R EPORT OF THE NATIONAL WATCH GROUPS SUMMIT

NATIONAL

CRIME

PREVENTION

COUNCIL

Community 

Participation in 

Homeland

Security
This publication was made possible through Cooperative Funding Agreement No. 2006-DG-BX-K002 from the Bureau of Justice

Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Opinions are those of NCPC or cited sources and do not necessarily reflect U.S. Department of Justice policy or positions. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of FEMA or

the Department of Homeland Security. Additionally neither FEMA, DHS, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, express or

implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, product or

process included in this publication. Users of information from this publication assume all liability arising from such use.

The National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) is a private, nonprofit tax-exempt [501(c)(3)] organization whose primary mission is

to be the nation’s leader in helping people keep themselves, their families, and their communities safe from crime. NCPC’s strategic

plan for 2007 through 2011 is centered on four goals: protect children and youth; partner with government and law enforcement to

prevent crime; promote crime prevention and personal safety basics; and respond to emerging crime trends. NCPC publishes books,

kits of camera-ready program materials, posters, and informational and policy reports on a variety of crime prevention and communitybuilding subjects. NCPC offers training, technical assistance, and a national focus for crime prevention: it acts as secretariat for the

Crime Prevention Coalition of America, more than 400 national, federal, state, and local organizations representing thousands of constituents who are committed to preventing crime. It hosts two websites: www.ncpc.org for adults and www.mcgruff.org for children. It

operates demonstration programs in schools, neighborhoods, and entire jurisdictions and takes a major leadership role in youth crime

prevention and youth service. NCPC manages the McGruff® “Take A Bite Out Of Crime®” public service advertising campaign.

NCPC is funded through a variety of government agencies, corporate and private foundations, and donations from private individuals. 

Copyright © 2008 National Crime Prevention Council

All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

July 2008

National Crime Prevention Council

2345 Crystal Drive, Suite 500

Arlington, VA 22202

202-466-6272

www.ncpc.org

ISBN 978-1-59686-030-8

NATIONAL

CRIME

PREVENTION

COUNCIL
Executive Summary

On May 30–31, 2007, the Federal

Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA), Community Preparedness

Division/Citizen Corps; the U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of

Justice Assistance (BJA); and the

National Crime Prevention Council

(NCPC) convened the first

National Watch Groups Summit.

The purpose of the Summit was

twofold: to give Watch groups a

national perspective on crime prevention and homeland security and

to gather information from participants about what makes a Watch

group successful.

Over time, the traditional idea

of Neighborhood Watch has

evolved to include other types of

Watches—Block Watch, Business

Watch, Farm Watch, Waterways

Watch, and others. In order to get a

better understanding of what practices are working, the partners

invited as many of these groups as

possible. In preparation for the

Summit, NCPC conducted a literature review, a needs assessment, and

a program management review to

gain insights from practitioners and

to help shape the Summit’s content

and direction.

To set the stage for discussion at

the Summit, a panel of experts summarized recent research on Watch

groups and on the need to include

community groups in a planned

approach to all-hazards and emergencies. Meeting in small breakout

groups, participants confirmed the

findings from the needs assessment

and program management review,

and also identified ways to

strengthen Watch groups and ways
Watch groups can strengthen their

communities. They looked at the

challenges to carrying out their missions and how to overcome them.

And they discussed how to sustain

member interest and build partnerships. Attendees also had an opportunity to share best practices and

network among themselves.

The Summit resulted in eight

recommendations for further action.

The recommendations are not listed

here in any order of priority.

1) A mechanism is needed for coordinated national support for the

diverse array of Watch groups. 

2) A second, larger National Watch

Groups Summit should be convened for information-sharing

purposes among the diverse

Watch groups and to further

determine what makes Watch

groups successful. 

3) A document on “best practices”

should be written and disseminated to Watch groups across the

country. 

4) Watch groups need training and

assistance in a range of skills,

including data management and

program evaluation, leadership,

fundraising, developing relationships with local law enforcement

organizations, and basic crime

prevention techniques. Specific

guidance on topics should be

provided in multiple forms, such

as templates, job aids, on-line

tutorials, and classroom-based

training. 

5) Law enforcement organizations

must continue their efforts

toward involving community

members as valuable partners in

law enforcement activities.

Research on the effectiveness of

Watch programs should be presented to law enforcement organizations to demonstrate the

cost/benefit success of Watch

programs. 

6) Training and education is

needed for both the public and

law enforcement professionals

(e.g., Fusion Center personnel)

on appropriate roles, mutual collaboration, and standard

processes for handling information reported by concerned

members of the community. 

7) All levels of government need to

dedicate resources to crime prevention and the Watch concept.

8) Watch groups should seek both

public and private partnerships

for additional support.

Background

The ways in which states and localities have involved citizens in crime

prevention has changed and evolved

over the years, but one thing has

remained constant: citizen involvement is a critical and powerful force

in preventing crime. 

Citizen involvement in crime

prevention can trace its roots back

to the days of colonial settlements,

when night watchmen patrolled the

streets. The modern version of night

watchmen—Neighborhood

Watch—was launched in 1972 by

the National Sheriffs’ Association,

and was developed in response to

requests from sheriffs and police

chiefs who were looking for a crime

prevention program that would

involve citizens and address an

increasing number of residential

burglaries. 

Neighborhood Watch counts

on citizens to organize themselves

and work with law enforcement to

keep a trained eye and ear on their

communities, while demonstrating

their presence at all times of the day

and night. The program took off

quickly. In just ten years, the

National Sheriffs’ Association data

showed that 12 percent of the population was involved in a Neighborhood Watch.1 Neighborhood Watch

works because it reduces opportunities for crime to occur; it doesn’t

rely on altering or changing the

criminal’s behavior or motivation.

2

R EPORT OF THE NATIONAL WATCH GROUPS SUMMIT

1 O’Keefe, G .J. and H. Mendelssohn (with K. Reid-Nash, E. Henry, B. Rosenzweig, H. Spetnagel), “Taking a Bite Out of Crime”: The Public Impact of a Mass

Media Information Campaign, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC, 1984.
Neighborhood Watch brings citizens together with law enforcement

to deter crime and make communities safer. 

Various external factors have

influenced the way Neighborhood

Watch has been shaped and

reshaped over the past several

decades. The National Crime Prevention Council introduced the

National Citizens’ Crime Prevention Campaign with its spokesdog,

McGruff the Crime Dog®, in the

early 1980s. This massive public service advertising and education campaign was designed to change the

way Americans viewed crime prevention and their role in it. Most

Americans still felt that crime prevention was a role solely for law

enforcement. As crime prevention

messages and materials were disseminated in communities throughout

the country, that attitude began to

change. Citizens, and thus Neighborhood Watch groups, began to

believe that they could and should

have a role in preventing crime. 

In the 1990s, law enforcement

embraced the idea of community

policing.2 Community policing is a

philosophy based on the idea that

interaction with community members could help control crime. Citizens help identify suspects and bring

problems to the attention of law

enforcement. Officers also get out of

their cars and begin to walk the beat

again, getting to know the people in

the community that they are charged

with protecting. It is through these

daily interactions that law enforcement officers and community members build trust and work together to

solve some of the crime and disorder

problems of the neighborhood.

Neighborhood Watch groups

that formed over this time period

usually did so as a response to a

recent high-profile crime or a small

crime wave in a community. But

successful Watches began to move

beyond the basics of home security,

watching out for suspicious activities

and reporting them to law enforcement. They started sponsoring community cleanups, finding solutions

to local traffic problems, collecting

clothing and toys for homeless families, organizing afterschool activities

for young people, helping victims of

crime, tutoring teens at risk of dropping out of school, reclaiming playgrounds from drug dealers, and

forming community task forces that

influence policymakers. 

In addition, the definition of

Neighborhood Watch began to

expand to include Town Watch,

Community Watch, Park Watch,

Youth Crime Watch, Marina

Watch, Waterways Watch, Cab

Watch, Senior Watch, Farm Watch,

and more. 

On September 11, 2001, the

world was rocked by terrorists’

attacks on the United States. As

details about the terrorists and their

activities before the attacks emerged,

it became evident that many citizens

had crossed paths with these individuals and had witnessed suspicious

activities and behavior. In his 2002

State of the Union Address, President Bush called upon Americans to

commit 4,000 hours over their lifetimes to serve their neighbors and

their nation. During this address,

the president highlighted the role

that citizens play in homeland security. “America needs retired doctors

and nurses who can be mobilized in

major emergencies; volunteers to

help police and fire departments;

transportation and utility workers

well-trained in spotting danger,” he

said. Under the umbrella structure

of Citizen Corps, Neighborhood

Watch groups once again expanded

their purview to include facilities

and areas that might be potential

terrorist targets and also include

emergency preparedness activities.

Port Watch, Airport Watch, Highway Watch, and others were born.

3

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN HOMELAND SECURITY

2 Jihong Zhao, Ni He, and Nicholas P. Lovrich (2003), Community Policing: Did It Change the Basic Functions of Policing in the 1990s? A National Follow-up

Study. Justice Quarterly, 20 (4): 697-724.
In 2003, the U.S. Department

of Homeland Security (DHS) was

formed and tasked with securing

our homeland and bringing

together the national network of

organizations in securing our

nation. Its mission: “We will lead

the unified national effort to secure

America. We will prevent and deter

terrorist attacks and protect against

and respond to threats and hazards

to the nation. We will ensure safe

and secure borders, welcome lawful

immigrants and visitors, and promote the free flow of commerce.”3

In addition to coordinating the

efforts of this national network of

organizations, DHS saw the need to

include the citizenry in homeland

security and continued its partnership with the U.S. Department of

Justice through Citizen Corps.

Indeed, recent terrorist activities

have been thwarted by the actions

of alert, informed citizens, such as a

planned attack on U.S. soldiers at

Fort Dix, NJ. 

In 2007, the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA), Community Preparedness

Division/Citizen Corps, and the

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau

of Justice Assistance (BJA) partnered with the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) to

convene a first-ever National

Watch Groups Summit. In preparation for convening the Summit,

NCPC conducted a literature

review, a needs assessment, and a

program management review of

Summit participants. The Summit

would be designed to discuss the

qualities of effective Watch groups,

identify similarities, and identify

challenges and recommend solutions to those challenges. 

Pre-Summit Work

Literature Review

From the mid-1970s onward, the

concept of “watch” (predominantly

in the form of Neighborhood

Watch) has been present in criminal justice and other social science

literature. 

Through the early 1980s, the

literature consisted primarily of

how-to documents and program

manuals, with the landmark Seattle,

WA, burglary prevention evaluation

(of Neighborhood Watch) as the

major exception. 

During the 1980s, a mix

emerged. Program methods and

promotion materials were coupled

with a number of evaluations. The

evaluations were substantially

focused on crime statistics, with

some addressing the fear-of-crime

issue in the latter half of the decade. 

In the 1990s, the trend moved

away from major U.S. studies of

Watch movements, especially

Neighborhood Watch. Outside the

criminal justice and criminology literature, however, literature in other

social science journals began to

identify Watch programs, particularly Neighborhood Watch, as regular elements of communities,

especially in articles that examined

civic action, volunteerism, and

related issues. So-called “gray”

research, studies that were not published in peer-reviewed journals or

general circulation magazines, were

another significant source of Watchrelated information. From the FBI

Bulletin to the National Association

of Town Watch newsletter, articles

were published that reported on or

mentioned Neighborhood Watch

evaluations, successes, and challenges. For example, several documents published by NCPC over the

years are not represented in these

search results, nor are documents

produced by such major crime prevention agencies as the California

Attorney General’s Office.

The more recent Watch literature has emerged from the Home

Office in Great Britain, which has

produced a number of updated

manuals and evaluations as part of

the British crime prevention initia4

R EPORT OF THE NATIONAL WATCH GROUPS SUMMIT

3 Department of Homeland Security, Strategic Plan—Securing Our Homeland. www.dhs.gov/xabout/strategicplan/index.shtm. 
tive in the late 1990s through 2003.

In 2006, Bennett et al. undertook a

meta-analysis4 of Neighborhood

Watch evaluations to determine

whether the program has been effective in reducing crime. This analysis

looked at 18 different evaluations

and found that 14 of them (78 percent) showed a decrease in criminal

activity in areas where there was an

active Neighborhood Watch. The

authors also conducted a narrative

review of the 18 evaluations plus 18

additional studies that were

excluded from the meta-analysis

because the data were not presented

in a usable form. Nineteen (53 percent) of the 36 studies showed that

Neighborhood Watch was effective

in reducing crime. Because so few

statistical evaluations were available,

the researchers suggested conducting

more evaluations with advanced

designs to more persuasively determine the impact of Neighborhood

Watch.5

See Appendix A for the complete report of the Literature

Review.

Needs Assessment

The Needs Assessment was conducted among Watch groups slated

to attend the National Watch

Groups Summit. The Needs Assessment, conducted from February

through March 2007, among confirmed National Watch Groups

Summit participants, was designed

to provide a snapshot of assistance

that local, state, and national Watch

groups might need in both program

and management areas. 

Of the 53 participants registered

for the Summit at the time of the

Needs Assessment, a total of 32

responded. Most respondents represented well-established organizations: 21 (nearly two-thirds) had

existed for more than 15 years.

Three had existed between six and

15 years, and eight had existed for

five years or less.

The data gathered in the Needs

Assessment strongly suggest that

Watch groups (local, state, and

national) have substantial areas of

unmet needs. The most important

and most urgent needs, as ranked

by respondents, were for assistance

with management of crime and

incident data and with evaluations

of program performance and effectiveness. Fund development, grant

writing, communications training,

and educational materials tailored

to the Watch concept and various

levels of need would also be highly

valued. 

See Appendix B for the complete Needs Assessment report.

Program Management Review

The principal goal of the Program

Management Review was to identify

some shared principles of Watch

groups and their parent organizations, including the support that

they need, the issues they should

(and should not) cover, and the

reach of the Watch concept. It was

anticipated that findings from the

Program Management Review

would identify issues that would

benefit from focused, face-to-face

discussion and would be used to

design the Summit agenda. 

The Program Management

Review was conducted via email in

two rounds. A total of 16 persons

replied in Round One; 14 persons

replied in Round Two. Each

respondent represented a different

Watch group, some with localized

memberships and others with state,

regional or national scope. Despite

the diversity among respondents, as

a group they converged on several

common core elements of a successful Watch program: 

Cooperation with law enforcement

Communication

Participation

Organizational structure and

leadership

5

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN HOMELAND SECURITY

4 A meta-analysis is a type of statistical analysis in which the results of several studies are combined and analyzed as if they were produced by a single large study. 5 Bennett, Trevor, Katy Holloway, and David P. Farrington (2006), “Does Neighborhood Watch Reduce Crime? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis,” Journal of Experimental Criminology 2:437-458.
Consistent federal support

Local focus and assessment

Active outreach

Quality materials and training

The respondents also converged

on four factors considered essential

in sustaining a Watch program:

cooperation with law enforcement,

commitment from the community,

funding support, and updated flow

of information. Respondents also

reflected on common challenges facing Watch groups, strategies for

establishing partnerships, and

approaches to enhancing the visibility of their work. 

A complete report of the Program Management Review is

attached as Appendix C.

The Summit

Building on the information collected through the Needs Assessment and Program Management

Review to design the agenda, the

National Watch Groups Summit

was held from May 30–31, 2007,

in Lexington, KY. Members from

Watch groups across the country

and representatives from local,

state, and national organizations

that sponsor Watch groups

attended. (See Appendix D for a

list of participating groups.) The

Summit had two distinct type of

sessions: those that disseminated

information to the participants and

those that gathered information

from the participants.

Introductory Remarks

The Summit began with remarks

from the three national partners:

BJA, FEMA, and NCPC. (See

Appendix E for the Summit

agenda.) The speakers addressed the

history of Neighborhood Watch and

the changes it had gone through,

framed the goals for the Summit,

and summarized the advance work

that had been done. BJA Director

Domingo S. Herraiz introduced a

concept that became a recurring

theme throughout the Summit. He

stated that although the federal government has a role in crime prevention, “crime is not a national

concern; it’s a neighborhood concern. All of you wear two hats.

You’re here in a business role but

you go home and live in a community.” The ability to tailor programs

to local needs and conditions is an

important part of what makes a

group successful.

FEMA Acting Deputy Administrator Corey Gruber set out the

goals for the Summit: “[T]o tap

into the expertise and energy you

have demonstrated in meeting the

challenge of engaging citizens in

community safety, to determine

what tools and strategies are needed

to sustain that momentum to create

resilient communities, and to build

a culture of preparedness throughout this country.” In addition to

the role Watch groups play in preventing crime or terrorism, Mr.

Gruber emphasized Watch groups’

connection to emergency management and the need to build a cadre

of trained citizen volunteers to provide the initial response and recovery assistance in the event of an

emergency. Watch groups can also

support the effort to ensure individual citizens are prepared for

emergencies. To achieve this

expanded role, groups must build

partnerships throughout all levels

of government and with community leaders, emergency management, law enforcement, fire

services, the private sector, the

faith-based community, and other

volunteer organizations to achieve

and sustain preparedness.

NCPC’s CEO and President

Alfonso Lenhardt summarized the

information gathered from the participants through the pre-Summit

inquiries: “We know you would like

some help with fund development,

grant writing, and communications.

National and state groups see a distinct need for leadership development and training. Local, state, and

national Watch groups would benefit from quality technical assistance,

training, and materials.”

6

R EPORT OF THE NATIONAL WATCH GROUPS SUMMIT
Panel Presentation

The next agenda item was a panel

discussion entitled, “The Evolving

Citizen Role in Public Safety, Security, and Preparedness.” Each of the

three speakers focused on the need

to involve citizens in preparedness

activities. 

Diane L. Zahm, Ph.D.

Diane L. Zahm, Ph.D., associate

professor of Urban Affairs and

Planning, Virginia Tech College of

Architecture and Urban Studies,

reviewed the history of Neighborhood Watch from its inception in

the aftermath of the Watts riots in

Los Angeles in 1965 to the present.

She placed its genesis in the context

of other movements in history,

such as the War on Poverty and the

National Environmental Policy

Act, which required public participation and input. She also noted

the role of the Law Enforcement

Assistance Administration in supporting new research and initiatives, including Crime Prevention

Through Environmental Design

(CPTED). 

Dr. Zahm defined Neighborhood Watch as a crime prevention

program that

Teaches citizens to reduce the

risk of being victimized at home

and in public

Trains citizens on the importance

of recognizing suspicious activities and how to report them

Teaches participants how to make

their homes more secure and

properly identify their property

Allows neighbors to get to know

each other and their routine so

that any out-of-place activity can

be reported and investigated

Creates a cohesive body of concerned citizens addressing issues

that concern their neighborhood

and the entire community

From 1980 to 1995, Neighborhood

Watch was considered one of many

“public-private partnerships” that

flourished as government acknowledged the need for help in mounting

large-scale public initiatives. Again,

considering the historical context,

this was the time of the War on

Drugs and the advent of community

policing and community-oriented

policing, as law enforcement officers

acknowledged that they, too,

depended on collaborations with

other agencies and the community.

Dr. Zahm referred to the present era as a time of “reconfiguration,” with the emergence of new

technologies and increasing reliance

on privatization, set against the

background of terrorism and homeland security. Neighborhood Watch

assumes even greater importance in

this context.

Dr. Zahm then considered the

question of whether Neighborhood

Watch “works” and the challenges

of evaluating this type of initiative.

She described a recent survey of law

enforcement agencies in the 15

largest metropolitan areas in the

United States, along with a random

sample of agencies serving communities of less than 100,000. Based on

560 responding agencies, it was

determined that

Agencies in jurisdictions larger

than 25,000 were more likely to

support Neighborhood Watch

Maintaining Neighborhood

Watch requires considerable

energy and officers have limited

resources

Interest increased after 9/11 

but then declined in many 

jurisdictions

Officers recognize a relationship

between Neighborhood Watch

and homeland security

Dr. Zahm also reported on the

results of a survey she recently conducted for the USAOnWatch6

National Advisory Committee. Survey participants identified and

ranked the top five factors to study

in order to better understand Neighborhood Watch:

1) Resident interactions with one

7

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN HOMELAND SECURITY

6 USAOnWatch (UOW) was created by the National Sheriffs’ Association to advance citizen participation in homeland security by encouraging the initiation

and/or revitalization of Neighborhood Watch programs throughout the country.
another, and their knowledge of

the neighborhood and the

broader community

2) Resident understanding of crime

and crime prevention, and the

application of crime prevention

strategies

3) Resident knowledge of and

involvement in a Watch group

4) Levels of crime and fear of crime

5) Relationships between residents

and the law enforcement agency

Monica Schoch-Spana, Ph.D.

The second speaker, Monica

Schoch-Spana, Ph.D., senior associate with the University of Pittsburgh

Medical Center (UPMC) Center for

Biosecurity in Baltimore, Maryland,

reported on the findings of a Working Group on Civic Engagement in

Health Emergency Planning. This

diverse group, representing decision

makers from all levels of government, public health practitioners,

community-based organizations,

and a range of subject matter expertise, met in 2006 to generate recommendations for “why and how to

catalyze the civic infrastructure for

an extreme health event.”7

Dr. Schoch-Spana used the

events of 9/11, Hurricane Katrina,

and the Severe Acute Respiratory

Syndrome (SARS) outbreak of 2003

to underscore the five principal findings of the Working Group, all leading to the conclusion that community engagement is an essential tool

in preparing for, and responding to,

public emergencies. These findings

were as follows:

1) Disasters and epidemics compel citizen judgment and action. These

are immense and shocking disturbances that far exceed the capacity of public agencies. Family

members, friends, coworkers,

neighborhoods, and strangers

often carry out search and rescue

activities, provide medical care,

help to restore electricity and

telephone service, find food and

clothing, and provide myriad

other services when disaster

strikes.

2) Civic infrastructure yields remedies

throughout the disaster cycle of preparedness, response, and recovery.

Voluntary associations and social

service organizations have the

ability to transmit information to

educate and raise awareness, to

energize trust between authorities

and communities-at-large, and to

help coordinate the response and

recovery roles of government,

business, civic groups, and individuals.

3) Leaders’ tools to tap civic infrastructure are unevenly applied.

Mass communication approaches

are familiar to most leaders, but

community engagement methods

are largely unused. Communication techniques are predominantly one-way, from officials to

community, while consultation

(e.g., surveys, polls, etc.) tends to

be one-way from citizens to the

officials. Community engagement, however, entails dialogue,

joint problem-solving, and collaborative action.

4) Decision makers gain wisdom and

influence through community partners. The potential rewards are

both immediate and long-term.

Decision makers who proactively solicit community partners prior to a crisis may be

better equipped to govern

effectively during an actual

event

With pre-event protocols in

place, leaders can mobilize and

integrate volunteers and community organizations quickly

and efficiently

Grassroots organizations may

reach certain populations more

easily and effectively than official channels or mass media

5) Certain ingredients are necessary for

genuine community engagement.

Commitment and leadership

Assessment of existing civic

infrastructure

Agreement with community

partners on top issues

8

R EPORT OF THE NATIONAL WATCH GROUPS SUMMIT

7 A full report of the Working Group’s recommendations can be found in M. Schoch-Spana, C. Franco, J.B. Nuzzo, and C. Usenza (2007), “Community Engagement: Leadership Tool for Catastrophic Health Events,” Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 5(1): 8-25.
Resources

Outreach to groups not traditionally at the table

Attention to unresolved past

traumas 

Gregory V. Button, Ph.D.

The third speaker, Gregory V. Button, Ph.D., professor of Anthropology, University of TennesseeKnoxville, reminded Summit participants that “all disasters are local.”

Not only are community residents

the true first responders to disasters,

they are also the last to leave. Ordinary citizens often have a strong

urge to help, often at great risk to

themselves. Consequently, it is

imperative for public officials to

gain citizen input before disaster

strikes.

Dr. Button cited research and

several examples demonstrating

that tapping into a community’s

pre-existing community structures

and networks can bolster the community’s resilience and responsiveness: the Exxon-Valdez oil spill,

California wildfires, and the

“Cajun Navy” that mobilized in

New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. He also highlighted the

importance of obtaining input

from all income levels of society.

He noted that there is other

research that points to a shared

sense of loss of control among disaster victims, which can impede

their capacity to respond productively. Dr. Button observed that

these feelings can be exacerbated if

“outside” groups or organizations

impose their relief efforts on a 

community. By inviting broadscale public participation, leaders

can help to restore that sense of

control.

Dr. Button also noted that

many current citizen mobilization

efforts place too much emphasis on

individual households and not

enough on the collective community. He warned that, “Robust

research has demonstrated that government planners often ignore this

community partnership at their own

peril.”

Small Group Discussions

The afternoon of the first day and

the second day of the Summit were

dedicated to gathering information

from the participants. Drawing from

the results of the Program Management Review, BJA and Citizen

Corps developed a series of eight

questions for Summit participants

to consider. 

1) What are the five greatest opportunities that all Watches have to

strengthen their communities,

and how can they best tap those

opportunities?

2) What national, state, and

regional allies (or partners)

should Watch groups have?

What would be the benefits for

both groups—the Watch group

and the allies?

3) What five roles could Watch

groups play that would

strengthen the Watch groups’

missions at the local, state,

regional, or national levels? What

would be the challenges of these

roles? 

4) What are the five major challenges that all Watches face?

What are the best solutions? 

5) What are the five educational

areas that would be of most interest to Watch groups? What delivery formats would be most

effective for Watch members

(e.g., trainer-delivered, online,

PowerPoint)? Any other considerations (e.g., delivery time

required)?

6) How do Watches sustain members’ interest and involvement?

What expanded mission areas or

activities would be of most interest to Watch members and would

sustain the Watch programs?

7) What are the top ten areas of

support that would be of most

value to Watch groups (nonmonetary)? 

8) What signs or indicators show

that a Watch program is healthy

and functioning well? What signs

or indicators would suggest that a

9

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN HOMELAND SECURITY
Watch needs attention? How

could Watches monitor and/or

measure these signs and indicators?

Summit participants broke into

four groups to discuss these questions, to explore commonalities and

differences among Watch groups,

and to develop recommendations

for action. Over the course of these

discussions, several overarching

themes emerged. By and large, these

themes echoed issues that were identified in the Needs Assessment and

Program Management Review. The

themes captured common elements,

challenges, and ongoing needs of

Watch groups across the country as

described below.

Communication

Participants underscored the need

for communication at multiple levels, in multiple directions. Better

communication—with Watch

group members, with the community, and among Watch group leadership—was cited as one solution to

maintaining citizen interest, improving relationships with law enforcement, and overcoming the

perception of Watch groups as an

Orwellian “big brother” presence in

the community. Maintaining effective channels of communication is

seen as essential to a Watch group’s

sustainability. Fostering ongoing

communication and feedback

among their members is also a major

challenge facing Watch groups.

Summit participants sought assistance in better utilizing the Internet

and other technology to help support and extend their networks

through communication.

Outreach

Summit participants noted the ability of Watch groups to draw in

community members and potential

partners that share the goal of reducing crime and fear of crime in their

neighborhoods. At the same time,

they acknowledged the challenges of

reaching out to nontraditional

groups in their communities and the

need to replenish their ranks when

membership declines. Participants

suggested they could expand their

outreach through the media, by

offering community education and

training across age groups, and by

building intergenerational partnerships.

Partnerships

Summit participants unanimously

endorsed the importance of partnerships in building, maintaining, and

sustaining effective Watch groups.

Local law enforcement agencies were

most frequently mentioned as essential partners, but participants noted

a significant need to solicit a broader

range of allies within their communities, including crime prevention

practitioners, educational institutions, first responders, the private

sector, and faith-based organizations. Participants cited numerous

benefits of expanded partnerships:

learning from each others’ experience and expertise, enhancing their

credibility, extending their reach,

pooling their resources, and reducing duplication of effort. Partnerships also help to diversify

perspectives and attract new

resources and funding. 

Leadership

Many Summit participants emphasized the critical role of Watch

group leaders as the linchpin connecting individual participants to

one another, to the larger community, to partnering agencies and

organizations, and to state, regional,

and national issues and priorities.

Watch group leaders serve as the

cohesive force among the membership and the primary liaison to allied

organizations within and beyond the

local community. They are the conduit of information from national,

regional, or state crime prevention

authorities to their local membership. They are cheerleaders and

fundraisers. Summit participants

noted that Watch group leaders

need to be both accessible and effective. In fact, leadership development

was cited as one avenue towards

10

R EPORT OF THE NATIONAL WATCH GROUPS SUMMIT
strengthening the mission of Watch

groups.

Education and training

Education and training are perennial needs and challenges of Watch

groups. Summit participants asked

specifically for more training on

general crime prevention strategies,

homeland security, identifying suspicious activity, and disaster preparedness and response. They also

requested training on management

of Watch groups, including media

relations, communication skills,

monitoring Watch group participation and activities, and demonstrating the effectiveness of their work. 

Participants identified five

actions that would strengthen the

effectiveness of Watch groups: training, recruitment, obtaining funds,

leadership, and outreach to other

groups and community members.

At the same time, they recognized

common challenges in performing

these actions: limited resources,

duplication of effort, threats to sustainability, poor communication

capabilities (within the membership,

with the media), and liability issues

that surface in organizations that

rely heavily on volunteers (e.g.,

background checks, insurance for

volunteer drivers).

To help address the challenges

facing them, Summit participants

identified the “top ten” areas of

support that would be of most

value to Watch groups (apart from

funding).

1) Organizational skills

2) Partnership development

3) Internet and other technology

training

4) Working with the news media

5) Support from law enforcement

6) Educational and/or promotional

materials

7) Ways to secure in-kind donations

8) Political support

9) Positive recognition

10) Effective communication

Finally, Summit participants

recognized a need to monitor their

work and demonstrate its value.

They named several indicators of a

“healthy” Watch group.

1) A clean neighborhood

2) Reduced crime and fear of crime

3) An increase in reporting

4) An active membership, wellattended meetings, and a self-sustaining program

5) Healthy partnerships and positive

media coverage

To monitor the health of their

groups, participants suggested tracking the number of members, attendance at meetings, and frequency of

calls reporting crimes or suspicious

activities. To measure the effectiveness of a Watch group, Summit participants suggested gathering crime

statistics, recording problems that

are solved or resolved, surveying

group members, and surveying community attitudes through polls,

focus groups, or interviews. They

recognized, however, the difficulty

in linking changes in crime statistics

directly to their work.

Recommendations 

The information collected through

the pre-Summit inquiries led to a

productive National Watch Groups

Summit. Participants in the process

were committed to the concept and

the principles of Watch programs

and are duly noted for their contributions. Based on the research and

the discussions held at the Summit,

the following eight recommendations (not in any priority order) are

presented as an action plan to

achieve greater success among Watch

groups of all types nationwide. 

1) A mechanism is needed for coordinated national support for the

diverse array of Watch groups.

This would provide Watch

groups with a central hub for

communication, sharing existing

resources, and economies of scale

in developing needed tools and

training. 

11

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN HOMELAND SECURITY
2) A second, larger National Watch

Groups Summit should be convened for information sharing

purposes among the diverse

Watch groups and to further

determine what makes these

groups successful. Although it

might be difficult to physically

convene a larger group of people,

at a minimum it would be helpful to try to survey more groups

in preparation for the Summit.

Some effort should be given to

sorting and separating the

responses from local, state, and

national groups, because they

each have different needs and different resources available to them. 

3) From the second Summit and

additional research, a “best practices” document should be produced for dissemination to

Watch groups across the country.

This document should include

not only what general practices

keep groups healthy and active,

but also specific examples of what

groups are doing.

4) Watch groups need training in a

range of skills, including data

management and program evaluation, leadership, fundraising,

developing relationships with

local law enforcement organizations, and basic crime prevention

techniques. Specific guidance on

these topics should be provided

in multiple forms, such as templates, job aids, online tutorials,

and classroom-based training. A

train-the-trainer approach could

also be used to provide consistency in the classroom training

delivery. 

5) Law enforcement organizations

must continue their efforts

toward involving community

members as valuable partners in

law enforcement activities.

Research on the effectiveness of

Watch programs should be presented to law enforcement organizations to demonstrate the

cost/benefit success of Watch

programs. 

6) Training and education is needed

for both the public and law

enforcement professionals (e.g.,

including Fusion Center personnel) on appropriate roles, mutual

collaboration, and standard

processes for handling information reported by concerned members of the community. Training

for the public should provide an

understanding of what information should be reported, how to

report the information, and what

is done with the information after

it is reported. Training for law

enforcement professionals should

include how to communicate

with members of the public and

how to solicit information effectively. 

7) All levels of government need 

to dedicate resources to crime

prevention and the Watch program concept. Resources can

include monetary and nonmonetary support. 

8) Watch groups should seek both

public and private partnerships

for additional support. Representation on their nearest Citizen Corps Council can facilitate

this effort. Citizen Corps Councils bring together government

and nongovernmental entities,

including the private sector,

faith-based and community

organizations, and advocacy

groups, to build community

resiliency. 

12

R EPORT OF THE NATIONAL WATCH GROUPS SUMMIT
The modern “watch” concept in

crime prevention got its impetus

from Neighborhood Watch in the

mid 1970s. The concept has been

applied also as Apartment Watch,

Block Watch, Town Watch, Park

Watch, Marina Watch, Airport

Watch, Campus Crime Watch,

Youth Crime Watch, Highway

Watch, and Wildlife Watch,

among others. Among the more

recent adaptations of the concept

are those relating to terrorism 

prevention. 

The National Crime Prevention Council, working with the

Bureau of Justice Assistance (Office

of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice) and Citizen Corps

(U.S. Department of Homeland

Security) is holding an invitationonly National Watch Groups Summit in May 2007. Part of the

purpose of the Summit is to help

identify principles and sound practices that can apply to all “Watch”

approaches and formats. Another

element of the purpose is to identify various kinds of support that

can benefit programs using the

Watch concept. A third element is

to identify ways and means by

which to incorporate homeland

security elements into Watch-format programs. 

Among the elements of work

deemed helpful to this process was

an examination of literature that has

been written about Watch-style programs. Though not intended as a

thoroughgoing literature review, this

study was designed to examine and

draw conclusions about the available

literature and Watch-style programs. 

Search Criteria

The world’s largest database of

criminal justice documents is the

National Criminal Justice Reference

Service (NCJRS), with over a quarter of a million documents on file.

The database of abstracts is available

online at www.ncjrs.gov. 

This database was searched in

mid-November 2006 using the

broad “* watch” search term (* is the

wildcard indicator) and the command to search abstract texts as well

as title and annotation lines. The

initial search resulted in more than

700 identified abstracts. Individual

reviews of each of the abstracts narrowed the search body to 365

abstracts, of which 275 were

deemed relevant. The majority of

deleted abstracts involved reference

to Klan Watch and Human Rights

Watch. Though these organizations

may be argued to have adapted the

Watch concept to address specific

types of crimes at a national or

international level, their staff members augmented by a limited number of observers conduct the “Watch

activities.” 

A Google Scholar search in late

December on the same search term

(* watch) produced 507 articles;

these were culled to 209 after further review, including removal of

duplicates. 

This initial series of searches

identified 484 documents that discuss some level or form of the

Watch concept. Additional searches

are possible and in the longer term

desirable. 

Findings 

From the mid-1970s onward, the

concept of “Watch” (predominantly in the form of Neighborhood Watch) has been present in

criminal justice and other social science literature. 

Through the early 1980s, the

materials are dominantly how-to

13

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN HOMELAND SECURITY

APPENDIX A

Literature Review Project for the National Watch Groups Summit
documents and program manuals,

with the landmark Seattle burglary

prevention evaluation (of Neighborhood Watch) as the major

exception. 

During the 1980s, a mix

emerges. Program methods and promotion materials are coupled with a

number of evaluations. The evaluations are focused substantially on

crime statistics, with some addressing the fear of crime issue in the latter half of the decade. 

In the 1990s, the trend moves

away from major U.S. studies of

Watch movements, especially

Neighborhood Watch, to studies

from the British Home Office on

Watch and Watch-related issues,

focused almost exclusively on

Neighborhood Watch. Outside the

criminal justice/criminology literature, however, literature in other

social science journals begins to

identify Watch programs, particularly Neighborhood Watch, as routine elements of communities,

especially in articles that examine

civic action, volunteerism, and

related issues. 

Based on an initial screening of

some key documents, evaluative

studies of Watch programs have

been extremely limited over the past

decade or slightly longer. Even in

the often-quoted Crime Prevention:

What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s

Promising (Lawrence Sherman, ed.,

1997), there were few Neighborhood Watch evaluations noted that

took place after 1990. 

The more recent Watch 

literature has emerged from the

Home Office in Great Britain,

which has produced a number of

updated manuals and evaluations 

as part of the British crime prevention initiative in the late 1990s

through 2003. Though these were

written in another nation, many of

the findings appear transferable to

the United States, though perhaps

requiring modest adaptation. 

In 2006, Bennett et al. undertook a meta-analysis8 of Neighborhood Watch evaluations to

determine whether the program has

been effective in reducing crime.

This analysis looked at 18 different

evaluations and found that 14 of

them (78 percent) showed a

decrease in criminal activity in

areas where there was an active

Neighborhood Watch. The authors

also conducted a narrative review of

the 18 evaluations plus 18 additional studies that were excluded

from the meta-analysis because the

data was not presented in a usable

form. Nineteen (53 percent) of the

36 studies showed that Neighborhood Watch was effective in reducing crime. Because so few statistical

evaluations were available, the

researchers suggest conducting

more evaluations with advanced

designs to more persuasively determine the impact of Neighborhood

Watch.9

The searches to date have not

tapped the wealth of information.

So-called gray research—not published in peer-reviewed journals or

in general circulation magazines—

is a significant source of Watchrelated information. From the FBI

Bulletin to the National Association

of Town Watch newsletter, articles

are published that report on or

mention Neighborhood Watch

evaluations, successes, and challenges. Several documents NCPC

published over the years are not

represented in these search results,

as a further example, nor are documents produced by such major

crime prevention agencies as the

California Attorney General’s

Office. 

The major finding of this literature search is that there is a great

deal more literature to (1) identify,

14

R EPORT OF THE NATIONAL WATCH GROUPS SUMMIT

8 A meta-analysis is a type of statistical analysis in which the results of several studies are combined and analyzed as if they were produced by a single large study. 9 Bennett, Trevor, Katy Holloway, and David P. Farrington (2006), “Does Neighborhood Watch Reduce Crime? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis,” Journal of Experimental Criminology 2:437-458.
(2) locate, and (3) review from a

structured platform. 

The Search Results

The results of the two major

searches and overviews described

above are shared in two documents.

The first lists National Criminal

Justice Reference Service numbers

(which instantly locate abstracts

through the NCJRS search engine),

the article title (and journal if 

relevant), and the year of publication. The second provides a bibliography listed alphabetically by

author documenting the results of

the Google Scholar search and

review. These documents can be

found on NCPC’s web site: 

www.ncpc.org. 

15

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN HOMELAND SECURITY
16

R EPORT OF THE NATIONAL WATCH GROUPS SUMMIT

The Needs Assessment was conducted among Watch groups slated

to attend the National Watch Groups

Summit, held May 30–31, 2007.

This assessment, conducted

from February through March 2007

among confirmed National Watch

Groups Summit participants, was

designed to provide a snapshot of

assistance that local, state, and

national Watch-style groups might

need in both program and management areas. The Summit includes

representatives of many different

types of Watch groups, including

but not limited to: Neighborhood

Watch, Airport Watch, Cab Watch,

Park Watch, Waterway and Maritime Watch, Youth Crime Watch,

agriculturally focused Watches, and

college-related crime Watches.

This report summarizes key

findings and observations from the

responses received. Both counts of

respondents and the percentage that

each group represents of those

responding are shown. 

Who Responded to the Needs

Assessment?

A total of 32 Summit participants

completed the Needs Assessment.

Most respondents represented wellestablished organizations, with 21

organizations (66 percent) having

been in existence for more than 

15 years. Eight (26 percent) have

been in existence for five years or

fewer; three (9 percent) have been

in existence between six and 15

years (Figure 1).

As the Figure 2 below illustrates, the respondents represent a

reasonable balance among local,

state, and national groups, with two

of the participating organizations

being international in scope. 

What Kinds of Management

Help Were Sought?

Respondents were asked to indicate

whether they desired help in any or

all of a series of program management areas.

APPENDIX B

Watch Groups Summit Needs Assessment Report

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

Figure 1. Participant Profile (N = 32)

Less than 3 years

3–5 years

6–10 years

11–15 years

More than 15 years

4 (13%)

4 (13%)

1 (3%)

2 (6%)

21 (66%)

0 20 40 60 80

Frequency (%)

International

2 (6%)

National

10 (31%)

State

7 (22%)

County or

city (or

smaller)

13 (41%)

Figure 2. Types of Organizations

Responding to Needs 

Assessment (N = 32)
17

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN HOMELAND SECURITY

As seen in Figure 3, the most

sought-after subject matter was

engaging/partnering with agencies

other than law enforcement, followed closely by data management

for crime and incident data and

communications training. Working

with news media received the lowest

rating among the 11 options

offered.

What Management 

Assistance Was Deemed

Most Urgent?

Respondents were asked to choose

as many as two areas in which their

need was urgent; however, some

respondents chose one and others

more than two. Three individuals

did not answer the question. Four

need areas were most frequently

rated urgent: grant-writing training,

data management for crime and

incident data, other fund development training, and engaging/partnering with agencies other than law

enforcement. No one selected

“working with news media” as one

of the most urgent needs (Figure 4).

What Management 

Assistance Was Deemed

Most Important?

Participants were allowed to choose

two of the 11 management areas that

they felt were most important to

their organizations’ Watch efforts.

Again, some respondents chose only

one and others more than two; four

individuals did not answer the question. The areas deemed most important were data management for crime

and incident data, communications

training, data management for

Watch membership, leadership

development/training, and engaging/partnering with agencies other

than law enforcement (Figure 5). 

Among the areas of management

assistance sought, only data management for crime and incident data

ranked high in both urgency (second) and importance (first).

Figure 3. Management Assistance Sought

Type of Assistance Number Total Responses

Engaging/partnering with agencies other than law enforcement 20 (65%) 31

Data management for crime and incident data 19 (61%) 31

Communications training 18 (60%) 30

Data management for Watch membership 18 (58%) 31

Other fund development training 17 (55%) 31

Leadership development training 16 (52%) 31

Grant-writing training 15 (48%) 31

Support in improving use of technology 14 (47%) 30

Board of directors training 13 (45%) 29

Improving relations with law enforcement 13 (43%) 30

Working with news media 12 (40%) 30

Note: Percentages exceed 100% due to multiple answers.

Figure 4. Management Assistance Seen As Most Urgent (N = 29)

Grant writing training

Data management for

crime and incident data

Other fund development training

Engaging/partnering with agencies

other than law enforcement

Communications training

Data management for

Watch membership

Board of directors training

Support in improving

use of technology

Improving relations with

law enforcement

Leadership development/training

2 (7%)

2 (7%)

Frequency (%)

0 10 20 30 40 50

12 (41%)

9 (31%)

9 (31%)

7 (24%)

6 (21%)

6 (21%)

4 (14%)

4 (14%)
18

R EPORT OF THE NATIONAL WATCH GROUPS SUMMIT

What Kinds of Program 

Content Help Were Sought?

Program content issues relate more

directly to the operation of Watch

programs and the Watch concept

than to organizational management

and development. The strongest need

for program content support emerged

for developing evaluation/evidence of

effectiveness and ensuring faithful

program implementation. Linking

local Watch with other relevant

local groups and training materials

for local/regional Watch leaders also

received high scores (Figure 6). 

What Program Content Was

Deemed Most Urgent?

Participants were allowed to choose

up to two subjects in this category.

Some respondents chose more than

two and others only one. Four individuals did not answer the question.

The need for developing evaluation/evidence of effectiveness was

considered the most urgent need,

followed by training materials for

local/regional Watch leaders, training materials for Watch members,

and developing effective community

education materials (Figure 7). 

What Program Content Was

Deemed Most Important?

Participants were allowed to choose

two of the 11 program content areas

that they felt were most important to

their organizations’ Watch efforts;

some chose more than two and some

identified only one. Four individuals

did not answer the question. The

three most frequently named areas

were linking local Watch with other

relevant local groups, developing

evaluation/evidence of effectiveness,

and ensuring faithful program

implementation (Figure 8).

Among the program content

needs, developing evaluation/evidence of effectiveness ranked high in

Figure 6. Program Content Help Sought

Type of Content Help Number Total Responses

Developing evaluation/evidence of effectiveness 22 (71%) 31

Ensuring faithful program implementation 21 (70%) 30

Linking local Watch group with other relevant local groups 20 (65%) 31

Training materials for local/regional Watch leaders 20 (65%) 31

Developing effective community education materials 19 (61%) 31

Training materials for Watch members 18 (60%) 30

Assisting local Watch groups with fund development 12 (40%) 30

Providing cost-effective technical assistance to local/regional 

Watch groups 11 (38%) 29

Note: Percentages exceed 100% due to multiple answers.

Figure 5. Management Help Rated by Importance (N = 28)

Grant writing training

Working with news media

Other

Data management for

crime and incident data

Other fund development training

Engaging/partnering with agencies

other than law enforcement

Communications training

Data management for

Watch membership

Board of directors training

Support in improving

use of technology

Improving relations with

law enforcement

Leadership/development training

13 (46%)

8 (29%)

8 (29%)

7 (25%)

6 (21%)

4 (14%)

4 (14%)

3 (11%)

3 (11%)

3 (11%)

2 (7%)

1 (4%)

Frequency (%)

0 10 20 30 40 50
19

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN HOMELAND SECURITY

both urgency (first) and importance

(second). 

Other Important/Urgent Needs

Identified by Respondents

Respondents were asked to identify

up to two important or urgent needs

of their organization that were not

covered in the rest of the Needs

Assessment. Two predominant

themes emerged from the responses.

The answers have been sorted into

these two themes and a third category

that encompasses the answers that did

not fit into the other two categories.

Need To Enhance Watch Group

Membership

Recruiting and managing 

volunteers 

Motivating, maintaining, and

sustaining volunteers 

Reaching out to immigrants 

Working with faith-based groups 

Need To Strengthen Watch

Group Capacity

Creating a national clearinghouse

for Watch group information and

resources, including a centralized

website and directory of Watch

groups 

Developing a national network

structure and criteria for Watch

groups 

Note: Percentages exceed 100% due to multiple answers.

Figure 7. Program-Content Needs Deemed Most Urgent (N = 28)

Developing evaluation/evidence

of effectiveness

Developing effective community

education materials

Ensuring faithful program

implementation

Linking local Watch with other

relevant local groups

Assisting local Watches in

fund development

Providing cost-effective technical

assistance to local/regional Watches

Other

Training materials for local/regional

Watch leaders

Training materials for

Watch members

12 (43%)

9 (32%)

8 (29%)

7 (25%)

6 (21%)

5 (18%)

4 (14%)

4 (14%)

1 (4%)

Frequency (%)

0 10 20 30 40 50

Note: Percentages exceed 100% due to multiple answers.

Figure 8. Program-Content Needs Deemed Most Important (N = 28)

Developing evaluation/evidence

of effectiveness

Developing effective community

education materials

Ensuring faithful program

implementation

Linking local Watch with other

relevant local groups

Assisting local Watches in

fund development

Providing cost-effective technical

assistance to local/regional Watches

Training materials for local/regional

Watch leaders

Training materials for

Watch members

10 (36%)

9 (32%)

9 (32%)

8 (29%)

8 (29%)

6 (21%)

4 (14%)

2 (7%)

Frequency (%)

0 10 20 30 40 50
20

R EPORT OF THE NATIONAL WATCH GROUPS SUMMIT

Coordinating communication

across organizations, from industry to government 

Providing resources for Watch

items, such as signs or decals 

and training materials in other

languages

Supporting replication by creating templates and providing

grants or funding 

Offering opportunities for

regional/national leadership

development 

Other suggestions included incorporating emergency preparedness into

Watch programs and recognizing

the maritime nexus among traditional land-based police agencies.

Conclusions and Next Steps

The data gathered by this Needs

Assessment strongly suggest that

Watch structures (local, state, and

national) have substantial areas of

unmet needs. These groups identify

the need for data management

regarding both incident tracking

purposes and membership. One way

of accomplishing this could be by

coordinating with local law enforcement agencies as well as by providing tracking templates that could be

localized. Also, Watch groups

express a strong desire to demonstrate the effectiveness of their programming at the local, state, and

national levels through evaluation.

Areas in which Watch groups

feel they need immediate assistance

were fund development, grant writing, ensuring faithful program implementation, and communications

training, particularly if each of these

areas could be tailored to the specific

Watch program and the various levels of need. Watch groups also

reported seeing a distinct need for

leadership development and training. 

Further analysis of the responses

may produce some trends and modest insights, but the subgroup populations are small from an analytic

perspective. The findings demonstrate, however, that unmet needs

are widespread even among this relatively small sample. The extent of

these needs can be further refined

through a survey of larger numbers

of sites. Meeting those needs offers

the opportunity to provide updated

concepts, doctrine, and perspectives

at the same time.

The findings from this needs

assessment will be shared with

National Watch Groups Summit

participants in May. Findings will

also be incorporated with the Program Management Review results

and the Summit discussion results,

and will be included in the report

and recommendations emerging

from this project.
21

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN HOMELAND SECURITY

The National Watch Groups Summit, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice

Assistance (BJA), and the Federal

Emergency Management Agency,

Community Preparedness Division/Citizen Corps, and facilitated

by the National Crime Prevention

Council (NCPC), was being held

May 30–31, 2007, in Lexington,

KY. As part of the preparation for

the Summit, NCPC conducted

three kinds of research. The first was

a literature search that produced

more than 400 research references to

Watch programs. The second was a

Needs Assessment of management

and program aspects of Watch activities. Separate reports are available

on these projects. The subject of this

report is the third research activity,

findings from a Program Management Review that sought to identify

areas that would offer fruitful

ground for discussion among Summit participants. 

Two rounds of inquiry were

conducted via email. A total of 16

persons replied to Round One and

14 replied to Round Two. Although

the number of respondents was

small, each individual represented

one of a variety of national, regional,

state, and local Watch initiatives.

The findings provide directional

information, but they may or may

not reflect nationwide Watch characteristics and needs nor do they

guarantee consensus. Together with

the Needs Assessment and literature

search, the results of this Program

Management Review suggest a

number of areas in which assistance

could be provided. 

Analysis of responses to each of

the queries commences on the next

page. Note: Queries numbered 1.n

were part of Round One; those

numbered 2.n were part of Round

Two.

Query 1.1

Based on your experience, what

are five key elements that are

vital to the success of your

Watch program? Would you say

that this element is a core concept for all or most kinds of

Watches, or is it a core element

limited to your particular situation? Please briefly explain your

reason(s). 

Participants were asked to name up

to five element(s) that help engender

success. The nine elements that follow were each common to at least

five respondents, and generally to

more. With respect to each of the

elements below, those naming them

formed a mixed group by focus, by

geography, and by national/state/

local status. These responses offer

clues to the kinds of needs, interests,

and concerns that face Watch programs of all sorts. They suggest areas

in which mutual needs can be

addressed to the benefit of all, and

they indicate strengths and weaknesses of the Watch format that

merit further attention. 

Element: Cooperation With Law

Enforcement

Consistently, Watches at national,

state, and local levels (and at local

levels across the nation) named

cooperation with local law enforcement as a core element that is common across Watch programs.

Indeed, participants felt that one of

the most important elements in a

successful Watch is a positive, reinforcing attitude on the part of local

law enforcement toward the

Watch’s benefits and membership.

A number of comments suggested

that law enforcement officers’ attiAPPENDIX C

Report of a Program Management Review

National Watch Groups Summit Project
22

R EPORT OF THE NATIONAL WATCH GROUPS SUMMIT

tudes could directly, either positively or negatively, affect both

member involvement and program

effectiveness. 

In addition to a core positive

relationship between Watch and law

enforcement, many comments suggested that a sense of trust and

mutual respect were also central to

an effective relationship. One participant observed that if law enforcement assigns a low priority to

Watch programs, Watch members

and leaders can become disengaged.

At least two Watch members

observed that they needed to be able

to look to law enforcement for leadership and to feel included in creating their own safety. 

Element: Communication

According to respondents, communication plays several fundamental

and vital roles in a successful

Watch program. These include

communication between Watch

and law enforcement, communication among Watch leaders, communication between Watch leaders

and Watch members, and communication with those who have not

yet joined the Watch program.

Content needs to include current

local crime situations, strategies for

prevention or risk reduction, and

suggestions and guidance in sustaining and improving the Watch

program. 

Beyond this, communication

both informs members of the

Watch and keeps them engaged in

the organization. Communication

also amplifies the impact of recognition and is vital in neighborhoods

whose residents speak a variety of

languages. 

In a third major role, communication builds support for the program from groups in and outside

the neighborhood, and it is vital in

selling the Watch concept to those

who are curious about starting a

program. 

Several respondents pointed out

that communication is also central to

the relationship between the Watch

members and law enforcement. Both

sides have important information to

share and need the other’s information. The quality of the relationship

rests, at least in part, on the quality

and quantity of communication. 

Element: Participation 

No Watch group can function without participants. Whether located in

a geographic unit such as a residential neighborhood or in a more dispersed community of boaters or

ranchers, the people who observe,

report, and engage in prevention are

the engine of the program. On that

point, all respondents were emphatically clear. 

Participation, however, must be

invited and nurtured. This point

was eloquently made by many

respondents. Invitation requires

establishing program visibility,

value, and credibility, as well as a

manageable level of involvement,

among other things. Nurturing

includes developing a mix of types

of activities that engender some level

of neighborhood cohesion. Communication is a cohesive element

that adheres participants to the program, but such activities as block

parties, special clean-up days,

potluck suppers, National Night

Out (especially for Neighborhood

Watch), frequent meetings of the

group, organized sporting events,

and involvement in longer-term

problem-solving are among the

strategies named by respondents

that help invite and sustain participation. From the comments

received, such strategies are vital to

Watch success, certainly over the

long term. 

Respondents recognized that

sustaining quality relationships with

members is essential to the maintenance of an effective program. It is

important for members of a program to see themselves as a team

and to understand that the effectiveness of their Watch group

depends largely on their relationships with each other. The day-today irritations that may separate

members of the group can be counterbalanced with communication,
23

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN HOMELAND SECURITY

team-building, group activities, and

good leadership. 

Some respondents noted that

when working with people from

diverse ethnic groups in a given

area, it is vital to educate everyone

to be aware of and take into consideration each other’s cultural backgrounds. This can be critical in

maintaining healthy relationships

both among group members and

between the group and its leadership elements. 

Element: Organizational Structure

and Leadership

Watch groups require sound organization, effective leadership from

both citizen volunteers and law

enforcement partners, and management skills (including leadership

development). These elements were

found to be essential to all successful Watch groups. To maintain participation and effective

communication, Watch groups

must have strong leadership and

organization. Without them, the

program will become far less effective. To create and maintain high

levels of organization, frequent

communication with local leaders

and between those leaders and their

constituents is needed. To accomplish high levels of organization and

leadership, respondents suggested

structured activities, community

meetings, and meetings with local

law enforcement.

Element: Consistent 

Federal Support 

Several respondents mentioned that

the support from the federal government for various Watch activities

and resources is important, both as a

national signal of Watches’ value

and as a resource in itself. As one

participant observed, federal backing

often implies stability, credibility,

and reliability that make local

fundraising easier.

Element: Local Focus 

and Assessment

Respondent Watch groups reported

that local focus and local needs

assessment are a fundamental element of success. Programs at the

local level need to be specific to the

locale—neighborhood, lake, trail,

school, park, street, or other setting—that Watch members have

agreed to oversee. Specific characteristics, local needs, and local crime

patterns and trends are the elements

that make the program meaningful

to members and effective as programs. Local tailoring makes programs more relevant and helps

encourage and sustain participation

(provided that the information is

effectively communicated). Each

program needs to know its operating environment and set its goals

accordingly.

Element: Active Outreach 

Several respondents suggested that

Watch groups need to view recruitment as a constant task, not an

episodic event. People change jobs,

move out of neighborhoods, or

become involved in other activities—but this can be viewed as an

opportunity to bring others into the

Watch framework, and not just as a

loss of experienced Watch participants. Those individuals managing

programs on a community-wide or

larger basis responded that there is

always opportunity for expansion in

almost any setting, which increases

program visibility, recognition, and

support base. Active outreach

refreshes, replenishes, enriches, and

extends program lifespan and benefits. To that end, respondents

observed that Watch groups benefit

from a strong organizer who can

develop partnerships with other

groups.

Element: Quality Materials and

Training

To a number of respondents, the

availability of quality training and

materials is essential. Knowledge

and skills are part of the backbone

of Watch programs. As one respondent put it, “Unless your members

are well informed, they are not
24

R EPORT OF THE NATIONAL WATCH GROUPS SUMMIT

going to know what to look for, or

what to do when they observe something.” A common challenge was

that there typically was a lack of

monetary resources to acquire training and materials needed. 

Observation: Technology may provide assistance here, through such

tools as listservs, DVD formats, and

distance learning. 

Query 1.2

What two things have played a

major role in sustaining your

Watch program? Why?

This question sought to isolate those

elements that help keep Watches

functioning. In any effort to support

the Watch movement, it is important to understand what elements

seem to sustain (as well as initiate)

programs. Not surprisingly, there is

some overlap between responses to

this query and the query above.

However, clear themes for what sustains Watches did emerge. 

Support From Local Law Enforcement 

Law enforcement—especially local

law enforcement—is widely seen as

one of the central sustaining elements of Watch programs. Law

enforcement provides vital data, is

able to spot trends, and can offer

preventive and follow-up assistance

against crimes. It provides the information the program needs as well as

the follow-up response that Watch

members seek. Two sources of law

enforcement support were

addressed: support from rank-andfile officers and support from command staff. Some noted that law

enforcement support is a vital source

of credibility as well.

Commitment From the 

Community

Commitment is central to sustaining a Watch program. This

includes commitment from leadership as well as members. A productive program must have

participants who believe in it and

who act on their belief. It must

have value as well as purpose. Similarly, commitment is needed from

Watch leadership and law enforcement officers to maintain quality

programs, sustain communication,

develop leadership, and engage participants. Individual members need

to feel they are a part of a committed organization, or else their participation is likely to suffer. 

Funding Support

Federal, state, or ongoing local

funding enables a program to plan

ahead, to strengthen training, to

reinforce program foundations, to

maintain consistent program features (or enhance them), and to

develop a local or regional base of

support. Funding could enable programs to provide refresher training,

training on additional topics, and

other supportive services, or even to

expand their scope.

Updating the Flow of 

Information 

For a number of respondents, regular updates are essential to sustain a

program. Watch groups need to

keep members informed of current

and emerging crime trends. Consistent, timely information can help

groups update program strategies

and activities. Local Watch leaders,

in turn, need updates and refreshers

from the state and national levels.

Relevant civic and law enforcement

leaders in the community should be

periodically updated on the operation and successes of the Watch

effort, to encourage their involvement and support. 

Query 1.3

A very thoughtful report by two

British researchers suggests that,

for Neighborhood Watch at least,

the roles and focus for the program may vary with circumstances. (For a downloadable

copy of this report Policing and

Neighbourhood Watch: Strategic

Issues by Gloria Laycock and
25

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN HOMELAND SECURITY

Nick Tilley, visit www.homeoffice.

gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fcdps60.pdf.) 

The report suggests that

In low-crime areas, Neighborhood Watch can aim to keep the

crime rate low, maintain public

confidence and good police/public relations, reduce fear, guard

against vigilantes, and reinforce

community commitment to

crime-free standards. 

In medium-crime areas, the

Watch program can seek to

reduce the crime rate, increase

informal neighborhood control

by residents over minor incivilities and general nuisance, and

improve police/public relations. 

In high-crime areas, the Watch

program can work to reduce

crime and fear, increase community control and public confidence, and increase confidence in

police. The authors also suggest

that in high-crime areas (generally urban), the Watch program

may be different in gentrified

areas of cities and in poorer

areas. 

Query for Neighborhood Watchrelated programs: From your perspective, does this model seem to

make some sense? Do or should

Neighborhood Watches act with

different emphases depending on

crime rates in the community?

Are there other criteria on which

Neighborhood Watch should

operate differently? Please give

explanations with your response.

On the whole, respondents found

this model to be a plausible one,

based on their experience. Many

cited changes within their own local

Watch programs over time, as crime

was reduced. Others noted that

Watch groups in their area exhibited

differences in dealing with areas of

higher crime rates than lower crime

rates, the primary difference being

that areas of high crime were more

focused on stopping crime directly,

whereas low-crime rate areas were

more interested in general community-service issues. 

A few dissented, noting that

although overall crime rates in an

area may be lower, there may well

be specific crimes that could demonstrate relatively high rates. One

respondent gave the example of driving while intoxicated; another

pointed out that designer drugs

could be a localized issue. Others

questioned the model, noting that

fear could be high even though the

actual crime rate could be low.

These respondents felt that such

perceptions drive Watch groups as

much as (or even more than) actual

crime rates. 

The question of what other criteria affect the running of a Watch

group had several answers. These

included the readiness of community to take action, how much active

participation can be expected from a

neighborhood, cultural needs, trust

in local law enforcement, and

mobility of community members in

and out of the neighborhood. 

Query for other Watch programs:

In your experience, do your

Watch groups focus, act, or form

up differently depending on differences in one or two generalized circumstances? Please give

explanations with your response

(e.g., for a program called Transit

Stop Watch, watching over stops

in urban areas might require different emphasis and/or needs

than in rural or suburban areas).

Other Watch programs concur in

general that their programs focus,

act, or form up differently depending on differences in the areas under

discussion. Some respondents said

that density and geographic nature

of the target audience(s) would create a differential approach. For

example, in Marina Watches, formats would change based on

whether the site was a lake, river,

port, or military area. At least one

other program felt there would be a
26

R EPORT OF THE NATIONAL WATCH GROUPS SUMMIT

shift of approach in Watch groups

that focused on preventing terrorist

attacks compared with those preventing crime. One respondent

observed that a program’s focus may

depend on the interests of its leadership and offered the hypothetical

example of an administrator who

valued publicity over the program’s

potential to prevent crime.

Query 2.1

Many Watch organizations have

taken on activities beyond surveillance, situational awareness,

and reporting. Please list up to

five such activities your group

has undertaken (from patrols to

community programs to national

initiatives); indicate for each the

biggest benefit to you and your

community as well as the toughest challenge. 

Responses indicate that Watch

groups have embraced a wide range

of activities. At the local level, that

range of activities included National

Night Out, Community Emergency

Response Team (CERT) training,

general disaster assistance volunteer

training, self-defense training for

women, information booths at community events, organizing cookouts

and dessert socials, taking part in

citywide (and local area) clean-ups,

volunteering to help students

affected by Hurricane Katrina, linking immigrants in the community

with those who speak both their language and English, and more. State

and national agencies were likely to

name work with other organizations

and programs; some had started

complementary or supplemental

programs for children, for seniors,

and for other special groups. Several

noted that their programs provided

additional volunteers to local areas;

one listed a national conference it

conducts. One respondent noted a

Los Angeles Times report about the

1994 Northridge earthquake to

illustrate the value of Neighborhood

Watch branching out and being prepared: “Most of the aid that morning didn’t arrive with sirens and

flashing lights. It came from Neighborhood Watch block captains who

had rallied their troops before the

disaster.”

Respondents reported that the

benefits of their expanded activities

are many and varied. Chief among

benefits at the local level is building

and sustaining interest in the program and connections among neighbors. Other benefits include

distributing crime prevention information, involving many people

rather than a few, holding “normal”

social activities to build a feeling of

community (as opposed to meeting

only for crime prevention), and

building positive connections with

law enforcement personnel. A program providing security assistance

for the elderly on a block-by-block

basis helped neighbors understand

special needs of older residents and

what assistance might be required in

emergencies, as it built community.

At the state level, the synergy built

by partnerships and joint projects

was highly valued. 

Challenges were varied as well.

At the local level, membership commitment, recruiting those skeptical

of anonymous reporting, maintaining and developing local leaders,

communicating effectively, convincing residents to “prepare ahead,”

sustaining interest, and starting programs in new areas were among the

challenges. A recurring theme for

several was the needed time for

training and recertification in various programs—an obligation that is

difficult for many to meet. At the

state and national levels, respondents noted additional challenges:

complex notification and communication structures, getting volunteers

accepted by the professionals in the

community, and securing funding

to maintain and expand efforts. 

Query 2.2

What has been your organization’s most productive partnership with another organization

(not law enforcement)? Why?
27

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN HOMELAND SECURITY

The list of partnerships among the

respondents reflects the potential for

Watch groups to develop varied and

effective community links. At the

local level, a grocery chain; the

mayor’s office; schools and

PTA/PTO groups; local Volunteers

in Police Service (VIPS), Citizen

Corps, CERT, and Retired Senior

Volunteer Program (RSVP) programs; Special Olympics; the sheriff’s Community Law Enforcement

Partnership Program; the state crime

prevention association; a rape crisis

center; and a housing authority were

among those named. State and

national groups cited partner organizations that help them publicize

and promote involvement in their

programs, existence of a formal

structure (through the partner

group) for communicating with special target groups, and groups that

provide funding. 

Respondents valued these partnerships for a variety of reasons.

For example, partnerships enable

Watch groups to combine

resources, volunteers, and awareness, resulting in a stronger outcome for all, and to build positive

relationships with various community members through involvement

in non-crime-related projects. Partnerships also generate public leadership support for the program;

pragmatic help with recruitment of

and communication with local

communities and specialized audiences; and a shared mission that is

mutually reinforced. Partners can

provide valued training and technical assistance and help meet the

needs of specific communities. 

Query 2.3 

What partnership would you like

to have but have not established? What has been your

chief obstacle?

Several respondents stated that they

had all the partnerships their programs required at this time, and

therefore did not name an unattained partnership. 

Two organizations mentioned a

desire to partner with faith-based or

faith-focused groups, but noted difficulty in persuading these groups that

their expertise and assistance were a

good fit with crime prevention. 

Several respondents sought partners to provide funding. Desired

partners ranged from government

agencies to nongovernmental entities, such as private sector and community-based organizations. 

Program-related assistance was

sought to engage key audiences

statewide who apparently denied the

need for Watch activities, to involve

all states in recruitment of the specialized audience involved in the

program, to cooperate in prevention

strategies with adjoining jurisdictions, to find ways to involve a specialized audience who should have a

natural interest in the program, and

to engage local businesses as outreach and communication partners. 

One group noted that it sought

to renew engagement with the

detective bureau of its law enforcement agency because the prior partnership had been beneficial to both

parties.

Challenges included lack of commitment to the program, constraints

of government regulations, the proposed partner’s inability to see a connection with the Watch program,

failure to find an advocate in the proposed partner group, and difficulty

engaging student leaders who were

overloaded with other issues.

Observations: The partnerships

sought are generally innovative, mission focused, and reasonable at face

value. The challenges very possibly

could be overcome with imaginative

technical assistance from peers or

persons with experience fostering

partnerships. 

In both Queries 2.2 and 2.3,

the evidence is clear that the Watch

groups taking part in this Summit

understood the value and mutual

benefits of partnerships. Whether

this applies more generally is subject

to further research. 
28

R EPORT OF THE NATIONAL WATCH GROUPS SUMMIT

Query 2.4

In looking at your work to 

educate the public and the 

Watch community, what 

message has been the most 

difficult/challenging to convey

effectively? Why? 

A major theme emerged here: effectively delivering the message that

continued participation is essential

to program success is a significant

challenge for most respondents.

One pointed out that part of the

message is that communities

needed to become involved before

“bad things” happened. Another

observed that interest peaks “only

after someone in the neighborhood

is victimized,” a pattern deemed

unacceptable. All respondents who

commented felt that effectively

delivering the message that ongoing

participation is necessary is a vital

one for Watch effectiveness. 

A secondary theme reflected

concern over recruitment. To

increase recruitment for both existing and new programs, respondents

believed that certain perceptions

about Watch-style programs need to

be overcome, including perceptions

that the program requires formal

membership for participation, that

crime reporting is not truly anonymous, and that there is only one

Watch type of program. 

One respondent noted that

“one size” does not fit all in Watch

programs, pointing out that rural

community beliefs, practices, and

attitudes were not those of urban or

suburban community residents, and

that differential messaging is necessary for such areas. 

One additional challenge of

note is linked with issues raised elsewhere in this report. How does one

quantify the various benefits of

Watch programs? This issue was

viewed as important in order to

reach public officials in both executive and legislative arms of state and

national government. 

Query 2.5

What has been your most successful strategy to gain positive

attention to promote your Watch?

Celebrating success was a theme that

emerged on both state and local levels. In one case, a statewide program

was recognized by a state crime prevention association as an outstanding crime prevention effort in one

year and was a featured element of

the next year’s conference. The program found that this award and the

accompanying conference exposure

recruited new participants in the

program. At a local level, providing

for recognition of various Watch

groups for their continuing efforts

has proved effective in delivering the

message that ongoing participation

is vital. 

Outreach and media education

formed a second theme. One state

group had a media advisory team of

volunteers who advised and supported the Watch group’s efforts.

Two national groups have had success by featuring local groups,

including success with national

media. Ongoing contact with specialized reporters and trade press has

benefited a national special-audience

Watch group. Another national

group has its local affiliates brief

incoming freshmen about the local

chapter’s work.

At the local level, guest speakers,

social events, and door-to-door

recruitment are all mentioned as

successful strategies for gaining positive attention. Another respondent

suggested a structured Watch program with effective communication

that involves frequent neighbor-toneighbor contact. Others noted support and recognition by the

community, including public leaders and law enforcement.

Query 2.6

Knowing what you know now,

what is the one piece of advice

you wish you had when you

started working with your Watch

program?
29

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN HOMELAND SECURITY

Three respondents reported that

there was no advice they wished

they had “up front.” One felt too

much of a newcomer to reflect on

this effectively. The remainder listed

a variety of points, which are paraphrased below. 

There are a lot of resources and

partnerships out there.

Put the training (for the specialized program) on a video to make

it easier and less time-consuming. 

Sustainability is important. 

Don’t let apathy reign. Don’t

take no for an answer. Capitalize

on eventual results—not getting

there. Just do it. We are there to

encourage and enable. 

Don’t rely on your elected officials—state or federal—to help

get funding. 

I wish I’d had block captains to

assist with the program.

Treat everyone with respect, even

those who are being difficult and

opposing you. If you treat them

as professionals, they will act like

professionals.

Focus primarily on developing

private and corporate funding.

Recognize the difficulty of motivating students to do what is in

their best interests in order to

prevent victimization.

Query 2.7

What is one thing you would like

to learn from other participants in

the Summit?

This query is highly specific to the

event, but it also reflects top-ofmind needs that are probably typical of local programs in particular.

The responses are paraphrased

below.

How others’ programs have

involved the community’s youth

How to motivate commitment

by citizens and agencies

Sources of funding and how they

were developed

Success stories

How to efficiently and effectively organize new groups

How to apply mainstream procedures in rural environments

What is going on across the

country

What works for others, particularly funding and partnership

opportunities that work

Best practices and resources

How others quantify success for

Watch programs and how they

get funding

How people balance the time

needed for Watch groups with

other commitments

How to keep groups interested

and involved

How to overcome the problem

of Neighborhood Watch being

considered a low-prestige organization

What are some future trends and

what form and role will Watches

assume in future years? How can

we remain in contact for mutual

benefit?

Sustaining the effort and motivating people to report crime, especially in the college environment

Although the Summit may not

address all of the needs listed, the

comments reflected in this report

provide a valuable initial list of

areas for consideration and potential support. 
30

R EPORT OF THE NATIONAL WATCH GROUPS SUMMIT

AGRICULTURAL

AgroGuard, New Mexico

AgroGuard is a rural Neighborhood Watch program focusing on

terrorism and natural disasters

related to farming and ranching

areas. Participants receive information on plant and animal diseases

that could impact them and the

symptoms they should be aware of.

They are also asked to watch for

unusual activities that could denote

terrorist activities. Posted signs give

the contact number for the state

police.

http://cahe.nmsu.edu

Contact: Kennie Warren

Farm Watch, California Farm

Bureau Federation

California producers are victims of

more than a tenth of all U.S. farm

crimes. The need for added security

measures is obvious. The “Farm

Watch” program has been designed

to meet this demand, by increasing

awareness, fostering relationships

between neighbors and local law

enforcement agencies, and striving

to prevent thefts and vandalism of

property.

www.cfbf.org/programs/ruralcrime/

farmwatch.cfm

Contact: Danielle Rau

Ranch Watch®

The Ranch Watch Program® 

prevents criminal activities in

ranching and rural communities

through crime prevention and

safety education.

www.ranchwatch.com

Contact: Phillip Stubblefield

South Carolina Ag-Watch 

South Carolina Ag-Watch is modeled after the local police Neighborhood Watch program and works

with animal, plant/crop, and food

producers and processors to increase

awareness of agricultural threats and

all-hazards catastrophic events to

counter terrorism and integrate

these entities with the county and

state’s emergency response plans.

Activities include educating stakeholders on recognizing agricultural

and food production threats; advocating biosecurity measures; producing manuals, training courses, and

promotional materials; and initiating an on-site biosecurity certification program to increase readiness

of agricultural producers and processors to prevent or to recover more

quickly from an agroterrorist event.

www.scagwatch.com

Contact: Julie D. Helm, DVM

BUSINESS

Brockton (MA) Business Watch

The purpose of the Business Watch

Program is to assist businesses in

crime prevention and eventually

bring them together with the Neighborhood Watch programs. In addition, the program offers businesses

burglary prevention surveys,

employee training regarding robbery

and larceny, personal safety lectures,

and statistical data. 

www.brocktonpolice.com/comed/

bizwatch.htm

Contacts: Officer Adam Rees and

Officer Al Gazerro

Business Crime Watch, Fremont

(CA) Police Department

The Business Crime Watch Program

is a joint effort between the Fremont

Police Department and local businesses, providing businesses with

crime prevention resources and

APPENDIX D

Program/Agency Descriptions
31

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN HOMELAND SECURITY

strategies. Its design and goal is to

improve the relationship between the

law enforcement agency and local

businesses through contact and current information regarding shoplifting, internal theft, burglary, robbery,

and other aspects of crime prevention

geared specifically toward businesses.

www.fremontpolice.org/com_

engagement/business.html

Contacts: Karen Blount and

Martha Matthiesen

Business Watch Program,

Stafford County (VA) Sheriff’s

Office

The Stafford County Sheriff’s

Office has a Business Watch program that fosters a positive and

cooperative relationship between

area businesses and local law

enforcement. The sheriff’s office has

also begun a Scam Busters program

in which local businesses and

Stafford Sheriff’s Office members

discuss crime trends specific to the

area and surrounding counties in

hopes of identifying targeted merchandise, motives, and suspects.

www.staffordsheriff.com

Contact: Deputy Jim Hamilton

Kent County (MI) Business Watch

The mission of the Kent County

Sheriff Department Business Watch

is to help promote a safe environment for people to work, shop, and

live in. Businesses and law enforcement work together to reduce crime

in the work place. The primary

objective is to educate business owners and their employees to recognize

crime and risks. The secondary

objective is to train business owners

and employees to take steps in

reporting and preventing crime

accurately. 

www.accesskent.com

Contact: Sergeant Steve Dabkowski

Realty Watch, Wisconsin 

Crime Prevention Practitioners

Association

The Realty Watch program began

in 2005 after members of the

Kenosha Police Department Crime

Prevention Unit became aware of an

assault of a real estate agent who was

showing a home. The city of

Kenosha has more than 500 real

estate agents, many of them women

who advertise using their photos,

names, and phone numbers. Concerned about the safety of agents

who work alone when showing

houses, the state met with representatives from the Kenosha Realtors

Association and Shorewest Realtors

to discuss ways to promote safety

among real estate agents, provide

crime prevention tips for agents to

use, and create a safer community.

Contact: Officer Dennis Gladwell

COMMUNITY

Brockton (MA) Neighborhood

Watch

Brockton is proud to boast approximately 23,000 active members of

Neighborhood Watch. Per capita,

this city has one of the largest crime

Watch groups in the nation. Because

of a reduction in crime, the city has

seen a reduction in participation in

neighborhood crime Watch programs

and is reaching out in an attempt to

reinvigorate the program and get new

residents involved. 

www.brocktonpolice.com/comed/

neighborwatch.htm

Contact: Mablene Bennett

Citizens’ Crime Watch of MiamiDade County, Florida

Citizens’ Crime Watch is a nonprofit

county-wide crime prevention program. When Neighborhood Watch

is fully operative, neighbors become

the eyes and ears of the local police

department, calling the police at the

first hint of suspicious activity. Citizens’ Crime Watch operates most

effectively at the neighborhood level.

www.citizenscrimewatch.com

Contact: Carmen Caldwell

Hawaii State McGruff Truck Program

In September 1988, the Department of the Attorney General
32

R EPORT OF THE NATIONAL WATCH GROUPS SUMMIT

Crime Prevention and Justice Assistance Division, together with private utility companies and county

police departments, pioneered the

McGruff Truck Program. This program helps individuals in distress,

especially children, seek the assistance of trained utility company

personnel. McGruff Trucks bear

special yellow decals on their front

and rear bumpers. Upon being

waved down, the drivers of these

trucks radio for help using their

companies’ standard emergency

procedures.

www.ncpc.org/programs/McGruff_

House/index.php

Contact: Kristell Corpuz

National Association Citizens on

Patrol (NACOP)

Citizens On Patrol is a generic

name used by many to describe a

special group of law enforcement

volunteers. As the name implies,

Citizens On Patrol are citizens

who, after being screened, background checked, and trained by

their local law enforcement agency,

patrol their communities acting as

eyes and ears for law enforcement.

The NACOP is a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting

existing Citizens On Patrol groups

in addition to law enforcement

agencies and community groups

wishing to start one. The NACOP

is an all-volunteer organization.

www.nacop.org

Contact: Arthur Femister

National McGruff House Network

The National McGruff House Network supports the McGruff House

and McGruff Truck programs. The

Network, which is licensed by the

National Crime Prevention Council, mobilizes grassroots crime prevention efforts and lobbies on behalf

of local McGruff House programs

to improve local, state, and national

laws that help communities keep

their children safe.

www.ncpc.org/programs/McGruff_

House/nmhn.php

Contact: Tibby Milne

Neighborhood Crime Watch (CA),

Fremont Police Department

Neighborhood Crime Watch is a

partnership between residents and

law enforcement to improve safety

and prevent crime. The goals of the

program are to learn who your

neighbors are and how to work

with them, how to use a neighborhood map and roster to communicate, how and why crime happens,

how to improve home security 

and personal safety, and how to

recognize and report suspicious

activity. 

www.fremontpolice.org/ncw/ncw.

html

Contacts: Karen Blount and

Martha Matthiesen

Neighborhood Watch, Chatham

County (NC) Sheriff’s Office

www.chathamsheriff.com

Contact: Sergeant Joe Birchett

Office of Neighborhood Involvement, City of Portland (OR)

Portland’s crime prevention services

are offered through the Office of

Neighborhood Involvement and are

designed to get neighbors involved

in community policing efforts.

Crime prevention coordinators

work closely with public safety

activists, police precincts, community members, neighborhood associations, state agencies, city bureaus,

businesses, and local service

providers to address crime and livability issues. 

www.portlandonline.com/oni/cp

Contact: Stephanie Reynolds

Rancho Palos Verdes (CA) 

Neighborhood Watch

Rancho Palos Verdes Neighborhood

Watch is a volunteer organization

sponsored by the City of Rancho

Palos Verdes and the Los Angeles

Sheriff’s Department Lomita Sta-
33

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN HOMELAND SECURITY

tion. Its objectives are to foster community awareness and response to

criminal activity and create emergency preparedness organizations to

deal with natural and man-made

disasters.

http://home.netcom/~rpvnw

Contact: Gail Lorenzen

USAOnWatch, National 

Sheriffs’ Association

USAOnWatch was created by the

National Sheriffs’ Association, in

conjunction with several wellknown federal agencies, to encourage the initiation and/or

revitalization of Neighborhood

Watch programs throughout the

country.

www.usaonwatch.org

Contacts: Robbi Woodson and

Chris Tutko

Volunteers in Police Service

(VIPS), International Association

of Chiefs of Police

The Volunteers in Police Service

(VIPS) Program works to enhance

the capacity of state and local law

enforcement to utilize volunteers.

Volunteers prove to be an invaluable

resource to law enforcement. Using

free resources, trainings, and a program directory, law enforcement

officers have the tools to manage a

volunteer program at their fingertips. The International Association

of Chiefs of Police manages the

VIPS Program in partnership with

Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office

of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. 

www.policevolunteers.org

Contact: Nancy Kolb

ENVIRONMENTAL

America’s Waterway Watch

America’s Waterway Watch is a public outreach program, encouraging

participants to simply report suspicious activity to the Coast Guard

and/or other law enforcement agencies. Unlike some Neighborhood

Watch programs participants do not

formally join an organization—there

are no meetings, membership cards,

or membership requirements—and

they do not become agents of the

Coast Guard or any other law

enforcement agency. 

www.americaswaterwaywatch.org

Contacts: LTJG Brian Zekus and

Mary Larsen

Citizen’s Action Network, United

States Coast Guard

This program allows residents living

near waterways to become associated

with the Coast Guard and help conduct its missions. The Coast Guard

will call on Citizen’s Action Network members to help investigate

cases such as search and rescue, the

status of aids to navigation, stolen

vessels, and pollution incidents. The

program puts volunteers right in the

heart of the action, and in turn

helps the Coast Guard better use its

limited resources. The Citizen’s

Action Network also acts as a force

multiplier for the Coast Guard and

Coast Guard Auxiliary.

www.uscg.mil/d13/can

Contact: P03 David Marin

Coastal Watch/Citizen’s Action

Network, Royal Canadian

Mounted Police (RCMP)

The Canadian RCMP Coastal

Watch program has partnered with

the USCG Citizen’s Action Network to enhance homeland security

along an invisible, seamless border

in the Strait of Juan de Fuca,

Pacific Northwest, and the San

Juan/Gulf Islands area. Citizen’s

Action Network educates the public about the types of crimes being

committed and indicators of

marine crimes, and solicits input

from the public regarding their

observations. This program is easily

adaptable to any geographic location (marine or otherwise) and

relies upon local knowledge and

community involvement to support

law enforcement.

Contact: Corporal Anne Clarke
34

R EPORT OF THE NATIONAL WATCH GROUPS SUMMIT

Eagle Eye Neighborhood Park

Watch Program, Illinois Association of Park Districts

The Eagle Eye Neighborhood Park

Watch Program is an effort to prevent crime and vandalism to playground and park equipment, to

alleviate suspicious activities in

parks, and to promote public awareness for parks, recreation, and conservation agencies.

www.eagleye.org

Contact: Cindy Deiters

Office of Safety and Occupational

Health, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service

The USDA Forest Service has developed a separate law enforcement

division to patrol the national forests

and provide protection and information to forest visitors. The primary

jurisdiction is enforcement of

National Forest System rules and regulations and federal law. The law

enforcement division also coordinates

patrol and investigation activities

with other local, state, and federal

agencies to provide the best coverage

and protection for forest visitors. Law

enforcement personnel are usually

cross-designated with local agencies

to provide coverage and back-up to

other agencies for crimes against persons and property. The agency also

provides information to visitors

about their personal safety while visiting the forest and how to contact

the appropriate officials to report a

crime or suspicious behavior. The

Forest Service also participates in

local crimestoppers programs.

www.fs.fed.us

Contact: Caroline Deaderick

Waterway Awareness, United

States Power Squadrons® (USPS)

Waterway Awareness is a maritime

homeland security outreach program for recreational boaters and

waterfront users, developed by

United States Power Squadrons to

increase recognition of and the ability to report suspicious activity of

potential harm to our nation’s

waterways and surrounding infrastructures to appropriate authorities. 

www.usps.org/national/executive/

Grant.htm

Contacts: Priscilla Clarke and

William Husted

Wildlife Crime Watch

The Wildlife Crime Watch program came about as an effort to

improve communications between

the Virginia Department of Game

and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) and

the citizens of Virginia. The

emphasis is on wildlife and conservation issues, but the program also

includes traditional crime prevention issues. 

www.dgif.state.va.us/wildcrime/

index.html

Contact: Bill Rose

GOVERNMENTAL

Bureau of Justice Assistance,

U.S. Department of Justice

The Bureau of Justice Assistance

(BJA) is a component of the Office

of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, which also includes

the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the

National Institute of Justice, the

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office

for Victims of Crime. BJA supports

law enforcement, courts, corrections, treatment, victim services,

technology, and prevention initiatives that strengthen the nation’s

criminal justice system. BJA provides leadership, services, and funding to America’s communities by

emphasizing local control, building

relationships in the field, developing

collaborations and partnerships,

promoting capacity building

through planning, streamlining the

administration of grants, increasing

training and technical assistance,

creating accountability for projects,

encouraging innovation, and communicating the value of justice

efforts to decision makers at every

level.
35

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN HOMELAND SECURITY

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bja

Contacts: Cornelia Sorensen 

Sigworth and Paul Steiner

Citizen Corps, U.S. Department of

Homeland Security

Citizen Corps works at the community level, providing a single

platform where government and

nongovernment resources can

come together to coordinate the

involvement of community members in emergency preparedness,

planning, mitigation, response, and

recovery. Through its network of

state, local, tribal, and territorial

Citizen Corps Councils, Citizen

Corps fosters activities to increase

preparedness and response capabilities through public education, outreach, and training and volunteer

service.

www.citizencorps.gov

Contacts: Cindy Taylor, Heather

King, and Jacqueline Snelling 

Kentucky Justice Cabinet

The Kentucky Justice and Public

Safety Cabinet is the state entity

responsible for criminal justice services which encompass law enforcement and training; prevention

education and treatment involving

substance abuse; adult and juvenile

incarceration; autopsies, death certifications, and toxicology analyses;

special investigations; paroling of

eligible convicted felons; and long

range planning and recommendations on statewide criminal justice

reform issues.

www.justice.ky.gov

Contact: Justice Secretary BG 

Norman E. Arflack

Kentucky Office of Homeland

Security

The Kentucky Office of Homeland

Security is responsible for the distribution of millions of dollars in

federal homeland security funds

and has been charged by the governor to lead the state’s coordination

and collaboration efforts with public and private preparedness partners to ensure a Ready and

Prepared Kentucky.

http://homelandsecurity.ky.gov

Contacts: (Ret.) Major Alecia

Webb-Edgington, Jason Keller,

and Jaime Shipley

HEALTH

Kansas Meth Watch

The Kansas Meth Watch program

helps curtail the theft and suspicious

sales of pseudoephedrine products,

as well as other common household

products used in the illicit manufacturing of methamphetamine in

small, toxic labs. A key goal of this

program is to promote cooperation

between retailers and law enforcement to prevent the diversion of

legitimate products for illegal use. 

www.kdheks.gov/methwatch/index.

html

Contact: TJ Ciaffone

TRANSPORTATION

Airport Watch

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots

Association has partnered with the

Transportation Security Administration to develop a nationwide Airport

Watch Program that uses the more

than 650,000 pilots as eyes and ears

for observing and reporting suspicious activity. The Airport Watch

Program includes warning signs for

airports, informational literature,

and a training video to teach pilots

and airport employees how to

enhance security at their airports.

www.aopa.org/airportwatch

Contact: Leisha Bell

Cab Watch

Cab Watch provides free safety

training to New York’s 100,000

plus cabdrivers so they can effectively report emergencies, crimes,

and dangerous situations via the 911

system. To date, more than 14,000

drivers have been trained in partnership with the New York City Police
36

R EPORT OF THE NATIONAL WATCH GROUPS SUMMIT

Department. A taxi bearing the Cab

Watch logo tells riders that they are

in one of the city’s safest cabs.

www.citizensnyc.org

Contact: Eddie Arrabito

Highway Watch® 

Funded by the U.S. Department of

Homeland Security and administered by the American Trucking

Associations, Highway Watch®

provides anti-terrorism and safety

training to truck drivers, school bus

drivers, highway workers, law

enforcement, first responders, and

many others to help them recognize

and report suspicious activity and

safety hazards. The Highway

Watch® program also includes a

Highway Watch® Information

Sharing and Analysis Center that

works with the U.S. Department of

Homeland Security and other intelligence-gathering agencies to analyze

data streams that could reveal terrorist activity.

www.highwaywatch.com

Contacts: Dawn Apple and John

Willard

School Bus Watch 

School Bus Watch provides anti-terrorism and safety training to school

bus drivers. School Bus Watch training enables you and your school bus

industry colleagues to learn how to

observe, assess, and report safety or

security incidents while in the normal course of your professional

duties. School Bus Watch was developed by Highway Watch® in concert with the National School

Transportation Association, the

National Association for Pupil

Transportation, and the National

Association of State Directors of

Pupil Transportation Services.

www.yellowbuses.org/sbw.htm

Contacts: Dawn Apple and John

Willard

YOUTH

College Crime Watch

College Crime Watch involves college and university students in making their campus and student

environment a safer and more hospitable place, conducive to peaceful

living and learning. 

www.collegecrimewatch.org

Contact: Terry Modglin

Kid Watch, University of Southern

California (USC) Family of Schools

Kid Watch mobilizes volunteers to

provide safe passage for more than

9,000 neighborhood children as

they walk to and from school, local

parks, museums, libraries, and other

neighborhood cultural and recreational facilities. More than 1,000

volunteers keep alert and inform law

enforcement officials of anything

that might harm a child. Kid Watch

represents a partnership between the

USC Department of Public Safety,

Los Angeles Police DepartmentSouthwest Division, and the Los

Angeles Unified School District

Police Department. It is administered by USC Civic and Community Relations.

www.usc.edu/ext-relations/ccr/

programs/kid_watch/

Contact: Katharine Diaz

Safety Patrol Program, New 

Jersey State Police

The Youth Leadership Safety Patrol

Program offers an educational safety

awareness curriculum in the classroom as a means to recognize and

prevent natural and created pressures that may harm or influence

children. The program delivers preventive measures to heighten those

protective components with a specific emphasis on family, school,

and community bonding strategies.

The New Jersey State Police in

partnership with the New Jersey

Association of School Resource

Officers, New Jersey Citizen Corps,

and the New Jersey Department of

Education provide students with

opportunities to acquire knowledge

and skills concerning transportation, law, social norms, physical fit-
37

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN HOMELAND SECURITY

ness, proper nutrition, acceptable

behavioral practices, as well as

adverse peer pressure and resistance

techniques.

Contact: Trooper Steve Shallop

Youth Crime Watch of America

(YCW)

Youth Crime Watch of America is a

youth-led program bringing youth

of all backgrounds together to identify and correct problems unique to

their schools and communities. The

YCW program empowers youth to

take an active role in addressing the

problems around them. Youth take

ownership of their own YCW program for their school, neighborhood, public housing site,

recreational center, or park.

www.ycwa.org

Contact: Jerry Rudoff

OTHER

American Radio Relay League

(ARRL)

ARRL is the national membership

association for amateur radio operators. When disaster strikes, hams

and others turn to this site for news

and information.

www.arrl.org

Contact: Steve Ewald

Extension Disaster Education

Network (EDEN) Homeland 

Security Project

EDEN reduces the impact of disaster through education. EDEN delivers programming at the county level

with about 15,000 educators

nationwide.

www.eden.lsu.edu

Contact: Steve Cain

Kentucky Crime 

Prevention Coalition

www.kycrimeprevention.com

Contact: Bob Douglas

Ohio Crime Prevention 

Association (OCPA)

The OCPA develops policies, programs, publications, and training

seminars and workshops for crime

prevention practitioners. Through

its members, OCPA is involved in

crime prevention initiatives in most

communities throughout Ohio.

www.ocpa-oh.org

Contact: Eric Poklar

National Crime Prevention 

Council (NCPC)

The primary mission of the

National Crime Prevention Council

(NCPC) is to be the nation’s leader

in helping people keep themselves,

their families, and their communities safe from crime. NCPC’s strategic plan for 2007 through 2011 is

centered on four goals: protect children and youth; partner with government and law enforcement to

prevent crime; promote crime prevention and personal safety basics;

and respond to emerging crime

trends. NCPC offers training, technical assistance, and a national focus

for crime prevention, and acts as

secretariat for the Crime Prevention

Coalition of America, more than

400 national, federal, state, and

local organizations representing

thousands of constituents who are

committed to preventing crime. It

also operates demonstration programs and takes a leadership role in

comprehensive community crime

prevention strategies and youth

crime prevention. NCPC manages

the nationally recognized

McGruff® “Take A Bite Out Of

Crime®” public service advertising

campaign. NCPC participates in the

Combined Federal Campaign. 

www.ncpc.org

Contacts: The Honorable Alfonso

E. Lenhardt, Drew Carberry, Judy

Kirby, Jim Wright, and Brian

Snyder
38

R EPORT OF THE NATIONAL WATCH GROUPS SUMMIT

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

7:00 AM – 9:00 AM Registration

8:30 AM – 9:00 AM Continental Breakfast

9:00 AM – 10:00 AM Welcome and Summit Overview 

The Honorable Domingo S. Herraiz 

Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

U.S. Department of Justice 

Corey D. Gruber 

Acting Deputy Administrator National Preparedness Directorate

Federal Emergency Management Agency

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

The Honorable Alfonso E. Lenhardt 

President and CEO

National Crime Prevention Council

10:00 AM – 10:15 AM Break

10:15 AM – 11:45 AM Panel Discussion

“The Evolving Citizen Role in Public Safety, Security, and Preparedness” 

Moderator: 

BG Norman E. Arflack

Secretary

Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet

Panelists: 

Dr. Diane Zahm

Associate Professor

Urban Affairs and Planning 

Virginia Tech University

APPENDIX E

National Watch Groups Summit Agenda
39

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN HOMELAND SECURITY

Dr. Monica Schoch-Spana

Senior Associate

Center for Biosecurity

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

Dr. Gregory V. Button 

Professor

Department of Anthropology

University of Tennessee at Knoxville

12:00 PM – 1:30 PM Working Lunch

Presenter Introduction by Alfonso E. Lenhardt, NCPC 

Luncheon Presentation

Major John Hunt

New Jersey State Police

1:30 PM – 1:45 PM Break

1:45 PM – 3:15 PM Breakout Sessions

Group 1: Facilitator, Kimberly J. Dalferes, NCPC

Group 2: Facilitator, Jim Wright, NCPC

Group 3: Facilitator, Christy Sharp, NCPC

Group 4: Facilitator, Drew Carberry, NCPC

3:15 PM – 3:30 PM Break

3:30 PM – 5:00 PM Breakout Sessions Continue

5:00 PM First Day of Summit Concludes 

Thursday, May 31, 2007

8:00 AM – 8:30 AM Continental Breakfast

8:30 AM – 10:00 AM Breakout Sessions Reports 
40

R EPORT OF THE NATIONAL WATCH GROUPS SUMMIT

10:00 AM – 10:15 AM Break

10:15 AM – 10:45 AM Closing Remarks

(Ret.) Major Alecia Webb-Edgington

Executive Director 

Kentucky Office of Homeland Security

11:30 AM Final Day of Summit Concludes

2345 Crystal Drive

Suite 500

Arlington, VA 22202

202-466-6272

www.ncpc.org

ISBN 978-1-59686-030-8

500 C Street, SW

Washington, DC 20472

800-368-6498

www.citizencorps.gov

810 Seventh Street, NW

Washington, DC 20531

202-616-6500

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bja