Crime Prevention 

Research Review

No. 3

Does Neighborhood Watch 

Reduce Crime?

Katy Holloway

University of South Wales

Trevor Bennett

University of South Wales

David P. Farrington

University of Cambridge
Suggested citation: 

Holloway, Katy, Trevor Bennett, and David P. Farrington. 2013. 

Does Neighborhood Watch Reduce Crime? No. 3 of Crime Prevention 

Research Review. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 

The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily represent the official position or policies 

of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific 

agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered 

an endorsement by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of 

the issues. 

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the 

date of this publication. Given that URLs and websites are in constant 

flux, neither the author(s) nor the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services can vouch for their current validity. 

The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group 

(www.campbellcollaboration.org/ccjg) is an international 

network of researchers that prepares, updates, and rapidly 

disseminates systematic reviews of high-quality research 

conducted worldwide on effective methods to reduce 

crime and delinquency and improve the quality of justice.

First published 2008

Revised 2013

ISBN: 978-1-932582-73-4

Cover photo: Doug Rau
Contents

Acknowledgments ............................................... 1

Introduction .................................................... 3

Previous Reviews of the Literature ................................... 5

What Is Neighborhood Watch? ..................................... 7

How Is Neighborhood Watch Supposed to Work? ...................... 11

Systematic Review of Neighborhood Watch ........................... 15

Eligibility Criteria ........................................... 16

Search Methodology ......................................... 17

Selected Publications ......................................... 17

Summary of Results .......................................... 18

Meta-Analysis .................................................. 21

Individual Effect Sizes ........................................ 22

Combined Effect Size ......................................... 22

Moderator Analyses .......................................... 23

Conclusions ................................................... 27

Research Implications ........................................ 28

Implications for Policy ........................................ 29

Studies Included in the Review ..................................... 33

References .................................................... 37

1

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group for its 

support in conducting the systematic review on which this paper is based. In particular, 

we thank David B. Wilson and David Weisburd for their advice and assistance at earlier 

stages in the research. We also acknowledge the contributions of the anonymous reviewers 

for their helpful comments on draft versions of the Campbell Collaboration report. 

Thanks also are due to Tracy Pitman for her research assistance.

A note regarding the Crime Prevention Research Review Series

The research included in this Crime Prevention Research Review is limited to studies 

that use experimental or quasi-experimental designs and meet the criteria for rigor 

as laid out in The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group review criteria 

(see www.campbellcollaboration.org/what_is_a_systematic_review/index.shtml). It is 

important to note that other pieces of evidence regarding the effectiveness of various 

strategies were excluded from this research. The popular series of Problem-Oriented 

Guides for Police (POP Guides) published by the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services (COPS Office) differs significantly from this review because the 

standards for inclusion of evidence are less tied to the use of experimental designs and 

thus include a wider range of evidence.

Introduction

Considering such large investments of 

resources and community involvement, it 

is important to ask whether neighborhood 

watch is effective in reducing crime.
4

Introduction

Neighborhood watch grew out of a movement in the United States that promoted greater 

involvement of citizens in the prevention of crime (Titus 1984). Variations include 

block watch, apartment watch, home watch, citizen alert, and community watch. The 

main method by which neighborhood watch is supposed to help reduce crime is when 

residents look for and report suspicious incidents to the police and thereby perhaps deter 

potential offenders from committing a crime (Bennett 1990). One of the first evaluations 

of neighborhood watch programs in the United States was of the Seattle (Washington) 

Community Crime Prevention Project launched in 1973 (Cirel et al. 1977). One of the first 

evaluations of neighborhood watch programs1 in the United Kingdom was of the Home 

Watch program implemented in 1982 in Cheshire (Anderton 1985). Both evaluations 

identified a greater reduction in burglary in areas where neighborhood watch programs had 

been introduced, than in comparison areas.

Since the 1980s, the number of neighborhood watch programs in the UK has expanded 

considerably. The report of the 2000 British Crime Survey estimated that more than a 

quarter (27 percent) of all households (approximately six million households) in England 

and Wales were members of a neighborhood watch program (Sims 2001). This amounted 

to more than 155,000 active programs. A similar expansion has occurred in the U.S. The 

report of The 2000 National Crime Prevention Survey (National Crime Prevention 

Council 2001) estimated that 41 percent of the American population lived in communities 

covered by neighborhood watch. The report concluded, “This makes neighborhood watch 

the largest single organized crime-prevention activity in the nation” (39). 

Considering such large investments of resources and community involvement, it is 

important to ask whether neighborhood watch is effective in reducing crime. To investigate 

this, we reviewed all available studies evaluating the effectiveness of neghborhood watch 

programs in reducing crime. In this publication we summarize the findings of this review 

and discuss policy implications. 

1 In this publication, neighborhood watch 

is referred to as a program; however, in the 

UK and other countries they are commonly 

referred to as “schemes.”
Previous Reviews 

of the Literature

Nearly all studies found that 

neighborhood watch areas were 

associated with lower levels of crime.
6

Previous Reviews of the Literature

There have been several previous literature reviews of the effectiveness of neighborhood 

watch programs. One of the earliest conducted in the U.S. was by Titus (1984) who 

summarized the results of nearly 40 community crime-prevention programs. Most of these 

included elements of neighborhood watch. The majority of studies were conducted by 

police departments or included data from police departments. Nearly all studies found that 

neighborhood watch areas were associated with lower levels of crime; however, most of the 

evaluations were described as having “weak” research methods. 

Another literature review looked mainly at community watch programs in the UK (Husain 

1990). The study reviewed the results of nine existing evaluations and conducted an 

original analysis of community watch in six additional locations using police-recorded 

crime data. The review of existing evaluations concluded that there was little evidence that 

neighborhood watch prevented crime. 

One of the most recent literature reviews of the effectiveness of community watch programs 

selected only evaluations with the strongest research designs (Sherman 1997). The author 

included only studies that used random assignment or studies that monitored both watch 

areas and similar comparison areas without community watch. The review found just 

four evaluations that matched these criteria. The results of these evaluations were largely 

negative, showing that neighborhood watch was not shown to reduce crime. The authors 

concluded, “The oldest and best-known community policing program, neghborhood watch, 

is ineffective at preventing crime” (8–25). Similar conclusions were drawn in the later 

update of this report (Sherman and Eck 2002).
What Is Neighborhood 

Watch?

Neighborhood watch programs can be 

initiated either by the public or the police.
8

What Is Neighborhood Watch?

Neighborhood watch is often implemented as part of a comprehensive package sometimes 

referred to as the “big three” that includes neighborhood watch, property-marking, and 

home security surveys (Titus 1984). Some programs include other elements such as a 

recruitment drive for special constables (nonsworn police officers), increased regular foot 

patrols, citizen patrols, educational programs for young people, auxiliary police units, and 

victim support services. 

Neighborhood watch programs vary in the size of the areas covered. Some of the earlier 

programs in the U.S. and the UK covered just a few households. More recent programs 

sometimes cover many thousand households (Knowles, Lesser, and McKewen 1983). One 

of the smallest programs included in the review was the “cocoon” neighborhood watch 

program in Rochdale in England covering just one dwelling and its immediate neighbors 

(Forrester et al. 1990). One of the largest was the Manhattan Beach neighborhood watch 

program in Los Angeles covering a population of more than 30,000 residents (Knowles, 

Lesser, and McKewen 1983).

Neighborhood watch programs can be initiated either by the public or the police. 

Early programs launched in the UK tended to be initiated by the police (e.g., the early 

neighborhood watch programs in London). More recently, neighborhood watch programs 

have been launched mainly at the request of the public. Some police departments continue 

initiating their own programs, even when the program is fully developed. A program 

implemented in Detroit, for example, developed a section of police-initiated programs 

to promote neighborhood watch in areas that were unlikely to generate public-initiated 

requests (Turner and Barker 1983). 
9

In the U.S., block watches are usually run by a block captain who is responsible to a block 

coordinator or block organizer (Baltimore Police Department 1985). The block coordinator 

acts as the liaison to the local police department. Neighborhood watch programs in the 

UK often include street coordinators (equivalent to block captains) and area coordinators 

(equivalent to the block organizer). There is little information in the literature on the 

number and type of neighborhood watch meetings, but the evidence that does exist 

suggests that some programs have public meetings that involve all residents participating 

in the program, while others have meetings that involve only the organizers of the program 

(Bennett 1990). 

The funding of neighborhood watch programs is nearly always a joint venture between the 

local police department and the program members through their fund-raising activities. The 

relative contribution of the two sources varies considerably. Some programs in the United 

States are provided with no more than an information package from the local police. Others 

are provided with police facilities for the production of newsletters and the use of police 

premises for meetings (Turner and Barker 1983). Apart from police funding, the majority 

of programs are encouraged to raise some funds from other sources such as voluntary 

contributions, local businesses, and the proceeds of fairs and raffles.

How Is Neighborhood 

Watch Supposed to Work?

Informal social control can affect 

community crime through the generation 

of acceptable norms of behavior and by 

direct intervention by residents.
12

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. 

Neighborhood watch might also lead to a reduction in crime through the various 

mechanisms of social control. Informal social control typically is not stated as one of the 

mechanisms for reducing crime in the publicity material of these programs. Nevertheless, 

they might indirectly serve to enhance community cohesion and increase the ability of 

communities to control crime (Greenberg, Rohe, and Williams 1985). Informal social 

control can affect community crime through the generation of acceptable norms of behavior 

and by direct intervention by residents.
13

It is also possible that neighborhood watch programs might reduce crime by enhancing 

police detection through increased flow of useful information from the public to the police. 

An increase in information concerning crimes in progress and suspicious persons and events 

might lead to a greater number of arrests and convictions and, when a custodial sentence is 

passed, result in a reduction in crime through the jailing of local offenders (Bennett 1990).

Neighborhood watch also might reduce crime through other components of the program 

package, such as property marking and home security surveys. Property marking makes 

the disposal of property more difficult (Laycock 1985), and potential offenders could view 

marked property as increasing the risk of detection. Home security surveys might lead 

to a reduction in crime by making it physically more difficult for an offender to enter the 

property (Bennett and Wright 1984). 

Systematic Review of 

Neighborhood Watch

Only a minority of evaluations (11) 

were based on any kind of matching of 

comparison and experimental areas.
16

Systematic Review of Neighborhood Watch

To investigate whether neighborhood watch does in fact reduce crime, we conducted 

a systematic review of the literature. Systematic reviews are rigorous, transparent, and 

replicable summaries of the research literature that involve careful documentation of each 

stage of the search process. 

Eligibility Criteria

The criteria for including studies in the current review were based on the type of 

intervention, the type of outcome, and the type of evaluation design.

The main aim of the type of intervention criteria was to include studies that evaluated 

neighborhood watch programs. In practice, this is more difficult to determine than it 

might seem because neighborhood watch programs are often implemented alongside other 

program elements, such as property marking and security surveys. Neighborhood watch is 

also sometimes implemented as part of broader area improvements and may exist alongside 

other unrelated crime-reduction initiatives. Evaluations were included in the review only if 

the neighborhood watch program included a “watch” component. 

The main aim of the type of outcome criteria was to focus the evaluation of crime 

outcomes. We were not interested in determining the impact of neighborhood watch on 

fear of crime, residents’ satisfaction with their area, or police-community relations. Instead, 

we sought to determine whether neighborhood watch succeeded in meeting its primary 

objective of reducing residential burglary and related neighborhood crimes. 

The aim of the type of evaluation design criteria was to include studies using the highest 

quality research methods. This review required that the evaluation comprise at least a 

comparison of one or more experimental units and one or more comparable control units over 

time. Hence, the minimum requirement for inclusion of evaluations in this review was that 

they were based on before-and-after measures of crime in experimental and comparison areas. 
17

Search Methodology

Our review includes studies that evaluated the effectiveness of neighborhood watch 

programs in reducing crime. The main goal of the search strategy was to be as exhaustive 

as possible in obtaining relevant evaluations. This meant that we were willing to include 

published and unpublished studies, with no restriction on country of origin or source sector 

(e.g., academic, government, policy, or voluntary). We could include only studies written in 

English because we had no research funds for translation. 

We conducted searches of online databases, online library catalogs, and previous reviews 

of the literature on the effectiveness of neighborhood watch in preventing crime, and 

bibliographies of publications on neighborhood watch. We also contacted leading 

researchers who had conducted evaluations of neighborhood watch. 

We used the following search terms when searching online databases: Neighbourhood Watch, 

neighbourhood watch, street watch, block watch, apartment watch, home watch, community 

watch, home alert, block association, crime alert, block clubs, crime watch, big three.

Selected Publications

Using our search methodology, we identified 1,595 publications. After carefully reviewing 

the titles and abstracts of the identified publications, we found 225 that were potentially 

relevant for inclusion. We were able to retrieve copies of 137 of these. Thirty were found 

to meet our eligibility criteria. These 30 publications presented the results of 19 unique 

research projects (the rest were duplicates). These 19 research projects presented the results 

of 43 evaluations of neighborhood watch programs.

All 43 evaluations were conducted from 1977 to 1994. About half were conducted in 

North America and about half in the UK, with one study from Canada and one from 

Australia. Most evaluations (31) concerned a neighborhood watch program with no 

other program elements, but 12 assessed a comprehensive package including property 

marking and/or security surveys. Only a minority of evaluations (11) were based 

on any kind of matching of comparison and experimental areas. The rest used either 

similar nearby areas or larger areas with no matching at all (e.g., the rest of the police 

force area). The majority of evaluations (25) used police-recorded crime data as the 

main outcome measure, while 18 used victimization survey data. 
18

Summary of Results

Overall, the results of the review are mixed. Some evaluations showed that neighborhood 

watch was associated with a reduction in crime, others showed that it was associated with an 

increase in crime, while others provided uncertain results. 

One of the earliest evaluations which showed that neighborhood watch was effective in 

reducing crime was conducted in Seattle, Washington, by Cirel et al. (1977). The evaluation 

was based on telephone and door-to-door surveys of residents both in the year before and 

the year after the program had been introduced, and conducted in five census tracts. The 

results showed that the rate of burglary decreased by a substantially greater amount in the 

experimental areas than in the control areas (-61 percent compared with -4 percent). The 

authors concluded that participating in community crime prevention “significantly reduces 

the risk of residential burglary victimization” (79). 

Latessa and Travis (1987) also found positive results when evaluating a block watch program 

in the College Hill area of Cincinnati, Ohio. College Hill is described by the authors as the 

fifth largest community in the city, with a population of more than 17,000 residents. Using 

police-recorded crime data, burglary rates in College Hill in the year before and after the 

program were compared with burglary rates in the city of Cincinnati as a whole. The figures 

showed that burglary in the experimental area decreased by 11 percent, while burglary in 

Cincinnati as a whole decreased by 2 percent. One of the studies that produced negative 

results was by Lewis, Grant, and Rosenbaum (1988) who evaluated the effectiveness of five 

block watch programs in Chicago, Illinois. Crime and public attitude surveys were conducted 

in the experimental and matched control areas before the launch of the programs and again 

1 year after the launch. Only one of the five experimental areas experienced a reduction in 

victimizations (and this was only marginally significant). Two of the experimental areas, 

however, showed a statistically significant increase in victimizations per respondent. The 

authors concluded that the results “force us to seriously address the possibility of both theory 

failure and program failure in this field” (Rosenbaum, Lewis, and Grant 1985, 170).
19

The negative effects of neighborhood watch on crime was also reported by Bennett and 

Lavrakas (1989). These authors evaluated the effectiveness of watch programs in 10 U.S. 

cities: Baltimore, Boston, The Bronx, Brooklyn, Cleveland, Miami, Minneapolis, Newark 

(New Jersey), Philadelphia, and Washington. A pretest-post-test research design with a 

nonequivalent control group was used in each evaluation. The comparison areas were 

selected by drawing a ring around the experimental area approximately two census tracts 

wide. Monthly crime statistics revealed no differences between the experimental and control 

areas in seven of the ten evaluations and a negative differential change (i.e., where crime 

decreased less in the experimental area than in the comparison area) in two of the cities. 

The experimental area experienced a larger decrease in crime than the control area in only 

one evaluation (Cleveland). The authors concluded that the programs “did not seem to 

achieve the ‘ultimate’ goal of crime reduction” (361).

The examples above show that there is some variation in the results of evaluations of 

neighborhood watch programs. It is difficult, therefore, to determine by looking at 

individual studies whether neighborhood watch is effective or ineffective overall. To 

determine overall effectiveness, it is necessary to evaluate the body of work as a whole. 

One way of doing this is to conduct a meta-analysis of the evaluation findings.

Meta-Analysis

In the majority of evaluations, 

neighborhood watch was associated 

with a reduction in crime and therefore 

appeared to be effective. 
22

Meta-Analysis

Meta-analysis is a statistical method of summarizing the results of a group of evaluations 

to determine the overall effectiveness of an intervention. To carry out a meta-analysis, a 

comparable measure (an individual effect size) is needed for each evaluation (Lipsey and 

Wilson 2001). The individual effect sizes can be combined to obtain an average effect 

size for all evaluations. An effect size of 1.0 means that there was no evidence that the 

intervention (i.e., neighborhood watch) was effective in reducing crime. An effect size above 

1.0 indicates that the intervention worked and an effect size below 1.0 suggests that the 

intervention did not work.

Meta-analyses have a number of advantages and disadvantages. The main advantages are 

that they can standardize the results across studies to produce a uniform effect size for each 

individual study and a mean effect size for groups of studies. The main disadvantage of 

meta-analyses is that they are often based on a subset of all eligible studies that provide the 

necessary data for the calculations. Only 18 of the 43 evaluations in this review provided 

sufficient data to be included in the meta-analysis.

Individual Effect Sizes

The forest plot in Figure 1 provides a visual summary of the individual effect sizes of the 

18 evaluations. The figure shows that 15 evaluations had effect sizes that were higher 

than 1, which means that neighborhood watch was associated with a reduction in crime. 

Conversely, three evaluations had effect sizes lower than 1, which means that in these 

evaluations neighborhood watch was associated with an increase in crime. Hence, in the 

majority of evaluations, neighborhood watch was associated with a reduction in crime and 

therefore appeared to be effective. 
23

Figure 1: Individual Effect Sizes of 18 Evaluations.

23-

22-

21-

20-

19-

18-

17-

16-

15-

14-

13-

12-

11-

10-

9-

8- 7-6-

5- 4- 3- 2- 1- 0-

0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00

Jenkins and Latimer (1986) [3]

Henig (1984)

Jenkins and Latimer (1986) [4]

Cirel et al. (1977) 

Research and Forecasts Inc. (1983)

Veater (1984)

Forrester et al. (1990) 

Tilley and Webb (1994) [1]

Lowman (1983)

Jenkins and Latimer (1986) [1]

Tilley and Webb (1994) [3 ]

Matthews and Trickey (1994b)

Anderton (1985)

Tilley and Webb (1994) [2]

Matthews and Trickey (1994a)

Bennett (1990) [1]

Bennett (1990) [2]

Jenkins and Latimer (1986) [2]

Mean Effect Size 
24

Combined Effect Size

One of the aims of the meta-analysis is to calculate a mean effect size to determine, overall, 

how well neighborhood watch works. Figure 1 (page 23) shows that the mean effect size for 

the 18 evaluations combined was 1.19. This means that crime increased by 19 per cent in 

the control area compared with the experimental area or that it decreased by 16 per cent in 

the experimental area compared with the control area. 

Moderator Analyses

Overall, the meta-analysis has shown that neighborhood watch was associated with a 

significant reduction in crime. It is possible, however, that the results will vary by specific 

characteristics of the program being implemented or by the research design of the evaluation. 

The results of the moderator analyses which investigate this are presented in Table 1 (page 26).

Type of Data

It is possible that the effectiveness of evaluations varies with the type of data collected. The 

method of calculating effect sizes is slightly different when using the police data and when 

using the survey data. It also is possible that this difference might affect the findings in some 

way. The data are also different because survey data include offenses that have not been 

reported to the police. To test for this, the 15 evaluations that collected police data were 

compared with the three evaluations that collected data from self-report surveys. The results 

showed that the difference between the two effect sizes was not statistically significant. 

Hence, the effectiveness of neighborhood watch programs did not vary by the type of data 

collected.

Type of Program

It might be expected that neighborhood watch programs based on limited versions of the 

program might be less likely to show an effect than programs based on more comprehensive 

versions. To test for this, the studies were split into two groups based on program type 

(i.e., whether it was neighborhood watch alone or neighborhood watch with one or more 

additional elements). The results showed that the mean difference between effect sizes was 

not significant; hence, the type of program did not independently affect outcome.
25

Publication Status

Another possible variation in results might relate to publication status. It has been 

hypothesized that publishers are more likely to publish evidence of success than evidence of 

failure. This is sometimes referred to as publication bias. To test for this, evaluations were 

identified as published or unpublished. Research was defined as published if it was reported 

in a book, journal, or official government report because these were likely to have been 

reviewed externally before distribution. Evaluations were defined as unpublished if they 

were police reports or reports from survey research companies because these were less likely 

to have been reviewed externally before distribution. The mean effect size was calculated 

for each group. The results showed that the difference between the mean effect sizes was 

statistically significant. In other words, the results support the publication bias thesis by 

showing that published evaluations tended to provide evidence of a stronger neighborhood 

watch effect than unpublished evaluations. Both published and unpublished evaluations, 

however, found that neighborhood watch programs were effective.

Country of Origin

Finally, it is possible that programs operating in different countries have different effects 

resulting from a variety of factors including the environmental context, the nature of 

the program implemented, or the methods of evaluation. The mean Odds Ratio (OR) 

for studies conducted in the United States and Canada was 1.87 (n=4) compared 

with 1.18 for the UK (n=14). The difference between the ORs was statistically 

significant: evaluations of neighborhood watch conducted in the U.S. and Canada 

were significantly more likely to show a reduction in crime than studies conducted in 

the UK. It is difficult to explain such variations because of the large number of factors 

that could potentially affect outcomes. The main measurable difference between the 

comparison countries was that there were proportionately more matched studies in the 

U.S. and Canada (3 of 4) than in the UK (5 of 14). It was shown earlier that matched 

studies more frequently showed a favorable outcome than nonmatched studies. There 

are many other plausible explanations for the difference.
26

Table 1: Variations in Mean Effect Sizes by Features of the Methods and the Program.

No. of 

Studies

Effect Size Confidence 

Interval

Significance of 

Difference in 

Effect Size

Type of data Police data 15 1.19 1.13-1.24 ns

Survey data 3 1.14 0.60-2.18

Type of program NW only 8 1.30 0.90-1.87 ns

NW plus 10 1.19 1.13-1.24

Published Published 8 1.51 1.26-1.80 0.0063

Not published 10 1.17 1.11-1.22

Country UK 14 1.18 1.12-1.23 0.0025

USA/Canada 4 1.87 1.31-2.67

All studies 18 1.19 1.13-1.24

Notes: ns = not significant.
Conclusions

Across all eligible studies combined, 

neighborhood watch was associated 

with a reduction in crime. 
28

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.

Research Implications

A number of implications can be drawn from the review for future research on the 

effectiveness of neighborhood watch. 

First, the review has drawn attention to the common problem of a relatively small number 

of good-quality studies based on good research design. Among the 27 studies that were 

excluded on grounds of methodological quality, 19 had no comparison group and 8 

presented only post-test data on crime. 
29

Second, none of the studies was based on random allocation of areas to treatment or 

control conditions. Instead, all studies were based on a version of a quasi-experimental 

design. This is almost certainly a result of the difficulties involved in implementing 

community-based programs in areas where communities have not requested them. It is 

very difficult to conduct a randomized experiment with areas as the unit of assignment. 

Quasi-experimental designs are not ideal. Some writers have argued that they can 

overestimate the positive effects of programs as a result of selection effects, whereby 

the subjects or programs most likely to change are included in the experimental group 

(Wilson, Mitchell, and MacKenzie 2006).

Third, a particularly important problem for the current review was that less than half of 

the eligible studies reported data that were suitable for a meta-analysis. This was either 

because studies presented the results using an unusual statistical notation or left out the data 

entirely (e.g., when the results were presented in graphical form only). It would be helpful 

if published evaluations included, at a minimum, raw data, cell sizes, and other relevant 

information to facilitate future meta-analyses. 

Finally, very few evaluations disaggregated the findings in a way that would show differential 

effects for subgroups and provide detailed information on the features of the program. It is 

important to include this information in a research report because there might be variations 

in outcome according to the type and intensity of program implemented or the type of area 

in which it is implemented.

Implications for Policy

Neighborhood watch has often been described as one of the most widespread methods of 

reducing crime. It is supported by the UK and U.S. governments and is popular among 

the public and the police (Sims 2001). The current review provides some evidence that 

neighborhood watch can be effective in reducing crime; however, the results of evaluations are 

mixed and show that some programs work well while others appear to work less well or not at all. 

There are several possible reasons for this. Rosenbaum (1987) groups these reasons under three 

broad headings: 1. Measurement failure, 2. Program failure, and 3. Theory failure. 
30

Measurement failure means that the evaluation failed to measure the positive program effect 

because the research design used to evaluate it was inadequate. A research design might 

be weak if it is unable to demonstrate whether there is a connection between the program 

and the outcomes because of an absence of a suitable comparison area. Many studies were 

rejected from the current systematic review because they failed to include a comparison 

group. When comparison areas were used, they were often unsuitable because they were 

not sufficiently well-matched to the neighborhood watch area. This occurred when they 

comprised the remainder of the police division or an unmatched area nearby that might 

have had different crime patterns. Many evaluations of neighborhood watch have been 

conducted by the police, therefore, it is important that they share the responsibility for 

ensuring that the research designs in their areas are suitable for the task.

Program failure means that the neighborhood watch program did not show a positive 

result because the program was not sufficiently strong to bring about the effects desired. 

Rosenbaum (1987) identified two ways in which this might occur and which he described 

as the wrong dosage of the right medicine or the right dosage of the wrong medicine. In 

the case of the former there is implementation failure, and in the case of the latter there is 

a failure in program design, that is, implementing a weak version of the right program or 

implementing the wrong type of program. The second challenge for policing is to ensure 

that neighborhood watch programs in their areas are of good quality and are strong versions 

of programs that have been shown to work in the past.

Theory failure means that the principles on which neighborhood watch is based are 

wrong—that the proposed mechanism by which neighborhood watch is supposed to 

prevent crime is incorrect. Neighborhood watch is based on the principle that encouraging 

neighbors to look out for and report suspicious behavior to the police will bring about a 

reduction in crime. Potential offenders might be deterred from committing a crime if they 

believe that neighborhood watch areas are too risky; and improved police investigation 

and enforcement will incapacitate offenders. It remains unclear whether neighborhood 

watch deters offenders or enhances police investigation. A further task for the police is to 

investigate whether neighborhood watch programs in their areas bring about these effects 

and determine the conditions that strengthen or weaken these processes.
31

The challenge for policing is to learn more about which programs in their local areas work best 

under which conditions and to tailor more closely the types of programs to the types of areas. 

This will involve addressing the issue discussed above. The designs that have been shown to 

work in the past should be promoted. There is also a role for the police to play in conducting 

their own evaluations of neighborhood watch. This would involve choosing an evaluation 

design that would clearly demonstrate whether any changes in the neighborhood watch area 

were a product of the program. 

The task of developing neighborhood watch and ensuring that it is effective is not a job 

for the police alone. More work needs to be done by researchers to help understand the 

mechanisms by which neighborhood watch influence crime and more also needs to be done by 

policymakers and government officials to disseminate information about good practice.

Studies Included 

in the Review
34

Studies Included in the Review

Anderton, K.J. 1985. The Effectiveness of Home Watch Schemes in Cheshire. Chester, UK: 

Cheshire Constabulary. 

Bennett, S.F., and P.J. Lavrakas. 1989. “Community-Based Crime Prevention: An 

Assessment of the Eisenhower Foundation’s Neighborhood Program.” Crime and 

Delinquency 35:345–364. 

Bennett, T.H. 1990. “Evaluating Neighborhood Watch.” Cambridge Studies in Criminology 

LXI. Aldershot, UK: Gower. 

Cirel, P., P. Evans, D. McGillis, and D. Whitcomb. 1977. Community Crime Prevention 

Program, Seattle: An Exemplary Project. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 

Forrester, D., S. Frenz, M. O’Connell, and K. Pease. 1990. “The Kirkholt Burglary 

Prevention Project: Phase II.” Crime Prevention Unit Paper 23. London: Home Office. 

Henig, J.R. 1984. “Citizens Against Crime: An Assessment of the Neighborhood Watch 

Program in Washington, D.C.” Occasional Paper, Center for Washington Area Studies. 

Washington, DC: The George Washington University. 

Hulin, J.O. 1979. “Community-Based Crime Prevention Project.” Crime Prevention Review

6:26–34. 

Husain, S. 1990. Neighborhood Watch and Crime: An Assessment of Impact. London: Police 

Foundation. 

Jenkins, A.D., and I. Latimer. 1986. Evaluation of Merseyside Homewatch Scheme. 

Management Development and Force Planning Unit. Liverpool, UK: Merseyside Police. 

Knowles, L., C. Lesser, and F. McKewen. 1983. “Burglary Prevention: A Citizen Initiated 

and Operated Neighborhood Watch Program.” The Police Chief 50:36–38.
35

Latessa, E.J., and L.F. Travis. 1987. “Citizen Crime Prevention: Problems and Prospects in 

Reducing Crime.” Journal of Security Administration 10 (1): 38-52. 

Lewis, D.A., J.A. Grant, and D.P. Rosenbaum. 1988. Social Construction of Reform: Crime 

Prevention and Community Organizations. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. 

Lowman, J. 1983. “Target Hardening Burglary Prevention and the Problem of 

Displacement Phenomena.” In Deviant Designations: Crime, Law and Deviance in 

Canada, ed. T. Fleming, 277–304. Toronto: Butterworths. 

Matthews, R., and J. Trickey. 1994. Eyres Monsell Crime Reduction Project. Leicester, UK: 

Centre for the Study of Public Order, University of Leicester. 

Matthews, R., and J. Trickey. 1994. The New Parks Crime Reduction Project. Leicester, UK: 

Centre for the Study of Public Order, University of Leicester. 

Mukherjee, S., and P. Wilson. 1988. “Neighborhood Watch: Issues and Policy 

Implication.” Trends and Issues No. 8. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of 

Criminology. 

Research & Forecasts Inc. 1983. The Figgie Report, Part IV: Reducing Crime in America—

Successful Community Efforts. Willoughby, OH: Figgie International. 

Tilley, N., and J. Webb. 1994. “Burglary Reduction: Findings from the Safer Cities 

Scheme.” Crime Prevention Unit Paper 51. London: Home Office. 

Veater, P. 1984. Evaluation of Kingsdown Neighborhood Watch Project, Bristol. Bristol, UK: 

Avon and Somerset Constabulary.

References
38

References

Baltimore Police Department. 1985. Neighborhood Watch. Baltimore: Baltimore Police 

Department. 

Bennett, T.H., and R. Wright. 1984. Burglars on Burglary: Prevention and the Offender. 

Aldershot, UK: Gower. 

Greenberg, S.W., W.M. Rohe, and J.R. Williams. 1985. Informal Citizen Action and Crime 

Prevention at the Neighborhood Level. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 

Laycock, G. 1985. “Property Marking: A Deterrent to Domestic Burglary?” Crime 

Prevention Unit Paper 3. London: Home Office. 

Lipsey, M.W., and D.B. Wilson. 2001. Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE 

Publications. 

National Crime Prevention Council. 2001. The 2000 National Crime Prevention Survey: Are 

We Safe? Washington, DC: National Crime Prevention Council. 

Rosenbaum, D.P. 1987. “The Theory and Research Behind Neighborhood Watch: Is It a 

Sound Fear and Crime Reduction Strategy?” Crime and Delinquency 33:103–134. 

Rosenbaum, D.P., D.A. Lewis, and J.A. Grant. 1987, 1985. The Impact of Community 

Crime Prevention Programs in Chicago: Can Neighborhood Organizations Make a 

Difference. Final Report: Volume One. Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, 

Northwestern University. 

Sherman, L.W. 1997. “Policing for Crime Prevention.” In Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, 

eds. L.W. Sherman, D.C. Gottfredson, D.L. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S. 

Bushway, 8–1 through 8–58. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Justice Programs. 

Sherman, L.W., and J. Eck. 2002. “Policing for Crime Prevention.” In Evidence-Based Crime 

Prevention, eds. L.W. Sherman, D.P. Farrington, B.C. Welsh, and D.L. MacKenzie, 

295–329. London: Routledge.
39

Sims, L. 2001. “Neighborhood Watch: Findings from the 2000 British Crime Survey.” 

Research Findings 150. London: Home Office. 

Titus, R. 1984. “Residential Burglary and the Community Response.” In Coping with 

Burglary, eds. R.V.G. Clarke and T. Hope, 97–130. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff. 

Turner, B.W.M., and P.J. Barker. 1983. Study Tour of the United States of America: 7th March 

1983 to 21st March 1983. London: Metropolitan Police. 

Wilson, D.B., O. Mitchell, and D.L. MacKenzie. 2006. “A Systematic Review of Drug 

Court Effects on Recidivism.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 2 (4): 459–487.


U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

145 N Street NE

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, 

call the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770.

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

First published 2008

Revised 2013

ISBN: 978-1-932582-73-4

e040830136