome status may be related to the lack of support by the sponsoring agency- an issue lacking in current literature on Neighborhood Watch. I personally believe that although the empirical success of Neighborhood Watch has been debated for over three decades, there is no indication that the usefulness of this community crime prevention program has diminished, at least not on the part of practitioners and the public. It thus behooves the research community to conduct further evaluations of the program. It is also imperative that evaluations continue to be conducted on Neighborhood Watch due to the fact that in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the federal government recommended an increased role for Neighborhood Watch in the fight against domestic terrorism. References Bennett, S.F., & Lavrakas, P.I. (1989). Community-based crime prevention: An assessment of the Eisenhower Foundation's neighborhood program. Crime & Delinquency, 35, 345-364. Bowers, K. J. , & Johnson, S. D. (2005). Using publicity for preventive purposes. In N. Tilley (Ed.), Handbook of crime prevention and community safety (pp. pp. 329–354). Portland, OR: Willan. Clarke, R.V. , & Newman, G. (2006). Outsmarting the terrorists. Westport, CT: Praeger Security International. Fowler, F.J., & Mangione, T.W. (1986). A three-pronged effort to reduce crime and fear of crime: The Hartford experiment. In D.P. Rosenbaum (Ed.), Community crime prevention: Does it work? (pp. 87-108). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Garofalo, J., & Mcleod, M. (1989). The structure and operations of neighborhood watch programs in the United States. Crime and Delinquency, 35(3), 326-344. Lab, S.P. (2004). Crime prevention: Approaches, practices, and evaluations. New York: Anderson Publishing. Lindsay, B., & McGillis, D. (1986). Citywide community crime prevention: An assessment of the Seattle program. In D.P. Rosenbaum (Ed.), Community crime prevention: Does it work? (pp. 46-67). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Mawby, R. I. (2007). Burglary. International Library of Criminology, Criminal Justice and Penology, Second Series. Aldershot, Ashgate. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. New York: Macmillan. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. New York: Macmillan. Rosenbaum, D. P. (1987). The theory and research behind neighborhood watch: Is it a solution to crime reduction strategy? Crime and Delinquency, 33(1), 105-134. Rosenbaum, D.P., & Lurigio, A.J. (1994). An inside look at community policing reform: Definitions, organizational changes, and evaluation findings. Crime and Delinquency, 40(3), 299-314. Rosenbaum, D.P., Lewis, D.A., & Grant, lA. (1986). Neighborhood-based crime prevention: Assessing the efficacy of community organizing in Chicago. In D.P. Rosenbaum (Ed.), Community crime prevention: Does it work? (pp. 109-133). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Schneider, A.L. (1986). Neighborhood-based anti-burglary strategies: An analysis of public and private benefits from the Portland program. In D.P. Rosenbaum (Ed.), Community Crime Prevention: Does It Work? (pp. 68-86). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Shaw, C.R., & McKay, H.D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas: A study of delinquents in relation to differential characteristics of local communities in American cities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Smith, B. W., Novack, K.N., & Hurley, D.C. (1997). Neighborhood crime prevention: The influence of community-based crime prevention and neighborhood watch. Journal of Crime and Justice, 20(20), 69-86. Stegenga, P. (2000). Classic crime prevention: Neighborhood watch. Sheriff, 5-10. Vago, S. (2003). Law and society. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Read More