Neighbourhood Watch Systems - Essay Example

Does Neighborhood Watch Prevent Crime? Neighborhood Watch systems have emerged as a popular scheme for the prevention of crime (Pond 1999, 132). Even so, some critics doubt the effectiveness of Neighborhood Watch schemes as an effective method of crime prevention. In order to determine whether or not Neighborhood Watch schemes are effective it is first necessary to look at it from a theoretical perception and then to examine the evidence. Theoretically, Neighborhood Watch is characterized as “people taking responsibility for themselves, their neighbors, and their community” (Ness 1986, 149). It also involves bringing policy and the community together with a view to making it more difficult for criminal conduct (Ness 1986, 149). Neighborhood Watch started out in response to changing perceptions about the police role in communities and commenced as an idea to garner increased community commitment to crime prevention (Fleming 2005, 1). In the US Neighborhood Watch is referred to as “Block Watch”, “Apartment Watch” , “Home Watch” and “Community Watch” (Fleming 2005, 1). Regardless of the term used to describe Neighborhood Watch, the idea was borne out of a desire to make individuals take responsibility for making their neighborhoods safe (Fleming 2005, 1). The concept of Neighborhood Watch started in the US in 1960s and 1970s and began as a movement designed to get residents involved in the control of crime. This movement corresponded with other methods of crime control which included “citizen patrols,” the establishment of “police-community councils”, “citizen alerts” and “citizen anticrime crusades” (Greene 2007, 214). The Oakland Home Alert emerged in 1966 marking one of the US first forms of Neighborhood Watch schemes. Persons involved in this early scheme would attend meetings on a regular basis, exhibit banners on their windows and property and would hold themselves out as the “eyes and ears of the police” (Greene 2007, 214). The Oakland Home Alert is a manifestation of how Neighborhood Watch intends to control crime via the mechanics of a broader definition of community policing. It set an historic framework from which other models could be built. For instance the Seattle Community Crime Prevention Project which emerged in 1973 motivated residents to implement home security systems, set up block surveillance, ensure that property was marked and generally “augment the range of vision of traditional policing” (Greene 2007, 214). A number of similar Neighborhood Watch systems were implemented around the world, and were primarily modeled after the approaches taken in the US. In the UK, one of its first such models was established in 1982 in Cheshire and called for citizens in neighborhoods to keep an eye and an ear out for anything or person that seemed suspicious and to alert the police. It also called for marking one’s property and enhancing home security (Greene 2007, 214). Despite the prevalence of Neighborhood Watch worldwide, there is some suggestion that it is intrinsically ineffective. According to Mukherjee and Wilson (1987) Neighborhood Watch has what is characterized as a “displacement effect” (3-4). Bright (1991) claims that it does not have a remarkable success rate (78). Fleming (2005) maintains that the presumptive advantages and benefits such as the reduction of fear of criminal conduct and the presumption that it increases the “flow of information between police and the community” is not “substantiated by available evidence” (1). More recently however, the evidence on the effectiveness of Neighborhood Watch success is mixed. For instance, Fisher and Lab (2010) maintain that neighborhood watch schemes tend to have a greater success rate when citizens who are involved in the scheme are at home during the day while others are at work (47). Cocoon watch systems under the umbrella of Neighborhood Watch schemes can also be rather successful. Cocoon watches arise when the hone in on a specific neighborhood which is on “high alert” following an incident and therefore increase the opportunity for apprehending a “returning offender” (Fisher and Lab 2010, 47). Wisler and Onwudiwe (2009) argue that the ineffectiveness of Neighborhood Watch is often attributable to the uncertainty and instability of police involvement. This is further exacerbated by the fact that police officers may often be unavailable or called away to a more serious incident at a moment’s notice (Wisler and Onwudiwe 2009, 160). In other words, guaranteed police responses and involvement in Neighborhood Watch schemes would increase the success rates of these kinds of crime control systems. Despite criticism and skepticism over the effectiveness of Neighborhood Watch, it does tend to have some benefit. For instance Wisler and Onwudiwe (2009) maintain that Neighborhood Watch programs are low cost and provide a viable method for responding to budget cuts effecting police resources generally. Moreover, it has a tendency to reduce “fear of household crime and increased feeling of community cohesion” (Wisler and Onwudiwe 2009, 160). Brocas (2008) also maintains that Neighborhood Watch schemes are good for deterring criminal activities. Brocas also maintains that Neighborhood Watches have had some success in the reduction of crime, but much depends on the manner in which outside agencies such as police liaison officers cooperate with the police and vice versa. Essentially, Brocas (2008) explains: On its own, this method of risk reduction is not enough to secure effective protection (53). Tonry (2009) takes a similar view of the success of Neighborhood Watch schemes. According to Tonry (2009) Neighborhood Watch, like any method of crime control can only achieve optimal results if it is combined with other methods of crime control. In this regard, Tonry (2009) suggests that when Neighborhood Watch is combined with tough crime policies, heightening public awareness of specific crimes and increased vigilance, it works to everyone’s benefit (184). The popularity of Neighborhood Watch is demonstrative of its sound theoretical basis. It suggests that criminals are less likely to target areas where the opportunities for detection are higher or where potential victims who are alert and less likely to be fearful and will be more difficult to victimize. The evidence uncovered in the literature and discussed above suggest that there are mixed results relative to the success of Neighborhood Watch schemes. However, there is evidence that when coordinated properly with the authorities and with aggressive community involvement, Neighborhood Watch can be a significant deterrence to crime and can reduce the crime rate in neighborhoods. More especially, Neighborhood Watch is more effective when combined with other crime control initiatives such as heightened police patrol and other measures conducive to tough policies on crime. Works Cited Bright, J. “Crime Prevention: The British Experience”. Cited in Stenson, K and Cowell, D. (eds) The Politics of Crime Control. SAGE, 1991. Brocas, J. Power of the Sixth Sense: How to Keep Safe in a Hostile World. John Hunt Publishing, 2008. Fisher, B. and Lab, S. Encyclopedia and Crime Prevention, Vol. 1. SAGE, 2010. Fleming, J. “Working Together: Neighbourhood Watch, Reassurance Policing and the Potential of Partnerships”. Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. September 2005. Greene, J. The Encyclopedia of Police Science, Vol. 1. CRC Press, 2007. Mukherjee, S. and Wilson, P. “Neighbourhood Watch: Issues and Policy Implications”. Australian Institute of Criminology Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. 1987. Ness, D. Crime and Its Victims: What We Can Do. Intervarsity Press, 1986. Pond, R. Introduction to Criminology. Waterside Press, 1999. Tonry, M. The Oxford Handbook of Crime and Public Policy. Oxford University Press, 2009. Wisler, D. and Onwudiwe, I. Community Policing: International Patterns and Comparative Perspectives. CRC Press, 2009. Read More