Social & Economic Factors Education Employment Income Family & Social Support Community Safety Search Policies & Programs

Display All Policies & Programs Contribute Content

Neighborhood watch

Health Factors: Community Safety
Decision Makers: Community Organizations, Government - Local, Government - State, Government - Federal
Evidence Rating: Scientifically Supported
Population Reach: 50-99% of WI's population
Impact on Disparities: No impact on disparities likely

Is this program or policy in use in your community? Tell us about it.

Description

Residents participating in neighborhood watches report suspicious or potentially criminal behavior to police or a neighborhood coordinator. Residents also interact and work together to solve problems. Some neighborhood watches conduct security surveys and encourage residents to mark their property with personal identifiers. Watches are typically led by a block organizer who serves as the liaison with local police (Campbell-Bennett 2008).

Expected Beneficial Outcomes

Decreased crime

Evidence of Effectiveness

There is strong evidence that neighborhood watches reduce crime. Watches have been shown to reduce crime between 16 and 26 percent (Campbell-Bennett 2008).

One study suggests that defaced or visibly aged neighborhood watch signs increase residents' fear of victimization more than intact signs do in low income neighborhoods (Schultz 2009). However, additional study is needed to discern which neighborhood watch practices most effectively reduce crime (Campbell-Bennett 2008).

Implementation Examples

United States

Estimates suggest that over 40% of Americans lived in areas covered by neighborhood watches in 2008 (Campbell-Bennett 2008).

Wisconsin

Wisconsin has many registered neighborhood watches (USAonWatch).

Implementation Resources

USAonWatch - USAonWatch.org. Accessed on June 19, 2012
Webpage: http://www.usaonwatch.org/

Citations - Description

Campbell-Bennett 2008 - Bennett T, Holloway K, Farrington D. The effectiveness of neighborhood watch. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2008:18. Accessed on June 19, 2012
Webpage: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/news_/crime_falls_neighborhood_watch.php

Citations - Evidence

Campbell-Bennett 2008 - Bennett T, Holloway K, Farrington D. The effectiveness of neighborhood watch. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2008:18. Accessed on June 19, 2012
Webpage: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/news_/crime_falls_neighborhood_watch.php
Schultz 2009* - Schultz PW, Tabanico JJ. Criminal beware: A social norms perspective on posting public warning signs. Criminology. 2009;47(4):1201-22. Accessed on June 19, 2012
Webpage: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00173.x/abstract

Citations - Implementation Examples

Campbell-Bennett 2008 - Bennett T, Holloway K, Farrington D. The effectiveness of neighborhood watch. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2008:18. Accessed on June 19, 2012
Webpage: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/news_/crime_falls_neighborhood_watch.php
USAonWatch - USAonWatch.org. Accessed on June 19, 2012
Webpage: http://www.usaonwatch.org/

* Journal subscription may be required for access.

Comments from Users about this Policy/Program (Cost, Feasibility, Lessons Learned)

No comments

X
 

Health Factors

Health Behaviors
Tobacco Use
Diet & Exercise
Alcohol Use
Sexual Activity
 Clinical Care
Access to Care
Quality of Care
 Social & Economic Factors
Education
Employment
Income
Family & Social Support
Community Safety
 Physical Environment
Environmental Quality
Built Environment

Decision Makers

Businesses & Employers
Community Organizations
Government - Local
Government - State
Government - Federal
Healthcare Organizations
Individuals
Schools

Evidence Rating

Level of effectiveness based on a scan of academic literature and key recommendations of leading organizations.

  • Scientifically Supported Numerous studies or systematic review(s) with positive results
  • Some Evidence Research suggests positive impacts; further study may be warranted
  • Expert Opinion Recommended by credible groups*; research evidence limited
  • Insufficient Evidence Evidence limited or unavailable; further study warranted
  • Mixed Evidence Evidence mixed; further study warranted
  • Evidence of Ineffectiveness Research consistently shows program is detrimental or has no effect

Although many policies and programs are recommended by credible groups, we apply the rating ‘expert opinion’ only when policies are recommended but limited scientific evidence of effectiveness is available.

* The American Heritage Dictionary defines credible as 'capable of being believed; plausible.' and 'worthy of confidence; reliable.' To be considered an 'expert recommendation,' policies and programs must be recommended by one or more organizations that are recognized for their impartial expertise in the area of interest and have limited evidence available.

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Impact on Health Disparities

Likely impact of a given policy or program on racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, geographic or other disparities in Wisconsin based on its characteristics (e.g., target audience, mode of delivery, etc.) and best available evidence related to disparities.

  • Likely to decrease disparities
  • No impact on disparities likely
  • Likely to increase disparities