Attractiveness features Literature review Achtse Barrier Woenselse Heide Synthesis Safety Objective safety On average, the objective safety is improved in neighborhoods that have a neighborhood watch program, especially regarding burglary. However, not all neighborhood watch programs ensure for a decline in crime figures. There are four effects that underlies these results: - Deterrent effect - Prevention advice - Collaboration effect -Role model effect Objective safety Since the start of the neighborhood watch program the number of burglaries have been declined. Therefore, it seems that the neighborhood watch program have a positive influence on the safety figures. Three effects have been found: - Awareness effect - Deterrent effect - Collaboration effect Of the residents interviewed, only 51% knows the program. Therefore, it can be questioned how strong these Objective safety The number of burglaries has been declined. Two effects have been found: - Awareness effect - Deterrent effect Because of the high intensity of the walks, which are almost every day, almost everybody in the neighborhood knows the program. This strengthened the two effects. However, it seems that the awareness effect is small. As is told by the chairman, the Objective safety The two neighborhoods of the case studies show both a decline in the amount of burglaries. Both the awareness and deterrent effects are found in both cases. However the two effects seem stronger in Woenselse Heide because of the higher intensity of the active walk. Further another difference is found between the two cases. In Achtse Barrier the collaboration effect is found, but this is not the
Subjective safety On average, the safety feelings are improved in neighborhoods with a neighborhood program. Two effects are found: - Improved streetlight - Improved social ties However, neighborhood watch programs may also have a negative effect on the safety feelings because of the effects are. Subjective safety The safety feelings of residents have not been improved. However, the perceptions regarding criminality have been improved. footstep action showed that the residents, in general, have not been more aware. Furthermore, the survey showed that only ten persons were addressed by members of the program. Subjective safety It seems that this has not been improved in general. However, there is a lack of data available. case in Woenselse Heide. In the literature review, the three effects mentioned above were also found. Moreover the role effect model was found, which was not in the two cases. In both case studies no effects are found that neighborhood watch programs improve the safety feelings, while other literature do show that neighborhood watch program may improve the safety feelings.
exchanging of information. Cleanness and visual beauty Cleanness seems to be improved in neighborhoods with a neighborhood watch program. One effect found is that the members ensure for behavioural standards. It seems that the nuisance from youth has been reduced. It seems that the neighborhood watch program has contributed to this reduction. Benches have been removed in corporation with the members of the program. During walks also places of which residents experience nuisances are visited. Persons of the program also address youth. The reduction of the nuisance has not (yet) led to a cleaner and a more beauty neighborhood. There are signs that graffiti has been reduced, but this is not caused Members of the program, especially the passive members, often report to the police and municipality. The topics of the reports are various from nuisance (from youth) to (bulk) waste on the street. Because both the police and municipality take these reports seriously and react almost every time, the neighborhood is properly maintained. It seems that the cleanness is improved because of the program. The two programs of the case studies both focus on these attractiveness features, while this is only a few times mentioned in other studies. The effect mentioned in the literature review, the behavioural standards, are only found in Woenselse Heide. However, it seems that residents do not change their behaviour because of behavioural standards. Moreover, there is a difference in the approach between the two neighborhood watch
whereas everybody can be a member of BIN anonymous. Therefore, information spread by BIN may fall in the hands of criminals. The chance this happens with the mails spread by Peter van der Linden is much smaller. Also and related, Peter van der Linden can give more detailed information than BIN does. Active part Around 30 persons of the 100 passive members are also active members of the neighborhood watch program. These members walk two to three times a month in the neighborhood. On average, there are around twenty to twenty-five persons present during the walks. The most important aim for walking in the neighborhood, according to Peter van der Linden, is to show the residents that they are visible present in the neighborhood. Based on the reaction he gets from residents, he thinks that people appreciate their work and feel safer in their neighborhood. Also, the residents are becoming aware of the potential danger by seeing the members walking in the street. Beside, during the walks they perform different tasks. Firstly, they check whether backdoors and windows are closed and if necessary they inform the residents about the potential danger of open windows and doors. Secondly, they check whether suspicious persons and cars are in the neighborhood. Thirdly, youth that cause nuisance are being addressed by the members. This is done on a friendly way, based on the ideas of Hans Kaldenbach (Kaldenbach, 2009). The members participated in a curses organized by Lumens Groep. During the curses, the ideas of inter alia Hans Kaldenback were discussed and explained. Fourthly, the members check whether the public street lights work. Fifthly, the members check whether it is noticeable that the residents of a house are on vacation. Sixthly, neighborhood patrols, 3 to 5 times a year. This is the case when, for example, the curtains are closed for several consecutive days. During the walks, no attention is paid on the graffiti, because the neighborhood doesn’t have much graffiti on the walls, according to Peter van der Linden. Interesting is that all the activities do not have an effect on the social cohesion of neighborhood, according to Peter van der Linden. The neighborhood contains around 15.000 residents, of which only 100 are member of the neighborhood watch program.